Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:30 pm**

chaz wyman wrote: It is a satisfactory explanation of the myth of truth yes.

is myth also a form of explanation? if so, is explanation of explanation like a big pile of..sitting tortoises?

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:32 pm**

I'm impressed mark.

All the way down...

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:25 am**

Mark Question wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: It is a satisfactory explanation of the myth of truth yes.
is myth also a form of explanation? if so, is explanation of explanation like a big pile of..sitting tortoises?

Not really, no.
Explaining a myth is enough.
You can contemplate your navel if you wish.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:53 am**

As is noted, and expected, the simpletons still fails to adequately perceive.
I only hope it is a ruse, or one they can pretend was in play from the start, or else what a sad fuckin' affair this has turned out to be.
I should have washed my hair and done my nails instead.

See, the Douche-Bag, after all that has been said, can still post the....

Douche-Bag wrote:In other words Mark, nothing Satyr says is true...

...without so much as a hint of self-doubt, and the Questioning Bitch can ask, what else,....

Questioning Bitch wrote:i hope you did not take offence about that. at least, i did not say anything about straw man or anger management. why would i?

...without a hint of self-restraint, making herself look far more of the **** that she already has.

But this is my "anger" talking, and I so enjoy feeding into their defensiveness.

Of the two, the **** has proven to be, by far, the most clever.
The other fizzled after the rope off the porch bullshit.
Now, the Douche-Bag, is quickly exposing that simplicity I assumed would be there when he dared to say "The cup is on the table" with the seriousness of a moil about to cut a piece of his own tiny cock to fit into the mold.

So, let us filter through the crap, she calls, questioning brilliance, to find some gems, shan't we?
God knows, one must find a silver lining in every dark, cloud.

Read how one simpleton corrects another, without wanting to insult - the question marks help; they stand in for statements by placing a slight vocal fluctuating at the end, making them seem humble even when arrogant, and innocent even if assaulting:

**** wrote:or maybe he or she has a superior view about what means "true"? what could we ever say about that against? maybe we need own superior view to raise our degree of philosophy? is "almighty" superior enough? dialogue between two or more superior views sounds very interesting or what?

Now, notice how all that has been said and done, how she feigns ignorance, like a nice docile ****...

**** wrote:whats your version about the absolute truth then?

One is almost moved to respond, knowing that any response, even a patronizing one, is a victory in her mind.

She feeds off replies...ergo she asks.

I was being optimistic when I said "feigns"....it too is part of the game.

Now read her excuses, as to why she can't measure up....

**** wrote:of course you stick to your superior view from its points of view? 10 points and jurys favorite? back to my home village, i was every year miss corny! for that my godfather gave me rings with fingers and once i got a whole horse! still, only boys got tommy guns. i had only a violin full of bullet holes. still, most torturing noise it gave!

It makes one weep just thinking of the injustice done to her.
See the thing is this stupid **** thinks creativity is divine, and not a product of need/suffering.
In her mistake she presents her own need/suffering as an argument as to why she remains stunted and common and slightly above average in relation to the common, if not stupid by any other measure.

Let me give you a metaphor to better clarify the situation:
If a boy comes to you, wanting to explain why he is weak and docile and all he has to say is that his daddy forced him to lift cow manure from dusk 'till dawn, then know that you are in the presence of a liar or a retard. Either way his weakness, whether mental or physical, is a given.

Now read how the **** tries to hem me in and make sense of me....

**** wrote:have you tried philosophical parties or milder ones like stone age-themed conservative tea parties? one was hugging a horse, the other tried to live without eating, third one hammering people with poker..full house of superior people like you! you would like them as yourself. lots of common superiority to talk.

I expected to be called a red-neck or a wife-beater or, to inflate my ego further, a Nazi, but this will do.

In the following sequence, notice the insertion of her commentary, with no accompanying argument...a mere speculation and characterization, meant to insinuate herself into relevance....
I underline the interesting part, as the rest is crap.

