Philosophy Now Forum

Of course people take him seriously. You just don't know them, they go to a different school.

Back then, however, Rebecca, Julian and I used to do our "Magus" act. Spinning members around and around.

What could this be? And why would it be done?

Notice how he takes pride in *not* communicating his ideas clearly in order to engage in any kind of fruitful discussion. The dude is obviously now and always has been not much more than a troll. He convinces people sometimes that he's not, he has a little facade that can fool people briefly.

Notice how he takes pride in *not* communicating his ideas clearly in order to engage in any kind of fruitful discussion.

Unclear communication could be a technique to get people to think things out for themselves or it could be feeding his ego or it could just be the inability to communicate.

Or some combination.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:36 pm The irony here is this: that over at ILP, Moe once "exposed" me by going all the way back to my exchanges at the now defunct Ponderer's Guild.

I see they had a similar reaction to you, including the mods. That's not irony, that's just a long pattern.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:40 pm

Back then, however, Rebecca, Julian and I used to do our "Magus" act. Spinning members around and around.

What could this be? And why would it be done?

Well, whatever it means, Rebecca seems to have lost interest in the activity.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:40 pm

Back then, however, Rebecca, Julian and I used to do our "Magus" act. Spinning members around and around.

What could this be? And why would it be done?

Actually, here, the more pertinent quandary might revolve around this: that, whatever unfolded back then, were any of us actually able to post other than what our brains compelled us to? In other words, posting what we could never have not posted?

Much like the exchanges that now unfold here?

Let's run this by Maurice, Nicholas, Allison and the twins.

Flannel Stooge wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:47 pm Notice how he takes pride in *not* communicating his ideas clearly in order to engage in any kind of fruitful discussion. The dude is obviously now and always has been not much more than a troll. He convinces people sometimes that he's not, he has a little facade that can fool people briefly.

And here I am still convinced that he or she is no less compelled to post this "gotcha!" stuff.

I don't get the satisfaction of knowing beyond all doubt that I am able to reduce the Stooges here down to this tag team nonsense of my own volition.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:36 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:36 pm The irony here is this: that over at ILP, Moe once "exposed" me by going all the way back to my exchanges at the now defunct Ponderer's Guild.

I see they had a similar reaction to you, including the mods. That's not irony, that's just a long pattern.

Click.

Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then. Or did Victor Danilchenko put you up to this?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:40 pm

Back then, however, Rebecca, Julian and I used to do our "Magus" act. Spinning members around and around.

What could this be? And why would it be done?

Well, whatever it means, Rebecca seems to have lost interest in the activity.

Actually, The B lost interest in a lot of things after Julian died.

Spinoza & Other Determinists
Myint Zan compares different ways of denying free will.

There are many shades of differences between the theologies of Augustine and Calvin, since the former was a Catholic theologian and the latter a Protestant one. As a philosophical determinist, Spinoza did not accept free will.

Let me ask those here who believe that -- click -- they do understand Spinoza's assessment of determinism, how he might have responded to someone like me back then asking him if the "shades of difference" noted above were actually just six of one and half a dozen of the other. In other words, Augustine was compelled by his brain to "choose" the Catholic faith and Clavin was compelled by his brain to "choose" the Protestant faith. Then Spinoza's own brain compelled him to "react" to both only as he was never able not to react.

After all, it's one thing to reject free will when you actually do have the option to accept it. Did he? Do we?

Apparently, though, one traditional shared response of Christians to the existence of evil is based on the concept of free will. But in this writer’s opinion, free will is somewhat anomalous or problematic in light of the concepts both of Calvinistic predestination and Augustinian divine foreknowledge. If human life is fixed by God, how can free will operate?

Indeed, once we come around to God and Religion, it gets all that much more problematic. First, there's the question of whether or not we do have the capacity to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God...the entity who installed free will in our souls. But then, even if we merely take a "leap of faith" here that He did, we are then confronted [in regard to Christianity] with how to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:18 pm Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.

Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.
A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.

I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.

know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.

seconds later another poster different thread

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.

If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.

Etc.

I mean, don't post the name of a forum if it's this easy to find information that shows people including moderators reacted in very similar ways to you back then in your Golden Age of... yadda, yadda.

For someone who laments the limits of human knowledge, and almost as a mantra says that you might be wrong about something, you never actually are when it comes to yourself or something you did. No admissions, oh, yeah, I didn't really respond to you.

In the abstract, up in the clouds, you might make mistakes or be an ass, but here on the ground, you never can admit any of that, to the point where anyone who does you call a Stooge. LOL.

Projection.

But don't worry we'll get bored again and you can go back to posting to yourself and all those hypothetical, lurking people who are so interested in your philosophical diary.

It's ironic, it's a bit like the belief in spirits or angels.

