Philosophy Now Forum

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Not interested much in your challenge, Hobbes. Can we leave it there?

Thank you for admitting you are wrong. But leaving it there would mean that you were living a lie. I understand that the religiously minded tend to live in a network of delusions, and you are no exception, it seems.
But the point of "Philosophy Now" is not merely to outworking of opinions and delusions, but a thorough discussion about how and why such delusions are generated and to what degree we can challenge ourselves.
At the moment you are clouding your own position with a sea of verbosity, masking what is essentially a very simple truth about morality and the means by which we generate our moral values. Were you to peel back the layers, you would benefit from what you uncovered.

So no. I can't leave it there.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: There's more:

My views are anti-democratic, anti-radical-liberal, anti-Marxist, pro-masculine (does not mean misogynist), traditionist, pro-religionist with certain qualifications, non-sentimentalist, all presented brusquely, directly and unapolagetically, and to that I add opposed to homosexualiity as if the previous were not enough. These are all positions that I have defined through hard work and a great deal of rigorous 'self analysis' and are reversals of previous positions.

You sound like you are just a scared little puppy. There is no self analysis here, you are just scared of the world around you, and unable to allow yourself the luxury of allowing others to live their lives as they see fit.
I imagine you think Anton Breivik is some kind of hero to you.

artisticsolution wrote:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: There's more:

My views are anti-democratic, anti-radical-liberal, anti-Marxist, pro-masculine (does not mean misogynist), traditionist, pro-religionist with certain qualifications, non-sentimentalist, all presented brusquely, directly and unapolagetically, and to that I add opposed to homosexualiity as if the previous were not enough. These are all positions that I have defined through hard work and a great deal of rigorous 'self analysis' and are reversals of previous positions.

You can imagine how out of step with the times I am. Since we know that we are going to dislike each other and to disagree, please give me some time to better present the full scope.

Well, from the above I would say you are Donald Trump! Am I right?

More like Anton Breivik.

Impressive. This medium (forum), the mention of trigger-words (hot terms that excite the emotions), among people seeking to do battle with their perceived 'enemies', brings forth fantastical projections.

This is 'thinking' in our modern context, which is to say not really thinking at all! It is a rehearsal of emotional content, received ideas and image, and it always (always!) begins and ends in games. The 'game' aspect is important. The chosen loser, the selected loser, will lose, must lose, must be seen as losing. Thoughtcrime is a serious offense. TwitPop thinking will rectify all! (Twitter Populism).

For me THIS is the subject. It is this sort of mind and person let loose on the stage of our present. It is this sort of mind that feels competent to judge and decide all matters. The humble suburbanite with his Sunday oblations = becomes clearly the ISIS operative among us. This sort of 'logic' reigns, controls, asserts its will. You cannot carry on dialog with it. But you can sort of talk at it. The benefit is only for some third party observer/reader.

More, excitable ones, when I can. But do not hesitate to let loose with other material ...

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Impressive. This medium (forum), the mention of trigger-words (hot terms that excite the emotions), among people seeking to do battle with their perceived 'enemies', brings forth fantastical projections.

This is 'thinking' in our modern context, which is to say not really thinking at all! It is a rehearsal of emotional content, received ideas and image, and it always (always!) begins and ends in games. The 'game' aspect is important. The chosen loser, the selected loser, will lose, must lose, must be seen as losing. Thoughtcrime is a serious offense. TwitPop thinking will rectify all! (Twitter Populism).

For me THIS is the subject. It is this sort of mind and person let loose on the stage of our present. It is this sort of mind that feels competent to judge and decide all matters. The humble suburbanite with his Sunday oblations = becomes clearly the ISIS operative among us. This sort of 'logic' reigns, controls, asserts its will. You cannot carry on dialog with it. But you can sort of talk at it. The benefit is only for some third party observer/reader.

More, excitable ones, when I can. But do not hesitate to let loose with other material ...

So much wind in just one bag of shite.

The Enemy never has redeeming festures. Anything the enemy says is interpreted as more evidence - these are self-evident truths - of his evil. The only alternative for the Evil One is to submit to the Accuser. Obviously that never happens and so the Game of Intense Polarity is rehearsed right from the start. McLuhan wrote that 'the medium is the message'. Here, the projection is the content, which is the message.

All that is left really is pure insult, and they are then piled one on top of another. It is all Game. It starts in game and ends in game.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:The Enemy never has redeeming festures. Anything the enemy says is interpreted as more evidence - these are self-evident truths - of his evil. The only alternative for the Evil One is to submit to the Accuser. Obviously that never happens and somthe Game of Intense Polarity is established right from the start. McLuhan wrote that 'the medium is the message'. Here, the projection is the content, which is the message.

