A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by fiveredapples »

The topic is that people are posting non-philosophical stuff in the wrong places and trying to act as if it's philosophical. That's the topic. It has nothing to do with how magical "philosophical sparks" are.
It was not a speech, pretty or otherwise. And relevance followed the previous comments:
You don't know the difference between relevant and related. Your comment about philosophical sparks was related but not relevant.
People can come to this forum, with or without an argument; even if they just listen in...
The topic is that people are posting non-philosophical stuff in the wrong places and trying to act is if it's philosophical.

You say uncontroversial stuff that people respond "Yeah, that's right" to, but you don't say anything relevant. Gee, do you really like philosophical sparks? Gee, are people who just want to read and learn welcome here? Gee, is Goethe really a great literary and intellectual discovery? What's next -- I'm wrong because a baby yawning is adorable?

Do you think my posts write themselves? This takes time and energy. Look what I'm responding to. Instead of having a philosophical debate with someone of some ability, I'm diagnosing your irrelevant comments. You think people go to college, write countless papers, receive and mull over a ton of criticism, rewrite those papers to become moderately good at this stuff we call philosophy so they can play intellectual tic-tac-toe with you?

It's like you expect Rembrandt to study your child's thousands of finger paintings. And then you want to claim that they're better than what Rembrandt does. It's insane.
marjoramblues
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by marjoramblues »

The topic introduced by Voice covers more than that. And it led to a conversation in which my comments re: sparks are both related and relevant. If you have diagnosed them as irrelevant that gives me little confidence in your abilities of assessment. Even if your diagnosis was correct, your treatment method leaves a lot to be desired.

Your following remarks - for example re: time and energy to write posts - are to be ignored because of their irrelevance.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by fiveredapples »

The topic introduced by Voice covers more than that.
True and irrelevant. Evasive nonsense.
And it led to a conversation in which my comments re: sparks are both related and relevant.
No, your comment was in direct response to my expressed disdain of philosophical sparks in a philosophy room where arguments are expected. You even quoted my comments when you responded, so, again, spare me your face-saving fallacies.
If you have diagnosed them as irrelevant that gives me little confidence in your abilities of assessment. Even if your diagnosis was correct, your treatment method leaves a lot to be desired.
Of course that's your take. Oh gee, another philosophy hack telling someone with actual philosophical ability how it is. You don't get it. You are not qualified to make these judgments. You have lost this point -- as you have every single other point -- because you don't know how to reason well. "Sorry, Wittgenstein, I have little confidence in your abilities of assessment." It's insane, I tell you.
Your following remarks - for example re: time and energy to write posts - are to be ignored because of their irrelevance.
This remark was said after countless irrelevant remarks on your part. It's also relevant to my general complaint that philosophy people will run away from a forum such as this because it's full of talent-less hacks -- confident talent-less hacks! Your comments to me are a perfect example of what's wrong with this place. Here you are fully confident that you're right -- but you have no philosophy training or ability. Here I am explaining in detail why you're wrong -- and I have philosophy training and ability. Yet you've lost confidence in my abilities. Of course you have, buddy, of course you have. It could be no other way here.
marjoramblues
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by marjoramblues »

Oh Lord - now I know you're having a laugh. Ass.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by fiveredapples »

Great rebuttal.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

fiveredapples wrote:If I were immortal, I'd be Philosophy's greatest champion: there's just not enough time to vanquish straw armies.

Pretty speeches about cherishing philosophical sparks are as vapid as they are irrelevant. In a philosophy forum, come with an argument. The start of a philosophical discussion is an articulated thought. This thought isn't philosophical until it's backed with philosophy. Objects, whether an apple or a picture, that trigger thoughts are empty. The story leading up to "the spark" is just a story. Pithy sayings, said by Joe Shmoe or the Dali Lama, are equally droll. Sayings are statements with no philosophical backing, so they aren't philosophical. Hilary Putnam once had this thought: "Meaning is externally determined." He would have a philosophical thought. Why? Because he did philosophy on it. Two years before Putnam, some guy in this forum had the same thought. He asserted it. He posted the picture that triggered it. He later died without ever having had a philosophical thought in his life.

