A Call for Open-Ended Arguments

[The Voice of Time]

When did this thread end up in General Discussion? Well well, anywho...

As for you Kuznetzova, I don't think you understood the purpose of this thread. There's no causal relationship between what I write here you should do and what you get in terms of replies (that depends more on the subject and the audience), people don't answer a thread because they write as I here propose them to (after all, how come anybody ever respond to Wiltrack?). Instead, if they write the way I here propose them to, the quality of their texts should increase some, and everybody who choose to engage in the subject should benefit more. Also, I was not talking about titles, as titles are not (usually) arguments.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Maybe many here are not well versed in physics, which you seem to care more about. For instance I have only had 'intro to physics' in college, though many of my professions dealt with physics to some extent or another. Physics is a science after all, and while philosophy is the father of all science, there are many of them, while advanced physics is not the concern of many, entry level philosophers. I think that there is room for all of various levels of study, but the problem seems to be there are not enough people at any particular subject level, to engage in a worthy and interesting exchange, such that the few of differing levels seek at least some interaction, which either intimidates, or fails to intrigue, such that often they become a cluster funk.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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!

You directed this at me long before you authored this thread, so it's only obvious that I set this particular train of thought of yours into motion, unless of course you noticed such in others before me.

[The Voice of Time]

You are being somewhat paranoid, I don't spend that much time thinking about you SoB. I got the idea of the thread out of the blue, and I'm not the only one who has talked about things along these lines.

In my thread: "How to write of the virtual experiences inherent to the web?", Skip, for instance, writes "I don't know about other threads you start (I'll go look for one to answer in a minute) but this one:
Because it's self-contained; no place for input." when I inquired as to why no replies but 500+ view-counts.

While I didn't think my thread was anywhere near self-contained, the point is that it pretty much points in the same direction of open-ended arguments, which was something I made a long more detailed and thorough text about.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are being somewhat paranoid,
Sorry, TVoT, but it's not really paranoid, if I could care less, which is in fact the case.

I don't spend that much time thinking about you SoB. I got the idea of the thread out of the blue, and I'm not the only one who has talked about things along these lines.

In my thread: "How to write of the virtual experiences inherent to the web?", Skip, for instance, writes "I don't know about other threads you start (I'll go look for one to answer in a minute) but this one:
Because it's self-contained; no place for input." when I inquired as to why no replies but 500+ view-counts.

While I didn't think my thread was anywhere near self-contained, the point is that it pretty much points in the same direction of open-ended arguments, which was something I made a long more detailed and thorough text about.

[surreptitious57]

I left this forum because of the dearth of people who can actually do philosophy

As you are probably better at philosophy than any one here due to having actually studied it then do you not think it better if you
remain rather than leave again. Of course you have free choice in the matter but if you stay and educate all the non philosophers
then that will benefit both them and the forum. I do not mean educate in any formal sense but simply by example. So please stay

Your claim that all the non philosophers here are just interested in their own ego is demonstrably false because I most definitely am
not. You should know that I welcome being wrong. Because this is when I learn the most. So I hope you stay and help to improve the
overall quality of the forum for it needs someone like you. Someone qualified in philosophy as opposed to a complete novice like me

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Let me make clear - EVERYONE is here just because they are interested in their own ego.

When it comes to philosophy, the alcoholic is just as valid as the academic...if not more so.







.

[Arising_uk]

.

When it comes to philosophy, the alcoholic is just as valid as the academic...if not more so. [/size]

.

Only if they are an alcoholic philosopher.

You appear to think Philosophy is some squishy term for some vague 'philosophy' of living(normally just a set of of platitudinous sentences). You think the alcoholic non-philosopher can add anything to the study of Logic, Philosophy of Language, Analytical Philosophy and Epistemology that the sober academic philosopher hasn't already said? If so you really need to read some actual Philosophy.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Get your head out of your ass & out of your books.


Philosophy, real philosophy is organic.


There is no clear evidence that the world's two most widely recognized philosophers, Socrates & Jesus Christ, ever read even one book.


Philosophy may begin with reading books however to actually practice philosophy, the intellectual function is regulated to just that - a function.


A function to be observed while actually practicing the function of self observation; philosophy.





.

[Arising_uk]

.
Get your head out of your ass & out of your books. ...

Get your lips off the bottle.

Philosophy, real philosophy is organic. ...

'real philosophy' is just the gnu talking.

There is no clear evidence that the world's two most widely recognized philosophers, Socrates & Jesus Christ, ever read even one book. ...

Well there's no clear evidence that Christ even existed but how do you know about these two, books!

Philosophy may begin with reading books ...

But it doesn't begin with reading books, it comes from being inquisitive, having questions and wanting and finding answers, sometimes that leads one to think that it might be a good idea to read what others have said about the subject one is considering as whilst one's own answers are original to one's self it's unlikely that they are unique and reading others answers and the critiques is a good way of refining one's ideas, not that you're much interested in such philosophy.

however to actually practice philosophy, the intellectual function is regulated to just that - a function.

A function to be observed while actually practicing the function of self observation; philosophy..

I know you think you're saying something here but you're really not as what function is doing the observing? The intellectual one. However you appear to be interested in psychoanalysis so if you want I can give you some practical and efficient methods from NC NLP if you actually wish to discover yourself, i.e. what you want and how to try and achieve it.