All that is left really is pure insult, and they are then piled one on top of another. It is all Game. It starts in game and ends in game.

The only enemy I see here is you. An enemy of humanity.
Some games end in death.

Oh I'm wicked alright ... and don't you forget it.

Curiously, as radical liberalism has done away with both 'heaven and hell', and certainly an ontological but metaphysical emblem of Pure Evil, yet it still requires - and discovers, names, brands - an ontological evil against which to rail.

This is an interesting element in our modern populism: it is a form of Mediaval demonology but present in our Present and in our psychology in different guise. It requires a 'master metaphysician' to begin to see it.

The call to The Good is of course to annihilate The Evil.

Odd how this all fits in here ... and these are the more interesting topics. It becomes a meta-conversation strangely enough.

This really is a long and involved conversation and there is nothing simple about it. Even our most sophisticated 'philosophers' who 'have been in this philosophy business for years' demonstrate that they struggle to capture important facts about the History of Ideas. It seems that whole mental mechanisms rise up and interfere with thinking rather than help it. True, that is 'only my opinion'. And, being Evil and contaminated, it's only worth 'el culo de una rata' ...

I would like to offer the first vid as an element of conversation, for those who, perhaps, want to tweek and challenge their preconceptions, their a priories. The second vid is the longer version.

I crawl back to my slime to recharge ...

http://youtu.be/aR4MvD9IEAE

http://youtu.be/sDGWr8kMBk8

Gustav, there were no "trigger words" that brought about my questions... and I think they're reasonable questions to ask of someone who presents himself as you appear to, and who says the things you have. You've assessed other people... so won't you show the courtesy of answering these questions about your view? Or are you just here to spew your view at people and establish your supposed superiority without actual interaction or self-reflection?

Gustav, your statements seem to indicate:

> That you think you have figured things out, in general, to a more accurate degree than those who see differently than you do. Correct?

> That you think you are somehow able to assess other people better than they know themselves. Correct?

> That you perceive that other people are projecting and misinterpreting (rather than seeing reality), while you yourself are seeing reality. Correct?

> And is it possible that you have piled so many absolutes into your "views", that your clarity is no more than a pool that reflects and reaffirms itself?

Being reasonable is a sure step to getting reason in return. An excellent point to start from!

How do I 'appear to present myself'? Talk of this.

Your questions are little interesting to me, yet I promise to reveal my thought and reasoning. In fact this is what I do.

I do it, naturally, on my own terms. Would you yourself offer anything less?

I assess general trends in culture and I suggest reasons. That is the limit. It is all exploratory: only you (plural) can reveal you (plural).

'You' have establised this notion of 'superiority' not me, and I suggest you disabuse yourself of the projection. I admire intellectual (and spiritual and etc.) sovereignty and claim no more than that, as an ideal.

'Walking back the projections': A title of a new hit song!

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: How do I 'appear to present myself'? Talk of this.

I already did with my questions.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Your questions are little interesting to me,

Well, that's part of interaction. You don't get to control all of the questions. So, you can simply say they're not of interest to you... which you did.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: yet I promise to reveal my thought and reasoning. In fact this is what I do.

I do it, naturally, on my own terms.

You most certainly do.

Again, no interaction/cooperation -- it's all on your terms, and about your own head.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Would you yourself offer anything less?

Oh, I do much, much more. I practice interacting with people on some of their terms because I see it as being more expansive in seeking and sharing understanding and truth, rather than comfortably operating on my terms alone. It's a very informative process -- revealing things about other people and myself.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: I assess general trends in culture and I suggest reasons. That is the limit.

No, actually you've done more than that. You've pronounced your absolutes of how it is, while disregarding other viewpoints. If you're not going to be honest and conscious about what you do, there's no point in discussing anything seriously with you -- which is what people seem to have picked up on and responded to, and which you claim are projections. There's no need for projections when you are revealing so much, even if you, yourself, are unaware of it.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I admire intellectual (and spiritual and etc.) sovereignty and claim no more than that, as an ideal.

Then you're unaware of your human ego and traits... and that's what's scary... because there's no one at those controls.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 'Walking back the projections': A title of a new hit song!

How about: "Too good for awareness."

Lacewing wrote:]Then you're unaware of your human ego and traits... and that's what's scary... because there's no one at those controls.
.."

Do you not think he's just a chain yanker?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Do you not think he's just a chain yanker?

Could be. Although there seems to be some entrenchment of some sort going on.

Your 'questions' were not real questions. They were all statements. In that game one is presented questions that appear so very reasonable, but by interacting with them, there is only losing. I upend the whole table.

Because I do not cooperate with your project, and as Hobbes clearly states, the only role for me is as 'chain-yanker'.

Get with the program, girl!

The Evil are by definition 'entrenched'.