Philosophy Now Forum

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?



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.



Then why do you keep making it known?



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!



You don't care why you say the things YOU say too?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

I disagree.





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.

I think it's poppycock.

That's as good a guess as any, I suppose.

I respond that you're wrong.

If you're talking about the so-called reasons beyond the reasons in my arguments?--No. Maybe I'm just a brute, though.

My brilliance doesn't apply to pop psychology. I leave that to you.

There's no 'if' about it; they're wrong. I understand perfectly why they're wrong: their reasoning is poor.

I know why I'm typing: it's in my nature to respond to such questions and comments. Besides, my cosmic wisdom might help someone see things clearly oneday. I presume you say the things you do because you believe you have compelling reasons for the things you say. Those reasons are interesting. You are not.

No, you're suggesting we study people. You want to know what makes them tick, what motivates them to do philosophy and adopt this or that philosophical position. My response is that you'll likely end up discovering that people who share the same philosphical position will be motivated for different reasons. That's if it's possible for such a diagnosis to be successful. How is that supposed to go?--"My babysitter molested me when I was young, so I think determinism is true." Huh? Even if that were correct, it wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting as: "Is determinism true?"

I leave you to delve into people's sordid psyches. I'll stick to PHILOSOPHY.

You aren't interested in philosophy.

You're interested in making the case, mostly to yourself, that you're smarter than whoever you're talking to.

I offer you this evidence.

It's all you ever talk about.

Documented in print all over the forum, for readers to see for themselves.

So that's what you've been up to this whole time--trying to get me to lend credibility to your psycho-babble nonsense? Oh well, guess that didn't work out as you hoped.

I've responded how many times now to objections to my theory? From this evidence you somehow concluded that I'm not interested in philosophy. Mind you, you could have said that I'm not just interested in philosophy, but also the other nonsense you're claiming. Do you think that 'being interested in making the case that I'm smarter than everyone else' and 'being interested in philosophy' are incompatible properties? You have no evidence for your claim that I'm not interested in philosophy.

Behaviorists are laughing at you right now, the way we laugh at behaviorists. Ah ha ha!

You insist on saying things without understanding why you're saying them, and hope to sell this willful ignorance to us as brilliant philosophy. I'm doing the same thing you're doing, debunking an assertion.



Ok, you might be right, I agree. So please proceed to debunk my assertion. Prove me wrong. Let's see you go a month talking philosophy here, with all the competitive ego posturing removed.

Until proven otherwise, my assertion remains that you will quickly lose interest in philosophy if the competitive ego posturing is removed.

My sub assertion is that you will duck this challenge with a bunch of fancy footwork rationalizations. You can prove me wrong on that too if you wish.

You're in the driver's seat my man. If you want to prove me wrong on both counts, here's your shot. Are you intellectually interested enough to type without your emotional ego being in the spotlight? Let's find out.

It's put up or shut up time my friend. Accept the challenge, or grab yourself a seat in the "Just Another Poser" row.

Oh! That's right, you haven't spent the last four out of five lengthy posts trying to convince me that seeking people's motivation is actually philosophy and not the sophistry I say it is. My mistake.

Not 'might be', I am right. You agree that I am right, not that I might be right. You have no evidence for the claim that I'm not interested in philosophy.

What exactly is your assertion?--that (1) I'm only interested in ego-stroking?--or, that (2) I can't do philosophy without also ego-stroking?--or, that (3) I will stop doing philosophy altogether and begin to ego-stroke?

It looks like you're saying the same thing again--that I can't do both at the same time. But why would anyone think it's impossible to do philosophy and stroke one's ego at the same time? If anything, doing philosophy is how I stoke my ego: because my brilliant arguments are ocassion to stroke my ego. So, I reject your premise that it's not possible to do both at once, on the grounds that it's empirically false. What you should be challening me to do is to only do philosophy without the ego-stroking.

Who does this silliness work on? So if I don't take you up on your challenge, you somehow think my reasons are to be characterized as 'fancy footwork rationalizations'? Have you heard the term 'poisoning the well' before? Look it up.

No thanks, buddy. Draw whatever magical inferences you wish. They mean nothing.

I don't appreciate the false dilemma, so on principle alone I must reject your challenge. I mean, really, you lack tact.

Of course, I thought we agreed we both lack tact, and that's the way we like it?

Upon principle alone you reject the challenge, what crap.

You reject the challenge because you know you can't meet it, and aren't honest enough to admit it.

I repeat the challenge, and will join you in undertaking it. If you do it, I will too.

