Philosophy Now Forum

H.L. Mencken wrote:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

The Philosophy Now Forum is obviously dedicated to providing that proof.

What makes you think the jackasses who post at the Philosophy Now Forum are evidence of how philosophers argue? That seems to me to be a very foolish assumption.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:13 pm H.L. Mencken wrote:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

The Philosophy Now Forum is obviously dedicated to providing that proof.

Somebody is having a bad day.

If you wish to conduct yourself in the intellectual world, one must take the bad with the good. Philosophy is just another method of working your stuff out. It's not really meant to be taken seriously.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:55 pm What makes you think the jackasses who post at the Philosophy Now Forum are evidence of how philosophers argue? That seems to me to be a very foolish assumption.

Well that's your assumption, but, having read most philosophers since Socrates, and all of them since Hume, and since most of those arguing on the forum quote those stupid philosophers, using their arguments, what's the difference?

How many times do you see, "Aristotle said," or, "Descartes said," or, "Locke said," or, "Kant said," or, "Plato, Aquinas, Bacon, Hobbes, More, Spinoza, Leibniz, Clarke, Wolff, Berkeley, Bayes, Reid, Hume, Rousseau, Smith (Adam), Burke, Bentham, Schiller, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Comte, Kierkegaard, Peirce, James, Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Dewey, Adler, Russell, Moore, Heidegger. Wittgenstein, Reichenbach, Ryle, Popper, Ponty, Quine, Ayer, Austin, Rawls, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Dummett, Foucault, Chomsky, Derrida, Rorty, Penrose, Nozick, Dennett, (or some other member of the Jackasses Hall Of Fame) said," used to defend one's absurd philosophy, religion, or ideology?

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:13 pm H.L. Mencken wrote:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

The Philosophy Now Forum is obviously dedicated to providing that proof.

Somebody is having a bad day.

Well, I'm having a lovely day, so it must be you. You have no idea how entertaining I find this site to be, especially those that take it, and themselves, so seriously.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:13 pm H.L. Mencken wrote:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

The Philosophy Now Forum is obviously dedicated to providing that proof.

With those like you around, I would agree.

mick: What makes you think the jackasses who post at the Philosophy Now Forum are evidence of how philosophers argue? That seems to me to be a very foolish assumption.
RC: Well that's your assumption

No, it's your assumption unless you have no understanding of logical argument. My assumption is that you do have some understanding. Am I wrong in that?

How many times do you see, "Aristotle said," or [... list continues] used to defend one's absurd philosophy, religion, or ideology?

Ah! I see I was wrong about that. You seem to think that if Aristotle is cited in defense of an absurd position, that shows Aristotle is a jackass. Do you need me to explain why that is faulty reasoning? (Some might even call it "absurd".)

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:43 pm mick: What makes you think the jackasses who post at the Philosophy Now Forum are evidence of how philosophers argue? That seems to me to be a very foolish assumption.
RC: Well that's your assumption

No, it's your assumption unless you have no understanding of logical argument. My assumption is that you do. Am I wrong in that?

How many times do you see, "Aristotle said," or [... list continues] used to defend one's absurd philosophy, religion, or ideology?

Ah! I see I was wrong about that. You seem to think that if Aristotle is cited in defense of an absurd position, that shows Aristotle is a jackass. Do you need me to explain why that is faulty reasoning? (Some might even call it "absurd".)

Aristotle taught that women had fewer teeth then men, because he wasn't bright enough to ask Mrs. Aristotle to open her mouth so he could count her teeth. I''m not impressed with Aristotle. Among those recognized as philosophers Aristotle, Peter Abelard, and Locke were among the very few who did get some things right, but unfortunately their mistakes were fatal and what they got right is almost totally forgotten. In the entire corpus of established philosophy there is not one thing worth learning, and most of it cannot be believed without producing a kind self-induced insanity, which explains all of academia today.