**** wrote: i am afraid that not so creative as you, butt i try my best, ass seriously. can i play with the straw man, can i!? i promise to use only blanks and earmuffs. my tommy gun is so dusty that you cant say its color anymore. pink.

...also in the following....

**** wrote:"so quarter year". oldies like "back to the subject", "women are from venus", "my ghost writer did the neverending story" or "i read you as my classical tactics book for nannies"..

...see here how nothing is ever said directly, as this would open the **** up to reasoning, but shit is implied, for those that can understand...and so she retains her plausible deniability....in other words she can fall back on the "you completely misunderstood" or "you missed the point" or "you did not get it", to hide her insecurity on the matter.

There's no reason to play into this shit, unless she says something other than the usual.
Let her have her day. Let her be a winner in her mind.
This, too, is part of the game.
I speakie no engrish.

In this sequence she begs, while trying not to make it obvious...

**** wrote:about your sentence: Well to that question which presupposes what it pretends to be ignorant of, is up your alley, from where do you think those questions and presuppositions are dragged from? am i visitor in your "alley" too?

...it is also evident here...

**** wrote: fear no more, you have seen the superior view or what!?

...and here...

**** wrote: its nice to hear how serious you are making philosophical discussion. and that you wont fanatically stone yourself to death if you even say the word truth. by the lonely way, i think that the best comedians are the most serious minded ones. what you think of that? boobs!

...and here....

**** wrote: whats your version about the absolute truth then?

...and here...

**** wrote: or maybe he or she has a superior view about what means "true"? what could we ever say about that against? maybe we need own superior view to raise our degree of philosophy? is "almighty" superior enough? dialogue between two or more superior views sounds very interesting or what?

As anyone can see, this style is versatile and defensive, just as the Socratic method was meant to be. It pretends to say something while never actually doing so directly and concisely. It's all an insinuation, an implication, a sentence saying what it can quickly deny was being said.
The underlying given is nihilistic: all that is human can be denied, whereas that which is projected into the Platonic Ideal or the Christian Absolute, remains forever plausible.
A woman's semantical game, like the ones the Brit Princess used.
All words with no substance.
Smoke and mirrors, wishing only to cause a stir.
The trend here is to diminish human reasoning and to place it all in the beyond...the hypothetical.
"All is weak, even the statement that all is weak, ergo, strength lies somewhere out there"
An equality based on a negative.
We are all ignorant and weak, therefore, all, which is human and which exists, is similarly ignorant and weak.
The absolute "exists" outside existence...in the "beyond" in the realm of Plato's Ideals...soon to be Christian Paradise.

And, as usual, this will be used as a reply.

But just read the **** try to sound intellectual:

**** wrote:is myth also a form of explanation? if so, is explanation of explanation like a big pile of..sitting tortoises?

She still missed the part about simplification/generalization, which is nothing more than severing the causal chain, arbitrarily, to make sense of fluidity.

**** thinks that when she sees a tree and calls it that, she is doing nothnig more than arbitrarily placing a boundary, a dimensional block, so as to encompass the phenomenon within her trite and trivial prejudices, and make sense of it.

I luves me internets...
Here's the ting...did I speak Da Trut.....or did I speak what fuck's the Douche-Bag up his ass, making his inheritance to the boys a homos gift to future effete douche-bags?

Now I expect you fucks to resit with the usual "you hate women" and "you don't get laid" and "you are sad and lonely" and the "you are uneducated" and the typical "you bore me" follow by "you entertain me" but what I do not expect is to be confronted with an alternative world-view with arguments and reasoning comparable to my own.

Until you surprise me with something I find interesting, be satisfied with your name-droppings, and girlish game of insinuation and defensive attacks.
Shit, I don't know any of you, personally, yet....you remain such a mystery to me.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:39 am**

goaturder wrote:...
A woman's semantical game, like the ones the Brit Princess used.
All words with no substance. ...

