Philosophy Now Forum

Whatever I am, I will never attack you with this kind of pathetic sophistry you're peddling. Really, a false dilemma is what you hit me with? What a joke.
I'll repeat my mantra for you: Liberals qua Liberals are evil idiots. Similarly: A person qua a murderer is evil. Why are you guys hell bent on that gotcha moment? I don't do sloppy thinking, poor reasoning, or sophistry. Let that sink in for once.

I'm claiming Liberals are incapable of recognizing when their beliefs have been undermined.

No, I don't hate anyone who disagrees with me. In fact, I am grateful when someone shows me how I've erred. I seldom budge because I seldom have to. If I think I have a strong argument, chances are that it's a strong argument, so it's no wonder nobody can force me to budge. Could I be wrong? Of course. Has anyone said anything to suggest I am? No.

Just because someone is a Conservative doesn't mean he's intelligent or has arguments for his beliefs. I don't care who thinks my argument isn't compelling, be him Conservative or Liberal. What matters are the reasons for or against my view. People can come to a philosophial impasse, where both arguments offered are, more or less, equally strong. That's an honest disagreement, and both parties are entitled to their opinions. But when one side has a strong argument and the other doesn't, then only one is entitled to his opinion. I offer my waterboarding KSM view against all, not just Liberals.

What can you really do? We're just witnessing the natural destruction of a republic. People become more and more decadent to where finally the society crumbles and ceases to be great. America is in her last throes of greatness. Four more years of Obama, of the Liberal agenda, will destroy this nation. America will no longer be the America thousands of men and women died to defend. We who respect the US Constitution know its enemies when we hear them. Obama is such an enemy. Liberals, in their sheepishness, are its enemy. We are at war idealogically with Liberals. They have obliterated Conservatives on the battlefront. They own Hollywood, the media, the schools, social programs, and the unions. They have been fighting dirty for years and Conservatives let them. The Republican party is also corrupt, but they are the only vessel which Conservatives can even hope to use to defeat the Democrats. Conservatives should champion their ideas and beliefs, because they are the better ideas and beliefs. But we have to do them justice. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant, the saying goes, and that's my small part: I defend views which Liberals are vehemently sure are wrong, and I defend them so well that I expose Liberals for the morons and promoters of evil that they are.

So, despite your false dilemma, I'm doing my part. I joined the Marine Corps at 18 years of age. What have you done for your country?

I don't think Wittgenstein made a point of being impolite. His whole life was like that of a chess master trapped in a room of chess amateurs who insisted their analyses were correct. He had no patience for people's slovenly and immature thinking, because he - like almost no one else in human history -- knew what 'thinking' entailed.

This is a common phenomenon in the world of philosophy. People who would get a B+ on philosophy papers tended to have a basic understanding of the topic and lectures; they put some work and thought into what they wrote. People who got an A- would have a fairly decent understanding of the topic and lectures, and more effort and philosophic ability came through in their work. People who got A's put a lot more work into their papers than did those who got A-'s, and their understanding was significantly clearer. Only these people, the ones who would get A's, ever even got a glimpse of the kind of hard work and ability required do philosophy well.

When Russell said, "Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so," I doubt even 1% of humankind would have any idea what he was talking about. You will all die before you think, believe me.

I asked you what you're doing to fight evil and malignant liberals and I wasn't aware that was a current objective of the US Marine Corp. I also made no claim that I was fighting anyone so it's hardly relevant what I've done is it.

Funny that you should quote someone who was considered a liberal a socialist and a pacifist when you think that all liberals and socialists are evil, malignant idiots. I can understand why you might quote someone who you considered evil but why would you quote someone you think is stupid?

It's um, er, uh, according to my fantasy definition, people who have achieved high levels of moronicness by hyper ventilating on their own oxygen rich bloviations. Or something...

Seriously....

We're all such BRILLIANT minds here, or so our (me included) fantasy goes. I'm just kinda of idly wondering, in an oxymoronic kind of way, when we become brilliant enough, honest enough, to drop the intellectual pretenses we're all hiding behind, and just come right out and do what we came here to do, call each other names.

So for now, I'm skipping the debate, getting straight to the real point, and calling all of you....

OXYMORONS!!!!

Another alternative, which might be more interesting, could be to be brilliant and brave enough to squarely face why we're doing what we're doing here, and discuss that.

Oops, sorry, too much reality.

We return now to our regularly scheduled food fight.

As you were, you oxymorons.