A month of excellent manners, to prove we both can do it, and that we have an interest in philosophy that extends beyond our ego agendas. Or to illustrate that we can't, and won't, whichever turns out to be true.

We can be leaders, and start a thread which invites others to join us in our 30 day challenge. If they don't join us, and we succeed, we can call them pathetic little weiner dogs when our 30 days are up. Think what fun that'll be!

Or we can be dishonest cowards, and stick with the same old comfortable ego driven posting routine that is common, common, common, and boring, boring, boring.

C'mon Mr. Brilliant, where are your balls?

Haven't you suggested that before?

It does sound familiar.

Want to jump on board and join the challenge? Not that it will be all that challenging for you, just a light workout, but it might be an experiment that would interest you.

A forum about ideas that is relentlessly polite, if only for a month. Is it possible? Will we have to repeal the laws of physics? Will we become famous? Isn't the suspense just killing you???

Here's something I've thought about recently. I have a number of friends who hold very very different political and philosophical views to me (they may not characterise them as political and philosophical views because they don't believe they're in the business of considering politics and philosophy on a day-to-day basis but they are - some of my friends do consider themselves to be doing this though) and I can get along with them perfectly happily. We share a beer, we have a debate, sometimes it gets heated, occasionally someone accepts someone else's point of view, then we get another beer in and the conversation centres on disagreements around football (soccer to you Americans) or something similar. There are no punch-ups and no one hates anyone else.

This is a different environment though. We only know each other through what we write and there's some presumption of antagonism because there would be no debate without it. I believe the antagonism without the personal interaction means we're much more likely to take highly exaggerated stances towards each other and for that reason no one should take anything said here (or elsewhere on the internet) too personally.

Actually, it's not crap; it's the truth. I mean, look at the crap you're flinging...

What a bad faith challenge you offer, where if I decline then it's because I know I can't meet i and aren't honest enough to admit it. What horseshit psycho-babble. Is there really no other reason why I might decline?--You know, like the reason I stated? Oh no, that can't be it, because you can look into people's souls and determine their true motivation! Like I said, seeking people's motivations is a ploy of the inept. I'm offended you even tried this on me.

Oh my, you're offended. I thought we who aren't concerned about our rank are above such things, ey?

Like I said, you're a chicken, hiding behind a bunch of bluster.

You're declining because your interest in philosophy would go POOF! if it didn't involve phrases like horseshit psycho-babble etc. You know it, I know it, everybody reading this knows it. The only question is, are you honest enough to say it out loud.

Appears not. Oh well, no big deal, we can always use one more mediocre ordinary garden variety immature rantster I guess. And now I'm free to remain one myself. Phew!

I turn you back over to Chaz...

You see, this is a sober position. John could have followed up his little story with an invitation to do philosophy here as he does with his friends. That is something I would consider. But to state a challenge in such a way where if I don't accept it means I'm a afraid and dishonest is beyond self-defeating.

Typist, you really did yourself a big disservice here. How are you any different from artisticsolution and chaz wyman? You think I want to debate anything with you now? No thanks, man. I'm not really into writing lengthy post after lengthy post only to meet with an ad hominem. I give reasons for why I say the things I say, and these reasons are all I need to give. But reasons mean nothing to you, because you've got this magical ability to determine people's motivations for saying what they say, which of course, somehow, trumps the reasons stated -- even when they're perfectly good reasons. Your invitation has zero appeal.

Yes.



Well, you only know your offline friends through what they say too, eh?



I agree the antagonism is completely normal, but that's what makes it boring too. What's more ordinary than a food fight on a forum?



Sensible as usual.

Speaking of taking it personally, I find it fascinating how quickly we take personal ownership of anonymous identities like "Snoopydog27".

It interests me because all the usual real world stakes are removed, and there's nothing left but identity and ego for identity and ego's sake.

To me, a key point is that thought is inherently divisive.

Thus, our identities, which are made of thought, immediately divide "me" from everything and everybody else. Philosophy is made of thought too, so the focus most often is "this idea vs. that idea". These two things come to together in a place like this.

It seems very philosophical to me to investigate the thing both we and philosophy are made of.

So now you are the person who likes sober positions???



John, call his bluff please.



Ok, I don't disagree, but this is EXACTLY what you routinely do all over the forum. So please label your own behavior self defeating, and then we'll be on the same team together.



I'm not. Oh my, that was easy.



Who cares fiveapple man? First you proudly proclaim rudeness as your flag, and then you go all weak in the knees when the very thing you wish to do is mirrored back to you. Oh, and this is called brilliant reason. I would ask you, how are you any different than any of the rest of us. Not seeing it here.



Ha, ha! So now you're not in to ad hominems???