This forum is a tea party for philophasters. My point is that a forum like this needs about ten philosophy people. The problem is that the prevailing attitude that everyone's opinions are equally valid, or some equally noxious Liberal bromide, drives them away. Philosophy people like to discuss things, foremost, with their own kind, because it's not until you reach a certain skill level that you can benefit others or be benefited by others. I know when someone gives the better argument. I have no problem owning up to it. I thank them and progress is made. The rabble here never make such progress because they aren't qualified to judge yet. So, they are bogged down in the quagmire that is their egos and philosophical ineptitude. They are the most adamant and arrogant ones -- yet I'm the haughty p****, right? If you've never been part of a philosophy forum where about a dozen or so people are recognized as able because they are so, you will never know what you're missing out on. I've seen noobs grow by leaps and bounds in such forums. The only hope for a place like this is for few philosophy people to saunter in, discover each other, and become active members long enough to attract a few more.

I'm a philosophical Godzilla. Wikipedia quotes are lawn darts. My internet footprints mark graves.
You talk as if you know, and no one does. How else could you define pricks, arrogant ones, able people, noobs that grow, etc. You talk as if philosophy knows an end, it doesn't, it just feels out the route, to truth in knowledge, it is only ever a means. Humans couldn't be further from the end.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

fiveredapples wrote:The topic is that people are posting non-philosophical stuff in the wrong places and trying to act as if it's philosophical. That's the topic. It has nothing to do with how magical "philosophical sparks" are.
It was not a speech, pretty or otherwise. And relevance followed the previous comments:
You don't know the difference between relevant and related. Your comment about philosophical sparks was related but not relevant.
People can come to this forum, with or without an argument; even if they just listen in...
The topic is that people are posting non-philosophical stuff in the wrong places and trying to act is if it's philosophical.

You say uncontroversial stuff that people respond "Yeah, that's right" to, but you don't say anything relevant. Gee, do you really like philosophical sparks? Gee, are people who just want to read and learn welcome here? Gee, is Goethe really a great literary and intellectual discovery? What's next -- I'm wrong because a baby yawning is adorable?

Do you think my posts write themselves? This takes time and energy. Look what I'm responding to. Instead of having a philosophical debate with someone of some ability, I'm diagnosing your irrelevant comments. You think people go to college, write countless papers, receive and mull over a ton of criticism, rewrite those papers to become moderately good at this stuff we call philosophy so they can play intellectual tic-tac-toe with you?

It's like you expect Rembrandt to study your child's thousands of finger paintings. And then you want to claim that they're better than what Rembrandt does. It's insane.
Leave her alone, you arrogant p****! You're a fucking nobody that so far only shows that he likes to stroke himself. How about trying to use your philosophy that you say you're so good at, as I know that philosophy is not about constant put downs. I doubt you know philosophy, but I "know" you're immature.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

fiveredapples wrote:Great rebuttal.
You moron, FYI TVoT mentioned this to me several weeks ago, well at least a week. :) So I'm thinking this thread is kinda aimed at me, and my kind, that come off as know-it-alls like you're currently doing. He said that I don't give him any way to respond, that I smite rebuttal, by how I present, So what this thread is really about is presentation, wording. Such that he wishes people to come together and talk "TO" each other about any particular topic and not "AT" each other. OR better yet "WITH" each other. You, it would seem, are exactly what he's against. Quit talking "AT" MB, and instead, talk "WITH" her.