When I want therapy, I'll pay for it.

Internet forums, particularly philosophy internet forums, are notorious for name-calling. I don't want to know why any of us are 'really' here, nor why we say the things we say to each other. That's way too sober a discussion. I don't think we're reinventing the wheel, though, in getting heated and personal when it comes to political, religious, and ethical debates.

I think Liberals really do think of themselves as the good and enlightened, at least with respect to conservatives, which is why it's almost always a bit of a shock to them that I detest them so. The more honest and philosophically abled ones at least recognize my philosophic ability, and then they just shrug their shoulders at the venom I spew. For all my faults, I can recognize philosophic ability when I see it, no matter what your political persuasion.

I have an unapologetically frank way of stating things, often rudely so, so those that are less able to defend their opinions will always loathe me. Insults and carping are, really, their only options. So I attract such comments.

But the problem with this forum and all such forums -- I've only seen one short-lived exception -- is that you don't have enough philosophy people here. You need them and their opinions, because their opinions will carry weight. When I tell someone she doesn't know what she's talking about or that her reasoning is poor, she can just ignore me and attribute it to whatever pet-explanation she's fond of. I'm dumb. I'm full of it. I'm confused. I'm wrong. I'm overcompensating for my small penis. Etc. But if others who are recognized as philosophically able chimed in with similar criticism, then you can't just dismiss it. For the first time, usually, this is when she begins to earnestly consider the objection to her. This is the first time for the possibility of philosophical growth for such people. What's missing here are voices of authority. It's just a simple truth that some people are better thinkers, better trained at philosophy, and better judges of arguments than others. These people usually have some academic training to go with their, more or less, natural ability in philosophy.

Those who oppose authority or take the attitude that they're just as qualified as anyone else to determine which argument is stronger are typically the weakest thinkers. The very people who would benefit most are the least able to accept such authority, especially in an internet forum: they lack the constitution to accept that others might be better, much better even, than they at something as common as thinking.

I don't know if the last post was direct at Typist or myself but I'll chip in anyway.

I tend to think that its pretty easy for most of us with strong opinions, however we arrive at them, to think that we're better and more enlightened than those who hold opposing opinions. I'm relatively (and I do mean relatively) laid back about it now and ironically I think that's because I spent a good number of years getting my hands dirty with local politics and I began to realise that some of my so-called allies were barking mad and some of my so-called enemies actually had a reasonable point now and again. And this isn't supposed to be some "aren't I nice and reasonable now" claim, I just got tired of caricaturing my opponents and all that entailed. I find it consumes a lot of energy hating people so I prefer to reserve it for special occasions. I'll still call someone an idiot if I think they're an idiot mind you.

Anyway, and paraphrasing a classic film, charging a man with ranting in this place would be like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500.

Ok then, so we're on to water boarding each other with great enthusiasm! I'm not above it, so I'll play.



Nobody has offered you therapy. What's been suggested is a philosophical conversation that attempts to get to the bottom of why we're always water boarding each other. I'm not suggesting we change this behavior, just put it on the table honestly, and try to understand it.



Agreed. It's both the beauty and beast of the medium. Because of the anonymity, we're all free to do and say what we really want to do and say. It's not always pretty, but there's something about the realness that is appealing.



I say you're a big chicken!!



Agreed, this is very normal behavior.



Generally speaking, I agree with this. It's part of the liberal identity.



Yes, you're articulate, while spewing your venom, agreed.



That's roughly true of me as well.



Now we're moving towards the philosophic question. What does venom have to do with philosophy?

We both would like to see a broader range of ever more articulate people here. But why would such folks join the mud wrestling match? Wouldn't they have more interesting things to do? Again, I pose this question to myself as much as you.



Show us your small penis, and we'll judge for ourselves. Sorry, just couldn't resist that one.



PLEASE NOTE: I AM THE RULING APHILOSPHER GOD ON THIS LITTLE FORUM PLANET. EXCEPT FOR SOME OTHER POSTERS WHO GOT BORED WITH THE KINDERGARTEN AND BAILED OUT.



And it's just a simple truth that some of these folks with a knack for logic are immature emotionally and socially, because nobody's good at everything. Hey, let's have a contest to see who's the bigger nerd, you or me!

YOU SUCK YOU DIMWIT CHICKEN SHIT!!! Would you like to be friends?



Those, them, that person over there. Let's talk about everybody and anybody but me.

