Is philosophical enquiry a form of trolling

[commonsense]

Well, is it?

[attofishpi]

Well, is it?

Only when its an idiot such as Age trashing threads with pure drivel.

[Age]

If one 'casts out' a question, of ANY sort, as a lure, in the hope of 'hooking', and/or 'reeling in', someone who PRESUMES or BELIEVES an OPPOSING 'position', then 'this type of inquiring' could be classed, or considered as, a 'form of trolling'.

However, if one were to ASK, for example, a so-called 'philosophical inquiry' such as, 'What is the meaning of Life?' from a Truly OPEN 'position', and is NOT HOLDING ONTO ANY 'position' AT ALL and NOT WANTING to argue AGAINST "another", then 'this type of inquiring' may well NOT be a 'form of trolling', AT ALL.

See, if one is 'trolling' or NOT, in regards to 'philosophical enquiry', depends, SOLELY, on whether one WANTS TO 'argue WITH' or 'argue AGAINST' "another", AND OF COURSE on how one is defining the 'argue' word here, EXACTLY.

So, AGAIN, 'this' is NOT a matter of, nor about, either/or. Some 'philosophical inquiry' is very much done in the 'form of trolling', but then sometimes 'it' IS NOT done with 'trolling' intended AT ALL.

Which, by the way, applies to ALL 'philosophical questions'. The very reason WHY it took 'you', human beings, thousands upon thousands of years to ARRIVE AT and UNCOVER what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, and ANSWERS ARE, EXACTLY, to 'philosophical inquiries/questions' is because 'you', human beings, had MANIPULATED and FOOLED "yourselves" into thinking or BELIEVING that ANSWERS TO 'your' 'philosophical inquiries' consisted of an either/or response.

[Age]

Well, is it?

Only when its an idiot such as Age trashing threads with pure drivel.

It is ONLY so-called 'drivel' "attofishpi" when 'you' can NOT counter NOR refute 'it'.

[attofishpi]

Well, is it?

Only when its an idiot such as Age trashing threads with pure drivel.

It is ONLY so-called 'drivel' "attofishpi" when 'you' can NOT counter NOR refute 'it'.

When somebody just continuously spouts garbage, one cannot argue with garbage. You NEVER provide a reasonable address to ANYTHING anyone writes. You just shit crap all over peoples threads and the fact you haven't the intellect to comprehend that is obvious - almost everyone ignores you and for those reasons.
Calling you an idiot is an understatement (take it as a compliment)

[Age]

Only when its an idiot such as Age trashing threads with pure drivel.

It is ONLY so-called 'drivel' "attofishpi" when 'you' can NOT counter NOR refute 'it'.

When somebody just continuously spouts garbage, one cannot argue with garbage.

Just SAYING and CLAIMING 'it' IS GARBAGE does NOT MEAN that 'it' IS ACTUALLY GARBAGE AT ALL.

Are 'you' ABLE TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact "attofishpi"?

You NEVER provide a reasonable address to ANYTHING anyone writes.

What 'we' have here is ANOTHER prime example of 'confirmation bias' in 'its' HIGHEST FORM.

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that 'I' NEVER EVER provide a so-called 'reasonable address' to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', that ABSOLUTELY ANY one writes, so 'this' is, LITERALLY, EXACTLY ALL 'this one' SEES and HEARS.

You just shit crap all over peoples threads and the fact you haven't the intellect to comprehend that is obvious - almost everyone ignores you and for those reasons.

What can be VERY, VERY CLEARLY SEEN here is 'this one', ONCE AGAIN, just CLAIMS 'things' like, 'you continuously sprout garbage', and, 'you never provide a reasonable address', but then, LITERALLY, NEVER provides ANY ACTUAL evidence, let alone PROOF, to back up and support such CLAIMS.

Some would even suggest and SAY that 'you', "attofishpi", just, so-call, 'shit crap over my posts' WITHOUT providing ANY 'reasonable address' to what I ACTUALLY SAY, WRITE, and MEAN.

If fact, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'you' seem to be TOTALLY DISHEARTENED by the Fact that I, sometimes, SHOW WHERE, WHEN, and WHY, EXACTLY, 'your' VIEWS ARE FALSE, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, DISTORTED, or TWISTED. For example, like when I SHOWED just how Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'your' VIEW IS about how 'you' think that the 'technology', which is KILLING 'you', human beings, and other animals, as well as the ONLY planet and home that 'you' have, is FANTASTIC (positive).