There's nothing worse than a newbie bully.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by The Voice of Time »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You moron, FYI TVoT mentioned this to me several weeks ago, well at least a week. :) So I'm thinking this thread is kinda aimed at me
What? No, it's aimed at everyone!
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by fiveredapples »

You moron, FYI TVoT mentioned this to me several weeks ago, well at least a week. :) So I'm thinking this thread is kinda aimed at me, and my kind, that come off as know-it-alls like you're currently doing.
The difference is that you don't know shit and I have ability. The discussion I was having was that people are pushing their un-philosophical junk at us as if it were philosophical. The fact that I've stuck to that topic in my discussion with her (whoever she is) is kinda important. The fact that she's all over the place in that discussion is kinda my point. So, who cares if I speak the way I do when I'm right. She isn't doing anything different. She's in fact worse: arrogant and wrong. Much like you.
He said that I don't give him any way to respond, that I smite rebuttal, by how I present, So what this thread is really about is presentation, wording.

I don't know how you debate. But reading this crap offering, I have no reason to seek out anything you've written.
Such that he wishes people to come together and talk "TO" each other about any particular topic and not "AT" each other. OR better yet "WITH" each other.
Yeah, I'm on board with all that. I said as much. Try reading. Part of the reason why nobody has these open discussions we wishes is because their reasoning can't stand the test of criticism. You might want to look into why you smite rebuttal.
You, it would seem, are exactly what he's against. Quit talking "AT" MB, and instead, talk "WITH" her.

There's nothing worse than a newbie bully.
I don't waste my time with morons. She is a moron. I've explained myself clearly. And I'm right. I may be a "bully" but I'm not a newbie. I've been a member a year longer than you have, noob. Welcome to philosophy.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by Kuznetzova »

fiveredapples wrote:I left this forum because of the dearth of people who can actually do philosophy, let alone those willing to do it. This place has gotten worse, not better, which is quite the feat.
Zing.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11250
marjoramblues
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by marjoramblues »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vXxH1IEmQ

Elvis - A Little Less Conversation

A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark...
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by fiveredapples »

Thanks for the link, Kuznetzova.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

Post by Kuznetzova »

The Voice of Time wrote: A few virtues of this:

1) well-written open-ended arguments by my experience tend to end with more interesting debates as people are able to find themselves more accepted in the environment and the writer appears more vulnerable (in a stance that really makes him or her actually closer to invulnerable because of their own humility in so doing) and this vulnerability encourages and makes other people more courageous in tackling the problem
2) sometime open-ended arguments appears simply to be the only thing needed to make a topic discussable at all
3) open-ended arguments can be picked up at any time if well-written, also, open-ended arguments, though they create a lot of debate, their real strength is that given enough effort they can be concluded quite satisfyingly, as opposed to what I've often seen which is just people agreeing for no particular reason

Anybody gonna take this seriously or just skim through it and be done with it? Or otherwise?
If I made a thread with the heading "Is fundamental reality composed of particles, or fields?" Such a thread would fulfill all of your criteria and all your little virtues. If I made a thread with the heading "Is time fundamentally real, or does it just emerge from timeless physics with some thermodynamics thrown in?" Such a thread would fulfill all of your criteria and all your virtues.

Your natural response is going to be "Well, kuznetzova, your ain't done never made a thread like those!" Unfortunately, that would be a lie. I have made both of these threads and more.

Is fundamental reality composed of particles, or fields?
That is the central question in the article I posted here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11202
zero replies.

Is time fundamentally real, or does it just emerge from timeless physics with some thermodynamics thrown in? That is the central question in this audio lecture I posted here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11036
zero replies.

With all due honesty, I will re-iterate what five red apples has already told you. Many of these people are not here to do philosophy. I don't know why the fuck they are here at all. We have some indications that some are here to proselytize the existence of the Judeo-Christian creator deity (ie. reasonvemotion, jinx). While Henry Quirk and his coterie are here to do Jerry Springer in text format. So I don't know what to tell you, man.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

"Henry Quirk and his coterie"

Post by henry quirk »

HA!
Post Reply