It was directed at anyone who got what I was saying. I can't really disagree with anything you said. I almost envy your laid-back-ness. And, sure, hating people is tiring and mostly unproductive, but I have tons of energy for it and it's a labor of love for me, so I haven't changed (despite my worldy wisdom).

The venom is an added bonus.

Philosophy people love to talk philosophy everywhere: on the bus, on a road trip, in the dorm, on the phone, through email, at a coffee shop, and on the internet - anywhere. I know no other major, except when you get to the very advanced levels of certain majors like math, physics, etc., in which the students leave the lecture and proceed to talk about it for the next three or four hours. This is common for freshmen all the way to ph.d. students. So, philosophy people will visit this forum with the desire to participate. The question is how do you keep them here? The answer is by having people who they can discuss things with at, more or less, their level. I mean, who goes to school for four, six, or ten years to acquire a certain skill level at something and then proceeds to spend many hours talking to confused tyros? There's little in it for such a person. Couple this with having to answer confused and arrogant comments, and, well, not many would stick around. That's not to say such people aren't willing to discuss things with newbies to philosophy. Philosophy people love to explain things, but it shouldn't be a freakin chore. Look at my little back-and-forth with artisticsolution. I explained almost everything that was wrong with her thinking, her arguments, at what benefit to myself? Philosophically, none. She is confused and I tried to explain this confusion to her. Yeah, I eventually insulted her, but aside from that, what did she get out of my explanations? Nothing. That's called tutoring an obstinate, almost hopeless, insulting, arrogant person for the awesome reward of her insults and wilfull ignorance. My time was well spent, huh?

This forum can only be good if it has (1) a small number of people who know what they're talking about, (2) less knowledgeable but genuinely willing to learn people, whether complete newbies or strong thinkers with minor experience in philosophy, (3) participation by the group 1 people not just with others in their group but with everyone, because this will give the less abled (notoriously the most sure of themselves) reason to reconsider what they're saying. This last part will help limit the number of arrogant and confused posts, which tend to ruin threads and dissuade people with ability from staying, as well as possibly benefit the more confused. A little less PC and a little more frankness. This encourages a little more intellectual humility, which goes a long way for the person and those he speaks to.

All of us would benefit with (rougly speaking) more experts here. Take Richard Baron, for example. If you want to learn something, have a discussion with him. He might not be right in what he believes, but he will at least give you arguments you have to take seriously. Philosophers aim for truth, but in reality what's more important is how you arrive at it, because if your reasoning isn't compelling, nobody should believe what you say. I could be wrong about my ethical claims, but, seriously, what has been said that undermines my position? Truth is the putative goal for everyone in philosophy, but strong reasoning is what we truly cherish, because it's the only respectable way to true beliefs.

But what's so interesting about me? I say a lot things, many of which people find offensive and flat-out wrong, but so what? People love to draw inferences about my character, psycological make-up, etc., but why do they do this? Why, when confronted with my arguments for my beliefs? My arguments are why I believe what I believe. No other motive or reason needs to be posited. I could understand these inferences, somewhat, if I gave bad reasons or no reasons for my beliefs, because then we might think that my reasons couldn't be why I believe what I believe. It must be something else, we might think, especially if someone explains to me why my reasoning is poor and yet I refuse to revamp my reasoning and belief. Then we'll think something else is the motivation for clinging to my belief, because it can't be my reasons. So, unless you're going to show where I err philosophically, what's the point of forming inferences about my character or guessing what motivates me to say what I say? This is typically just pure sophistry by people incapable of taking on my arguments. It's a sign of defeat, a desperate ploy by people ill-equipped to defend their opinions in the only acceptable way -- by arguing for them -- so they resort to whatever kind of objection against me they can manage. It's pathetic and transparently so.

So, you find it logical and a sign of clear thinking to invest tons of energy in an activity that is both tiring and unproductive? Is that what you're saying?

I ask this question of myself as well. I really don't hate anybody I'm arguing with. Truly I don't, though sometimes I do suffer from the embarrassing syndrome of premature exasperation.

But I do engage energetically and relentlessly in debates that I'm pretty sure are entirely pointless, except for the joy of typing. I really do enjoy typing, so I guess it's technically a logical action, but truly a nerdy one.



Added bonus for who? For the target? For you? For readers in general?



Ok, yes, I hear you, sounds right.



Ok, this makes sense. Which brings us to...

Is venom and mutual water boarding their level?



Who are you and I in this scenario? The "experts" or the "confused tyros"?



