I pursue these polemical arguments with idiots because it's in my nature; logic plays no role in why I do so.
We engage in this activity because we enjoy the expression of our nature, not in what the activity might accomplish beyond that expression. Fair enough?
We have evidence of our enjoyment, our ongoing engagement in this activity. Thus, if our goal is enjoyment, this activity can said to be a rational act.
Do we have evidence of accomplishing much beyond our personal enjoyment? My best guess, open to discussion, not really. Thus, if our goal is something we have no real reason to believe we can accomplish, this activity can be said to be an irrational act.
That work for you?
I will now assert that much of the personal confrontation stuff arises from a compelling illusion that because the topics are big, something important is on the line, when most likely this isn't true.
Whatcha think about that? Care to debunk?
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.
Right, you keep making this point, over and over and over in a variety of ways. Thus, it seems reasonable for us to assume this claim is important to you.
That's pretty much a given, given the evidence, but it's not my concern to make that known.
Then why do you keep making it known?
Well, my ranking is uninteresting. Less interesting is the motivation for such a claim. But I realize this is what intrigues you.
I assert that you find your ranking very interesting, as do most of the rest of us, and this is what's motivating many or most of our postings.
Please, wait, hang on just a second before you reply. Please recall, we have the evidence of your and our numerous posts to reference. Our actions are already documented in some detail, which is annoying, as it makes glamorous theories less easy to concoct. DRATS!
Boring. I don't care why you say the things you say.
You don't care why you say the things YOU say too?
Trying to determine someone's motivation sounds like a difficult project.
Yes, agreed there. There's thinking involved and all that inconvenient stuff. But, you're brilliant, so I thought you'd be able to hack it.
I don't think a search into people's souls via what the say or write is a particularly rigorous way to determine what motivates them to say what they say.
What would be?
I suggest we forget about "them" for a bit, a subject we're less qualified on than our own behavior and motivations. We can't look in to other people's brains, but we can look in to ours.
What do I care why artisticsolution thinks her ethical theory is good, or why chaz wyman agrees with her.
Well, if they are wrong, they are wrong for a reason. If we don't understand that reason, it seems we'll be doomed to keep on ranting forever, to no effect. Doesn't sound like a project a brilliant person of reason would find sensible.
Unless of course, we just like yelling at folks for the sake of yelling, in which case, why not be honest, and leave philosophy out of it.
Let's try it. You suck fiveredapples!!! You pathetic baby moron, you suck!!!
Ok, your turn.
Call it philosophy if you want, but I'm not interested in the slightest.
Ok, you're not interested because you feel all your typing still has some point even if you don't know why you're typing it, or why the person you are typing to is thinking and saying what they are thinking and saying.
So, the plan is to run through the forum with blinders on, yelling insults at anybody within earshot. This is called brilliant philosophy.
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.
Ok, more rigorous, agreed. You've put a theory on the table. We don't have to agree or disagree just yet, let's keep exploring.
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?
A deeper analysis of the person, maybe.
Let's forget this or that individual specific person, and how we compare to them etc, and talk about the bigger things that affect all of us.
You're on the surface, this assertion vs. that assertion. That's no place for a brilliant person like yourself, as everybody and their brother plays that game. Right?
I'm suggesting we study philosophy itself. We could start simple, by asking, what's philosophy made of?
You know, if philosophy was an object we found on the ground, we'd investigate what it was made of, as the qualities of whatever it was made of would tell us things about the object.