"After all, it's one thing to reject free will when you actually do have the option to accept it. Did he? Do we?"

I see u going back to this (non) problem all the time, biggs, and i don't understand exactly what the complaint is.

If someone convinces another person through force of reason to no longer believe freewill exists, that person will no longer be determined to believe freewill exists... so what's the problem here?

Okay, imagine everything that happens is caused by antecedent conditions, whatever they may be. Person x believes freewill exists and person y doesn't believe freewill exists. Both of these events are determined, and, it isn't, nor need it be, always determined that people will believe what is true. But sometimes, along the way, x people can become y people if the proper antecedent conditions are in place (that force of reason above).

Now if your complaint is that it's unfair or ill-mannered to criticize people for believing freewill exists when it doesn't, i can agree with that, sure. Doing so would be a blunder on the part of the determinist; for how can he blame someone for not believing what is true if they're determined not to believe what is true.

The difference here is only the mood of the criticism. It's one thing to say 'u are an idiot becuz you're too stupid to realize freewill doesn't exist' and quite another to say 'u are bad or immoral becuz of this'. I don't think any determinist would ever say the latter. Certainly not spinz becuz he was like a rock. He was strong as he could be. Like a rock.

Anyway when you say 'it's one thing to reject free will when you actually do have the option to accept it', remember this thing can go both ways. U got determinists who, compelled by convincing arguments, become people who believe in freewill. But all this... aaaaall of it, kevin! All of it... is determined.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:18 pm Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.

Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.

A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.

I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.

Again -- click -- if I always post the same things then, in a free will world, don't those like you have the option to either read or not to read what I post? Just as, in a free will universe, I have chosen not to read what you post here because I have thought myself into believing that almost all of what you and your ilk do post here is up in the intellectual clouds.

Then this part: we'll need a context.

know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.

More to the point [mine], what is it regarding what I post over and over and over again that seems to perturb some? Both there and here.

I've narrowed it down to three possible reasons:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing as well. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmseconds later another poster different thread

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

On the other hand, there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.

But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself? Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pm...and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.

If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.

Again, given what particular context? And, from my frame of mind, it is moral objectivists who are "for all practical purposes" helpless. Why? Because they have no choice but to embrace/embody one or another rendition of What Would Jesus Do?/What would Kant do?

On the other hand, for the moral nihilists among us, actual options increase dramatically when you eschew moral obligations.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmI mean, don't post the name of a forum if it's this easy to find information that shows people including moderators reacted in very similar ways to you back then in your Golden Age of... yadda, yadda.

I posted it because it pertained to myself, Rebecca and Julian pursuing our own problematic Magus "script". Hell, for all I know, Victor himself might have been one of them!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmFor someone who laments the limits of human knowledge, and almost as a mantra says that you might be wrong about something, you never actually are when it comes to yourself or something you did. No admissions, oh, yeah, I didn't really respond to you.

No, I make that crucial distinction between what we can know objectively in regard to the either/or world and what we can know objectively regarding conflicting goods in that either/or world.

What, in other words, doctors can know about abortion as a medical procedure and what ethicists/Kantians can know about abortion as a moral issue.

With you, however, I am most curious regarding the extent to which, given the points I raise in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...you either share or reject my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment and conclusions.

Are you or are you not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods? Given that, as with me "here and now" you do not believe in the existence of a God, the God.

In other words -- click -- discussing what mere mortals in a No God world think about all this with someone like phyllo. To the best of my knowledge, he still believes in his own rendition of God and objective morality. How about exploring that with him here. Given free will of course.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmIn the abstract, up in the clouds, you might make mistakes or be an ass, but here on the ground, you never can admit any of that, to the point where anyone who does you call a Stooge. LOL.

Projection.

And how is this not "rooted existentially in dasein" itself? Besides, I almost never recognize myself in your occasional psychobabble posts pertaining to me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmBut don't worry we'll get bored again and you can go back to posting to yourself and all those hypothetical, lurking people who are so interested in your philosophical diary.

I don't post to myself.

In fact, what is particularly intriguing to me regarding our posts here is the point Flannel Jesus noted regarding bots. He maintains that even though my threads generate hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of views, almost all of them are from bots.

So, just out of curiosity, for others here, is this the case? Note some hard facts about this please. Quote actual numbers.

For example, over the past week or so, this thread alone generated over 20,000 new views. If, say, 19,900, were from bots what on Earth motivates them and those who created them to come here and read our posts?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:18 pm Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.

Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.
A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.

I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.

know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.

seconds later another poster different thread

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.

If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.

Etc.

Absolutely fascinating.

You know, they say if everywhere you go it smells like shit, you should check the bottom of your shoe. I wonder when Biggy will have the thought that maybe it's him dragging shit everywhere...