Ok, so you are receiving no benefit. So why are you doing it?



Ok, so she is receiving no benefit also. So why are you doing it?

Please understand, I'm not arguing you shouldn't do it, I'm asking you to investigate why you are doing it.



One solution I've suggested is a moderated forum, where the moderator sets some standard posters must reach to be published. But this is a wildly unpopular idea with both forum users and forum owners.



Not much if you're going to rant, insult and spew venom while declining to investigate why you're inclined towards those activities. If that's all you can put on the table, you're a very ordinary forum poster, who can be found in abundance on any ideology based forum anywhere on the net.



Yes, me too. I do the same. And the same question arises. So what?

One "so what" is that the more intelligent and articulate people we both claim to want are probably not all that interested in conflict for the sake of conflict, and will see that process as the mark of childish amateurs, which is probably accurate.

Another "so what" can be that we make our way to conversations like this. I feel it's a valid philosophical point to challenge readers to take responsibility for their own reading experience. If I'm a loud mouthed rude fat headed jerk, why is the offended reader making that their problem? In theory, I feel this line of inquiry could be quite valuable, but I doubt it actually works very often.

The reason it probably doesn't work is that it is grounded in reason, and the problem is an emotional one. Imho, this error of assuming reason can address issues like say, religion, that aren't fundamentally intellectual in nature, is a big logic error that afflicts most philosophy.



Personally, I don't feel your or my personal situation is too important, but the overall subject of why ideological conversations that are supposed to be about reason almost always are hijacked by emotion is a quite relevant topic for philosophers.



In other words, you'd prefer to keep hiding behind your intellect.

This is your right of course, but if you wish to do it in public, in a tone that challenges everyone around you, you may find your own process challenged as well. You know, that's how this kind of place works.

You know, given how much I've challenged other posters here, there's no way I can now claim to be a victim if somebody challenges me. I've put myself in the game, and now must play it bravely, or be a coward and run.



Ok, so you'd like to have many opinions and take many actions, but you're not interested in why you have these opinions and take these actions.



I agree that those who can't answer a post will often try to change the subject to the poster, in an attempt to regain control of the battlefield. That's a very common debate tactic.

I see it as the waving of the white flag of surrender. And usually I'm ruthless in not just accepting victory gracefully, and choose instead to shove the white flag down their throat.

I guess the question is....

What does that behavior of mine have to do with philosophy and reason?

Obviously I'm not saying this. It's simply my nature to unrelentingly challenge idiots. It's not my philosophical position that I should do this. I eat when I'm hungry, but that's not a logical decision. The fact that you walk away more often than I do from such confrontations doesn't make you more logical. Maybe wiser, but not more logical.

I suffer from this syndrome a lot more, is all, but I don't think it's all that embarrassing. Maybe it is, though.

I find joy in articulating things well. A blog could serve this purpose better if that's all I enjoyed, but helping others plays a role too. My posts can help non-participants, too. I'm a giver.

For me definitely and, more often than you might think, for third-party readers. Rarely for my target.

On a scale from confused tyro-to-expert, I'm closer to the expert side. You fall somewhere below me.

I'm receiving almost no philosophical benefit. Of course there's always the benefit derived from practicing your writing. Russell was an obscenely prolific writer, and he often touted the benefits of writing. But the price is too high to pay for too long, so I eventually take a hiatus. I come back because it's my nature to attack people's poor arguments. That they should also be arrogant twits is expected. I'm an arrogant twit but for a different reason.

I've thought of this too, but it's simply impractical (not enough moderators) and there's no incentive (they don't get paid). And, yes, it's always unpopular because the majority is constituted by exactly those that can't stand their opinions judged or questioned, so certainly not deemed and censored as unworthy.

Yeah, I wouldn't be interesting if that's all I brought to the table, but that's hardly all I bring. I have good arguments. The fact that I'm this social ape with obscene opinions isn't interesting, but given that my arguments are better than my human and sophisticated counterparts, well, I'm down-right fascinating.

Is this supposed to be negative criticism? Why we do this is an interesting question, but it's not one I'm interested in. I like philosophical topics. I offer philosophical arguments, which I augment with crass name-calling, which is a whole lot more than others offer here. People can question or challenge my behavior all they want. It's not a conversation I need to participate in, mainly because I feel no compunction to defend my behavior.