Aww! I was enjoying that, still.

Bollocks! Numbnuts. Yours is the metaphorical semantical game mate. It's why you get so upset with questions about your articles.

I see "****" is back, so no more gender is yet another display of your will to power.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:45 am**

The cup is still on the table...

And the taste of my cock is - evidently - still in your mouth.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:08 am**

Satyr wrote:As is noted, and expected, the simpletons still fails to adequately perceive.
I only hope it is a ruse, or one they can pretend was in play from the start, or else what a sad fuckin' affair this has turned out to be.
I should have washed my hair and done my nails instead.

See, the Douche-Bag, after all that has been said, can still post the....
Douche-Bag wrote:In other words Mark, nothing Satyr says is true...
...without so much as a hint of self-doubt, and the Questioning Bitch can ask, what else,....
Questioning Bitch wrote:i hope you did not take offence about that. at least, i did not say anything about straw man or anger management. why would i?
Now, notice how all that has been said and done, how she feigns ignorance, like a nice docile ****...
**** wrote:whats your version about the absolute truth then?

Is that Immanuel ****??

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:12 pm**

The one and only...**** and the THING-up-his-self.

Finally the end of philosophy is upon us, if these forums are any indication.
Watch them dance.
One must become a child again, just to take notice.

Luckily, I am an adaptive fella....had to be from my early childhood.
Always the new kid on the block, or the continent.
One of the first lessons, although it takes effort equal to your pride and self-esteem, need usually covers the costs, to be learned is to always adapt to the other....mirroring.

The stupider and simpler the other is, all the more swallowing of your tongue and control over your face and eyes is necessary to pull it off.

Whether it is to be liked or to be despised, the trick is to read the other, and then find that emotional trigger.
When others in a group are involved the tactic is a bit more difficult and more silence or remaining within the popular sentimentality is advised.
I usually become less talkative, and I watch.

But, with modernization and globalization and the conformity this produces, the mediocrity of commonality, it is becoming easier.

There are always those words that can raise ire or cause a stir, amongst the herd...but more so there are those ideas which can just be hinted at to cause a ruckus, with the usual defensiveness and the counter-assaults.

Amongst the lower end in this intellectual sub-class, the defensiveness usually comes from a materialistic or sexual vantage point.
The women, in particular, always insinuates from her power center: sex and/or social market value.

On the top end of this sub-class, we get the more obscure referencing, implying a superiority in knowledge when understanding fails to produce the required results.
This also turns to authority figures: the more famous and commonly respected, the better.
In my own dealings with the mediocre I have found that when quoting a famous authority figure, some social, cultural or intellectual icon, who says exactly what I am saying, but with different words and style, the herd usually shuts up, or they ignore it returning the topic to me, the persona.

Here, also, arguing from the negative is the usual tactic....and so that man is not omniscient automatically equates all perspectives...and that man is not omnipotent makes the master/slave dynamic one of parity: both sides are equally dependent upon the other, and the lowly finds an alternative source for self-esteem, when his self-awareness and submission to the common has taken it away.
Perhaps the deer feels some pride in nourishing the bear with its flesh, just as the christian mind finds pride and salvation in sacrificing himself to the unknown or in turning himself into a tool for a "Greater Will".
This has been called herd psychology.

The need here is to maintain the absence of overt hierarchies, even if they are always implied and all abide by them. The illusion of equality, of a common spirit and nature, is to be defended by all.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:21 pm**

goaturder wrote:...
Whether it is to be liked or to be despised, the trick is to read the other, and then find that emotional trigger. ...

Not doing such a good job upon this site then?

Mary wrote:In my own dealings with the mediocre I have found that when quoting a famous authority figure, some social, cultural or intellectual icon, who says exactly what I am saying, but with different words and style, the herd usually shuts up, or they ignore it returning the topic to me the persona. ...