Now, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to QUESTION or CHALLENGE me OVER whether I have been so-called 'shit crapping ALL OVER their threads', OR NOT, then PLEASE PROCEED. UNTIL THEN I WILL LEAVE 'you' TO HAVE, and HOLD ONTO, 'your' VERY OWN BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS here.

[Age]

Only when its an idiot such as Age trashing threads with pure drivel.

It is ONLY so-called 'drivel' "attofishpi" when 'you' can NOT counter NOR refute 'it'.

When somebody just continuously spouts garbage, one cannot argue with garbage.

I WILL NOT ASK 'you' TO DEFINE what the 'argue' word here MEANS, EXACTLY. BECAUSE doing so would leave 'you' INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING.

As 'you' WOULD, ONCE MORE, PROVE 'me' True AND Right, AGAIN.

You NEVER provide a reasonable address to ANYTHING anyone writes. You just shit crap all over peoples threads and the fact you haven't the intellect to comprehend that is obvious - almost everyone ignores you and for those reasons.
Calling you an idiot is an understatement (take it as a compliment)

The MORE that 'I' AM IGNORED and/or called an 'IDIOT', then the BETTER 'this' WILL WORK OUT FOR EVERY one.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, is it?

could you explain what you mean?

At this level of vagueness, I'd say: it depends.

[Wizard22]

If one 'casts out' a question, of ANY sort, as a lure, in the hope of 'hooking', and/or 'reeling in', someone who PRESUMES or BELIEVES an OPPOSING 'position', then 'this type of inquiring' could be classed, or considered as, a 'form of trolling'.

However, if one were to ASK, for example, a so-called 'philosophical inquiry' such as, 'What is the meaning of Life?' from a Truly OPEN 'position', and is NOT HOLDING ONTO ANY 'position' AT ALL and NOT WANTING to argue AGAINST "another", then 'this type of inquiring' may well NOT be a 'form of trolling', AT ALL.

See, if one is 'trolling' or NOT, in regards to 'philosophical enquiry', depends, SOLELY, on whether one WANTS TO 'argue WITH' or 'argue AGAINST' "another", AND OF COURSE on how one is defining the 'argue' word here, EXACTLY.

So, AGAIN, 'this' is NOT a matter of, nor about, either/or. Some 'philosophical inquiry' is very much done in the 'form of trolling', but then sometimes 'it' IS NOT done with 'trolling' intended AT ALL.

Which, by the way, applies to ALL 'philosophical questions'. The very reason WHY it took 'you', human beings, thousands upon thousands of years to ARRIVE AT and UNCOVER what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, and ANSWERS ARE, EXACTLY, to 'philosophical inquiries/questions' is because 'you', human beings, had MANIPULATED and FOOLED "yourselves" into thinking or BELIEVING that ANSWERS TO 'your' 'philosophical inquiries' consisted of an either/or response.

If one casts out a question, of any sort, as a lure, in the hope of hooking and/or reeling in someone who presumes or believes in opposing positions, then this type of inquiring could be classed or considered as a form of trolling.

However if one were to ask, for example, a so-called philosophical inquiry such as "What is the meaning of Life?" from a truly open position, and is not holding onto any position at all--not wanting to argue against another--then this type of inquiring may well not be a form of trolling at all.

See if one is trolling or not, in regards to philosophical inquiry, depends solely on whether one wants to argue with or against another, and of course on how one is defining the argue word here exactly.

So again, this is not a matter of, nor about "either/or". Some philosophical inquiry is very much done in the form of trolling, but then sometimes it is not done with trolling intended at all.

[nemos]

"Is philosophical enquiry a form of trolling ?"

Yes. It's called creativity.

[Gary Childress]

Well, is it?

Well, Jesus was all about "fishing" and "trolling" can be a good way to catch "fish". Why not use the same technique on people?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[commonsense]

Well, is it?

could you explain what you mean?

At this level of vagueness, I'd say: it depends.

Good answer.

A troll writes short provocative posts intended to generate a response, like I did in the OP. Make of it what you like.

[commonsense]

"Is philosophical enquiry a form of trolling ?"

Yes. It's called creativity.

I completely agree.

[bahman]

Well, is it?

No, unless you are forced to accept to be wrong, and that is not what you want to accept.

[commonsense]

Well, is it?

Well, Jesus was all about "fishing" and "trolling" can be a good way to catch "fish". Why not use the same technique on people?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Yes, why not?