I'm here arguing that waterboarding KSM was morally permissible. I have other philosophical opinions which I like to defend. Let my character be whatever you say it is: I'm the crass inbred mongrel with strong arguments who you lovely, wise, well-mannered sophisticates cannot philosophically hold a candle to. Oh the shame I must live with.

So you're saying it's your nature to relentlessly engage in activities you yourself judge to be a waste of time? That is, your nature is illogical? Would that make you one of the idiots? I declare myself to be this flavor of idiot, as proven by my behavior here. Care to join me?



I'm not sure it's true I walk away more often. I've engaged in lots of endlessly long insult ridden arguments here on the forum, too many to claim the wise status you imply.

Again, I'm not trying to change our behavior, or competitively rank it. We are what we are, and it's not likely we'll change, because we don't want to, and perhaps couldn't if we did want to. I'm trying to understand our behavior, and discuss it honestly and insightfully if possible.





Ok, we both suffer from premature exasperation. We can skip whether it's embarrassing or not. The question is, why do we suffer from it?



Me too! Whether I've actually articulated something well or not, the effort is indeed joyful.



Ha, ha! Ok, whatever you say.

Yes, I can never keep a blog going myself. It's like playing tennis by yourself, a snooze. I need the interaction, the back and forth, and once I have it, I can type 4 billion words a day.



Ok, thanks for informing me of my rank.

You see, I suspect a big driver of all these conversations is as simple as what you just said. All of us saying to each other..

"You rank somewhere below me."

Example. You and I are having a decent conversation here, because I'm not trying to rank above you on this issue. If I was trying to rank above you, we'd be having a big shoot out. Thus, I reason the main issue is, who is ranked where? This is just the nearest example, which I propose applies to a great number (but not all) of threads on the forum.

So, I'm wondering, why are we so interested in rank, especially given this is an anonymous environment, where rank would seem to have no practical value (as it might in say, a work place).



Ok. Not me, I keep typing relentlessly until every last person clears out of the forum, and there's nobody left to preach to.



They are arrogant twits because they are stupid, and you are an arrogant twit because you're brilliant? Or?



Yes, these are real practical problems, agreed.

On the other hand, we could ask a webmaster this question. Which is an easier to way to build a site full of quality content? Doing it all yourself, or playing the role of editor for many other people's submissions?



You are honest, I like that.





Well, a bit of trolling, I must admit. Using you as a target wasn't really fair, as I suspect we're all doing it to one degree or another.



Imho, this is a philosophic topic. It's an attempt to understand where philosophy comes from, and why it expresses itself in the way it does.



Again, speaking for myself, I'm not asking you to defend. I'm asking us to understand. It's seems reasonable to question why we're doing what we're doing. It's the same process as asking why we believe what we believe.



Ok, I'll stand by while you finish doing the hero victim role dance, and then let's try to understand why we are crass inbred mongrel apes.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm NOT a Christian. I'm not asking us to be good little boys and girls. I'm a wanna be philosopher, asking us to understand, to reach for clarity and insight.

So, I suggest we call each other the best names we can come up, while understanding why we're doing that, and calling it philosophy.

No, I'm saying it's in my nature to do so. It's like the old joke about the scorpion who stings the frog as the frog is giving it a ride on its back across the river. "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion, for surely now we'll both drown?" asks the frog. The scorpion replies, "Because it's in my nature." It's not that my nature is illogical, it's that logic has nothing to do with it.

Okay. And I'm saying I'm not interested in that discussion at the moment. You can draw inferences from that, but why would you?

I don't know. That sounds like a new thread.

Maybe. But, in this case, I was merely answering a question you asked.

You and I are having a decent conversation because you haven't come off like an a-hole. It's not my concern where I rank; I'm pretty pleased with my ability, so I have no problem accepting that others might be better. But the proof must be in the pudding; otherwise, it's just an empty claim or attitude to take -- and that I do have a problem with, especially if you're obnoxious about it.

I dunno -- vanity? This is an anonymous forum in that we don't know each other's names and faces, but we're still representing ourselves, so people can be shamed here.

Something like that. When someone is very good at something, we understand that this might go to his head. He might become arrogant. This explanation invokes his talent as a cause for his arrogance. But what the hell is the reason why the incompetent are arrogant, when they have no talent? The cause must be sought elsewhere; some psychological reason becomes a good candidate cause. To the former we might say: "Okay, you're good, but you don't have to be an a-hole about it." To the latter we might ask: "Why the hell are you so arrogant?" I think we know which group I think I belong to.