Or we point out the contradiction of you doing this with your words that say to do this is not philosophy?

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:28 pm**

Satyr wrote:The one and only...**** and the THING-up-his-self.

Finally the end of philosophy is upon us, if these forums are any indication.
Watch them dance.
One must become a child again, just to take notice.

Luckily, I am an adaptive fella....had to be from my early childhood.
Always the new kid on the block, or the continent.
One of the first lessons, although it takes effort equal to your pride and self-esteem, need usually covers the costs, to be learned is to always adapt to the other....mirroring.

The stupider and simpler the other is, all the more swallowing of your tongue and control over your face and eyes is necessary to pull it off.

Whether it is to be liked or to be despised, the trick is to read the other, and then find that emotional trigger.
When others in a group are involved the tactic is a bit more difficult and more silence or remaining within the popular sentimentality is advised.
I usually become less talkative, and I watch.

Don't be shy - why not tell us all about yourself?

Opps - sorry - you mean you were?. I apologise my eyes were glazing over from boredom.

But, with modernization and globalization and the conformity this produces, the mediocrity of commonality, it is becoming easier.

It's becoming easier for you because you have adopted the same false abstractions that everyone else has - welcome to conformity!

There are always those words that can raise ire or cause a stir, amongst the herd...but more so there are those ideas which can just be hinted at to cause a ruckus, with the usual defensiveness and the counter-assaults.

Well you would know all about the herd. You think you are a part from them - when all you are doing is labouring under the misconception that you are doing any thing more than trying to tup them all. That makes you one of them trying to get your rocks off.

Amongst the lower end in this intellectual sub-class, the defensiveness usually comes from a materialistic or sexual vantage point.
The women, in particular, always insinuates from her power center: sex and/or social market value.

Do you mean the ewes that you are trying to tup? Is that you or ewe?

On the top end of this sub-class, we get the more obscure referencing, implying a superiority in knowledge when understanding fails to produce the required results.
This also turns to authority figures: the more famous and commonly respected, the better.
In my own dealings with the mediocre I have found that when quoting a famous authority figure, some social, cultural or intellectual icon, who says exactly what I am saying, but with different words and style, the herd usually shuts up, or they ignore it returning the topic to me the persona.

You are just a small part of that herd. The only difference is that you lack the basic humility of the others.

Here, also, arguing from the negative is the usual tactic....and so that man is not omniscient automatically equates all perspectives...and that man is not omnipotent makes the master/slave dynamic one of parity: both sides are equally dependent upon the other, and the lowly finds an alternative source for self-esteem, when his self-awareness and submission to the common has taken it away.
Perhaps the deer feels some pride in nourishing the bear.

You do waffle on about nothing, don't you? There is not a single significant item of original thinking; question the status quo; or examination of your own paltry pre-conceptions!

The need here is to maintain the absence of overt hierarchies, even if they are always implied and all abide by them. The illusion of equality, of a common spirit and nature, is to be defended by all.

Statements without context! Please!

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:06 pm**

Sheman wrote:Don't be shy - why not tell us all about yourself?

Did I tell you much?

Sheman wrote:Opps - sorry - you mean you were?. I apologise my eyes were glazing over from boredom.

Dear girl, what did I say about this tactic?

Did you not think it important to read and then enter to tell me how "bored" you are?
This is the kind of shit that keeps me coming back.

Next, tell me how I entertain you.

Sheman wrote:It's becoming easier for you because you have adopted the same false abstractions that everyone else has - welcome to conformity!

Really, sweetie?
Do tell, which one?

Sheman wrote:Well you would know all about the herd. You think you are a part from them - when all you are doing is labouring under the misconception that you are doing any thing more than trying to tup them all. That makes you one of them trying to get your rocks off.Well you would know all about the herd. You think you are a part from them - when all you are doing is labouring under the misconception that you are doing any thing more than trying to tup them all. That makes you one of them trying to get your rocks off.