Can you provide me with any from your 'real philosophy'? Other than getting pissed, taking drugs or working oneself into a state of physical stress that is.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




I bristle when you bring-up Neuro-linguistic Programming !


You've heard of fake news...well, NLP is fake psychology.


Thought I taught you better than this?

From Wikipedia:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States in the 1970s.

NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically, but continues to be marketed by some hypnotherapists and by some companies that organize seminars and workshops on management training for businesses.


NLP's creators claim there is a connection between neurological processes (neuro-), language (linguistic) and behavioral patterns learned through experience (programming), and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life.

Bandler and Grinder also claim that NLP methodology can "model" the skills of exceptional people, allowing anyone to acquire those skills.

They claim as well that, often in a single session, NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, tic disorders, psychosomatic illnesses, near-sightedness, allergy, common cold, and learning disorders.


There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts.

Scientific reviews state that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of how the brain works that are inconsistent with current neurological theory and contain numerous factual errors.

Reviews also found that all of the supportive research on NLP contained significant methodological flaws and that there were three times as many studies of a much higher quality that failed to reproduce the "extraordinary claims" made by Bandler, Grinder, and other NLP practitioners.

Even so, NLP has been adopted by some hypnotherapists and also by companies that run seminars marketed as leadership training to businesses and government agencies.




Hey look,...I'm not making an accusation against you. I think you have some fine qualities.

And I think you would agree, I've always been beyond more than courteous towards you.


It's just that this Neuro-linguistic Programming does not fit into your profile.

I know this may sound weird but is there some sort of sexual association that may have occurred when you were young, impressionable, and initially exposed to Neuro-linguistic Programming?



...I mean, just re-read the wikipedia quote above. Somebody have to hit you over the head?


Those aren't my words above...


NLP is a scam. Plain. And. Simple.



You're like a kid who is in-love with a bad hombre.

Everybody can see it but you. Sad.



Good luck!





.

[Arising_uk]

.
I bristle when you bring-up Neuro-linguistic Programming !

Of course you do as it'd mean you having to change.

You've heard of fake news...well, NLP is fake psychology. ...

Funny that as in the main its just techniques from psychotherapy and arose from two people studying the subject, a mathematician and a linguist.

Thought I taught you better than this?

You have nothing to teach me.

From Wikipedia: ...

Funny how those who presumably wrote the wiki entry then went on to introduce CBT into their practices.

Hey look,...I'm not making an accusation against you. I think you have some fine qualities.

And I think you would agree, I've always been beyond more than courteous towards you.

Hmm... videos of dog-fucking, chicken-fucking, in fact lots of butt-fucking doesn't seem very courteous but whatever floats your boat.

It's just that this Neuro-linguistic Programming does not fit into your profile. ...

Of course it does, as I'm interested in mental-techniques that work and think gnus hate this stuff exactly because of that.

I know this may sound weird but is there some sort of sexual association that may have occurred when you were young, impressionable, and initially exposed to Neuro-linguistic Programming? ...

Seek help.

...I mean, just re-read the wikipedia quote above. Somebody have to hit you over the head?

All of that stuff is pretty irrelevant as NLP has never claimed to be a science, at worst it's a grab-bag of techniques from psychoanalysis that appear to work for certain conditions, it's also a model of communication that has proved very useful if one wants to achieve some outcome and it has a nice epistemology and pedagogy if one wants to learn something, all things I'm sure you'd hate.

Those aren't my words above...

They pretty much never are. Can you even understand the irony of you using wiki when you proclaim that reading books is not philosophical?

NLP is a scam. Plain. And. Simple.

A gnu would know I suppose and I agree best not go into it unless you find a reputable course as there are a lot of NLP wannabes. However, I took a long-time deciding to hand-over my hard earned cash for a course as over my life I've had a lot of experience with the gnus of this world(you as a case in point) and can smell proper bullshit a mile away. NLP is honest' bullshit' with pretty much no external agenda other than 'try it and judge for yourself'. Think of it as a modern Dianetics without the religion, the feeling of faith without 'God', the Fourth Way with working techniques, etc.

You're like a kid who is in-love with a bad hombre. ...

Nope, I'm like an adult who tries something before judging.

Everybody can see it but you. Sad.

You really need to stop thinking you're talking for others.

Good luck! [/size].

Who needs it? You make your own.
p.s. About the phobias,
Snake phobia cure pt1
Snake phobia cure pt2

[Greta]

Usually when I try to engage in open ended arguments someone will say "what's your point?"

I explain that there is no "point", just that I am trying to brainstorm - to bounce ideas around and see what pops up. Most aren't interested because they have a fixed agenda. So it goes.

[Harbal]

I want to see someone state one premise:

Premise: You are a complete arse hole.

explain it

Your behaviour is entirely consistent with that of an arse hole.

and defend it

I would reason that someone who consistently behaves like an arse probably is an arse. You have behaved like an arse to such an extent that you have left very little, if any, room for doubt.

Let the carping and ad hominem s begin!

You may say this is "ad hominem", to which my response would be: you are too obnoxious to qualify as a hominem.