I won't quibble with you on this. Let's just say, then, that it's not a topic I'm interested in at the moment. Oh. I don't mind being the topic or target of your examples. My ego is impervious.

Ok, so if I make comments that you find to be idiotic, I can escape just by saying it's my nature to be idiotic, and your logic is irrelevant.



And I'm saying, who the hell cares what you're interested in?

After all, we've agreed we're both gonna do whatever we want to do no matter how other people feel about it. And what I want to do is push this issue, which is more real than any of your so called brilliant reason, in your face. And too bad if you don't like it, you silly moron and so forth etc etc.



Ah. So if we don't act like a-holes, we can have decent conversations. I'd better write that down.



Um, I don't believe you. Really, I don't.

Everything you're typing in all these threads seems to be about why you're brilliant and others are idiots. ie. you rank higher than them.

Please note, I'm not arguing the case of whether you do rank higher intellectually or not. I'm arguing it is your concern, as you seem to make the point rather repeatedly.

Which I propose is very common, most of us are doing it. There are a few exceptions, like say, Mike Strand comes to mind.



So being obnoxious is bad, unless it's us doing it.



Right, agreed. Vanity. Let's get in to that. We experience vanity, either as pride or shame. Why? Why are we promoting or defending anonymous imaginary identities like "Typist" or "fiveapples"?

I propose it's an important question, because it is the fuel driving the majority of postings.



Yes.



What the hell is the reason? The reason? Does reason have anything to do with it? Just asking, a question. One of my little pet themes, a bias we logic nerds have to assume everything is about logic.



Ok, some psychological reason. I can understand why some might say this is another topic than philosophy. But is it really, if it's driving most of our activity here?



Ah, excellent. So we've agreed what the other person (in this case you) wants is irrelevant, and then added the bonus that your ego is impervious. So I'm free to push you on this as hard as I wish. Neato!

It's not personal. You haven't insulted me enough yet for that. I guess you're just kinda lazy, not sure really.

Seriously. The point here is to take philosophy farther than we are currently. Imho, comparing this assertion to that assertion is the surface level of philosophy.

A deeper analysis might ask, what are all these assertions actually made of? What is their source? Where do they come from? Why? What is their nature?

I don't think you're appreciating my response. Suppose it's in your nature to be helpful. When one of your coworkers needs a ride home from the bar (say she's drunk too much), you offer to give her a ride home. You do this with any coworker, male or female, attractive or not. Suppose then that a particular female coworker needs such a ride, so you offer to drive her home. Your friend might say, "That was very logical to offer her a ride. She will be grateful, think you're kind, and perhaps you'll be able to date her." Your correct response would be that logic might seem to be playing a role here, but it isn't: it's just your nature to be helpful and you would have offered the ride to her even if you weren't attracted to her.

I pursue these polemical arguments with idiots because it's in my nature; logic plays no role in why I do so. This explanation doesn't work with comments or claims. If you claim something, then we can judge whether your reasons for making it are logical or illogical. If you say, I have no reasons, then you're irrational, which is worse than illogical.

No, everything I type is proof that I'm brilliant; similarly, what others type is proof that they're idiots. I do rank higher than them. That's pretty much a given, given the evidence, but it's not my concern to make that known. Just like the Sun doesn't try to prove it's more brilliant than anything else.

Well, my ranking is uninteresting. Less interesting is the motivation for such a claim. But I realize this is what intrigues you.

Being obnoxious is usually bad, but I only implied that it'll entice me to attack someone. But I can, also, just pass him by.

Boring. I don't care why you say the things you say. Trying to determine someone's motivation sounds like a difficult project. I don't think a search into people's souls via what they say or write is a particularly rigorous way to determine what motivates them to say what they say. What do I care why artisticsolution thinks her ethical theory is good, or why chaz wyman agrees with her. Those two clown shoes could have vastly different motivations for saying what they say. It's hard enough to tackle propositions, I'm not worried about the psychological source of such folderol. Call it philosophy if you want, but I'm not interested in the slightest.

My guess would be they have some complex -- stupidity complex, for example -- that causes them to become arrogant despite having no intellectual justification for it. But, it would just be a guess, and I prefer to be a little more rigorous before I commit to believing something.

I disagree.

A deeper analysis of the person, maybe. The only way your project would be philosophical is if you were doing something like Nietzsche did for morality. But I've read enough Nietzsche already. The man was a genius, but it's not the kind of stuff that interests me anymore.