Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:The only 2 things your tiny brain has in it, is spelling and mirror, can you say something else? ..no ofc not, that would require a tiny amount of intellect, which you don't have ANY of!

Still looking at that mirror retard (what's the matter Hex? Can't you spell of course not. OFC isn't a standard acronym).

PhilX

Still only having 2 things in your tiny mind? Spelling and Mirror?

You flatter me when you parrot me.

PhilX

Wisdom is when you offer a big free hug and a beaming smile to morons, retards, losers, chickens, trolls and ugly monsters.

duszek wrote:Wisdom is when you offer a big free hug and a beaming smile to morons, retards, losers, chickens, trolls and ugly monsters.

Wisdom is not being upset when those sorts of people refuse to take he hug.

If someone refused he would at the same time admit that he belongs to that sort of people ...

So he cannot refuse !

I like that definition of wisdom: the use of intelligence and knowledge.

I have heard another: Knowledge takes things apart. Wisdom puts things together.

I still think there is much more too it. A great thinker one said, one cannot be wise without also being confident regarding what he is wise about. I don't mean that to be a complete definition (wisdom is confidence), but only one aspect. Also, I wonder if there is another sense. One where you are not wise about anything in particular but just wise in general. That is an interesting thing!

"Hackers are generally more intelligent and knowledgeable that original programmers, but they are not wise because they fault intent-wise and misuse their qualities."

Now here is the problem of problems. Are we prepared to say that anyone who misuses what they know or causes harm or does something unjust and to the detriment of himself or another, cannot be truly wise, by definition? Part of being wise is recognizing the value of being a benefit and a non-detriment as what is called a super-mundane understanding: one that results in corresponding behavior. "I believe it is good to be good, but I am not good." vs "I understand it is good to be good, therefore I am good."

Assume our friend here is correct. A 'necessary condition' of wisdom is the correct and just use of intelligence or knowledge, etc. How can we prove that it is wise to do as many good things as we can and as few bad things as we can?

Jaded Sage wrote:If wisdom is the best of all possible synonymns, then it must have the best of all possible effects.

Is it possible that it has no negative effects?

If it is the best of all mental attributes, mental characteristics, or mental faculties, then surely it is considered that way because it produces the best of all effects. Otherwise, on what grounds do we say that of it? Surely, it, above all others, leads us to the least amount of overall detriment and the most amount of overall benefit. I suppose it proves itself by its corresponding behavior. Now, unless we are to say that everybody is wise (which is tantamount to saying nobody is) we must then suppose that the actions and words of a wise person must seem unwise or even foolish to the majority of people. In fact, if one is truly so, then the more wise the actions or words the more foolish they must appear. But we must keep in mind that not all foolish things are unrecognized instances of wisdom. It does seem, however, that to find instances of wisdom we must then look for actions and words that seem somewhat foolish and unwise. If we are to hold that the majority of people are actually fools, then we must look to the most foolish things we can possibly find. So we ought to look for things that appear foolish or unwise but are beneficial. Otherwise, what is the point of having wisdom if it doesn't benefit us somehow or others somehow.

duszek wrote:If someone refused he would at the same time admit that he belongs to that sort of people ...

So he cannot refuse !

Nah, a very unwise thing to say.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

duszek wrote:If someone refused he would at the same time admit that he belongs to that sort of people ...

So he cannot refuse !

Nah, a very unwise thing to say.

Why unwise ?

It is a clever and sweet trap.

duszek wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

duszek wrote:If someone refused he would at the same time admit that he belongs to that sort of people ...

So he cannot refuse !

Nah, a very unwise thing to say.

Why unwise ?

It is a clever and sweet trap.

There is no trap here, not even implied.
You said;
'If someone refused he would at the same time admit that he belongs to that sort of people ."

That would also entail three things.
1) They would have to know the conditions upon which you were offering a hug.
2) Your ability to discriminate those type of people would have to be accurate, and that their refusal implied they were of that sort. THis is thus question begging nonsense.
3) They would have to not be refusing the hug for other reasons such as you are ugly, toxic or smelly. People not in those categories might have very good valid reasons for refusing a hug; they might be infectious or simply non- tactile or just in pain for some reason.

So I'm puzzled you have failed to see these flaws in your position.

Let me try again:

I offer a big free hug to a troll (and only to a troll).

Someone who considers himself a troll can go forward and accept it.
Or someone who considers himself a troll can say: no thank you.

People who do not consider themselves a troll are not targets of my offer. So they should not respond in any way.

The point of being ugly and smelly does not apply on an internet forum, my big free hugs are purely digital in nature.

duszek wrote:Let me try again:

I offer a big free hug to a troll (and only to a troll).

Someone who considers himself a troll can go forward and accept it.
Or someone who considers himself a troll can say: no thank you.

People who do not consider themselves a troll are not targets of my offer. So they should not respond in any way.

The point of being ugly and smelly does not apply on an internet forum, my big free hugs are purely digital in nature.

How can we know that your assessment of who is and who is not a troll is correct?
He might be pretending, or you might be wrong.
A person, not a troll might want you to think he is.
If he does nothing, does that mean he does not think he is a troll, or you are wrong.
Why would a troll admit to being a troll by accepting a hug?

Consequently you can not infer anything about a person being or not being a troll hugs or not. It makes no difference.

So where and what is your "trap"?

duszek wrote:Let me try again:

I offer a big free hug to a troll (and only to a troll).

Someone who considers himself a troll can go forward and accept it.
Or someone who considers himself a troll can say: no thank you.

People who do not consider themselves a troll are not targets of my offer. So they should not respond in any way.

The point of being ugly and smelly does not apply on an internet forum, my big free hugs are purely digital in nature.

Stupid yanks and their incessant and obnoxious hugging.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

duszek wrote:Let me try again:

I offer a big free hug to a troll (and only to a troll).

Someone who considers himself a troll can go forward and accept it.
Or someone who considers himself a troll can say: no thank you.

People who do not consider themselves a troll are not targets of my offer. So they should not respond in any way.

The point of being ugly and smelly does not apply on an internet forum, my big free hugs are purely digital in nature.

How can we know that your assessment of who is and who is not a troll is correct?
He might be pretending, or you might be wrong.
A person, not a troll might want you to think he is.
If he does nothing, does that mean he does not think he is a troll, or you are wrong.
Why would a troll admit to being a troll by accepting a hug?

Consequently you can not infer anything about a person being or not being a troll hugs or not. It makes no difference.

So where and what is your "trap"?

My assessment is only a guess.

I offer something good to someone who feels isolated and hated.

A new formulation:

"In case you are or act like or hate being a troll I offer you a big free hug."

The hug is only virtual by nature anyway.
It is supposed to be a new ingenius anti-dotum against the virus of hate spreading quickly and causing damage.

The idea of free hugs comes from the US and it is interesting and can be good for certain people.

It is NOT obnoxious because nobody is forced to accept a free hug from a friendly stranger.

I have never been offered any free physical hugs from strangers so far, but one never knows.

Aggressive and often anoyed and irritable people could be the un-hugged ones.