Sweetie, forced membership is your thing.

I know you wish to make your surrender universal so that it isn't as embarrassing, but little girl, a lion eats a pig but is not one.
You should keep in mind, girl, that there is a difference between lying to another and lying to yourself....or pretending and buying into your pretense.
You are the only game in town, girl...why would I not mingle?

Like I said, a deer might feel some pride in nourishing a tiger with its flesh.

Mencken, H.L. wrote:This Anglo-Saxon of the great herd is, in many important respects, the least civilized of white men and the least capable of true civilization. His political ideas are crude and shallow. He is almost wholly devoid of aesthetic feeling. The most elementary facts about the visible universe alarm him, and incite him to put them down. Educate him, make a professor of him, teach him how to express his soul, and still he remains palpably third-rate. He fears ideas almost more cravenly than he fears men. His blood, I believe, is running thin; perhaps it was not much to boast of at the start; in order that he may exercise any functions above those of a trader, a pedagogue or a mob orator, it needs the stimulus of other less exhausted strains. The fact that they increase is the best hope of civilization in America. They shake the old race out of its spiritual lethargy, and introduce it to disquiet and experiment. They make for a free play of ideas. In opposing the process, whether in politics in letters or in the age-long struggle towards the truth, the prophets of Anglo-Saxon purity and traditions only make themselves ridiculous.

Mencken, H.L. wrote:The one permanent emotion of the inferior man, as of all simpler mammals, is fear – fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants beyond everything else is security. His instincts incline him towards society so organized that it will protect him at all hazards, and not only against perils to his hide but also against assaults upon his mind – against the need to grapple with unaccustomed problems, to weight ideas, to think things out for himself, to scrutinize the platitudes upon which his everyday thinking is based.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:46 pm**

chaz wyman wrote: Not really, no.
Explaining a myth is enough.
You can contemplate your navel if you wish.

is this your argument, your highness?
or statement or what?

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:03 pm**

Mark Question wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: Not really, no.
Explaining a myth is enough.
You can contemplate your navel if you wish.
is this your argument, your highness?
or statement or what?

I don't feel I need an argument. If you have a problem then state it!
I'll give you an argument is you want one, but without knowing what you problem is , it is very hard to guess.

If this is some thing about denial being self refuting then I have to say that you might be guilty of performative self criticism, but I am willing to let you state the problem in your own terms.

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:08 pm**

Satyr wrote:
Don't be shy - why not tell us all about yourself?
Did I tell you much?

Opps - sorry - you mean you were?. I apologise my eyes were glazing over from boredom.
Dear girl, what did I say about this tactic?

I have no fucking idea. I tend to not bother reading your complete bullshit drivel. Others might be impressed but I am not.
I am especially not impressed by your childish gainsaying and bellicose posturing.
If you have something interested to say, I;ll be there with a response. But right now all I see you type is shit = Sorry!

Did you not think it important to read and then enter to tell me how "bored" you are?
This is the kind of shit that keeps me coming back.

Next, tell me how I entertain you.

You could go and fuck your self with the spiky end of a pineapple - that might give us all a laugh!!

[quote"Chaz"]It's becoming easier for you because you have adopted the same false abstractions that everyone else has - welcome to conformity!

accustomed problems, to weight ideas, to think things out for himself, to scrutinize the platitudes upon which his everyday thinking is based. [/quote][/quote]

Posted: **Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:19 pm**

talking about defensive. nice commentary! have you tried the same sentences to your own posts yet?

Satyr wrote:She still missed the part about simplification/generalization, which is nothing more than severing the causal chain, arbitrarily, to make sense of fluidity.

is she still using only the same one and only method of hers!? is that a dogmatic view or what? how could we help him or is she happier that way? should we encourage her in the chosen path of hers? what do you think? i like big monological dialogues also and my straw man says that you think those blonds all the time.

Philosophy Now Forum

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?