Philosophy Now Forum

Laugh while you still can, it'll be nice to see you banished from a place you don't belong in.

"You're a fucking moron." This is the full extent of your 'Maturity' and 'Philosophy' isn't it, Turban Terrorist?


You don't have the brainpower to continue.

This is killing me!!
You will have to REALLY REALLY WANT IT to get rid of me.
Let's see how your "Imagination to being" idea will work.
GO on here is a great opportunity for you to prove your thesis that all you have to do to achieve what you want is to really have to want it.

Well clearly you want to be a person that can contribute to this Forum with out me. All you need to do is to want it.

I should just trust my 'inuition' when it tells me something and be done with it.

Izekil, dude, one of the things about communicating is that it should be undertaken with at least a small intent for other people to understand what you are saying.

The main problem I see in you proposal is that your 'wit' is overtaking your intent to communicate. Your 'wit' sees a truth and the route to express it, but the evidence that seems to elude you because of your self-righteous 'wit' is that the route you have chosen is not understood.

this means one of two things:
either you are completely wrong, or
you are not using terms that people can understand.

I think you may have taken alot of LSD, hashish or any number of other hallucinagetics, because you have not come back into reality enough to see that you are not achieving what you propose - you are indeed creating your reality, but in such a way that you are alone in it. Of course you are arguing "a critique against human nature" because you have come upon a fact of human existence and consciousness that 'becomes amazed in itself' and 'establishes its own reality', become enthralled in this 'world' such that it is difficult to get out, so you create for yourself a space that is 'not human' and or by your twisting of meaning, 'better than human' or at least 'un-human nature'. In as much as you make your porposition you are that much being that human nature you point at and decry.

One way out is to attempt to view one proposal of your own as if it might be wrong or not be real, and test it by offering it to another person, and then listening to what they have to say.

This latter i address here:

your terms are too vague and argue in a circle - which might be instructive but the cirularity leads nowhere, it leads to other definitions that you arbitrarily put out there, none of which has any 'ground' where the reader can get on board.
You are spinning in a world of your own making and thus argue about how you can make your own world. But this world none of us understand because, it seems, you dont want any one to understand, and you would rather sit in your priviledged space and laugh at how noone understands you -- but in a way that makes you superior, as if you have something to teach us.

And this is exactly what i have described in the "I am You" thread, i you wish to read a description of what you are doing in your essay and subequent argument.

Am I the Administrator and Representative of this Philosophy forum? No. Well, maybe, depending on how you look at it.

But either way, your stupidity must answer to Force if not Reason. And you clearly dislike Reason, you "fucking moron".

So it depends on whether the Administrator, and the Representative of Philosophy here on this forum, wants it. And if I were Him, then I would want my philosophy website to focus around Critique, Inquiry, Argumentation, Discovery, Debate, and these types of topics, rather than personal insults, degradation, morons, slander, filth, scum, etc. It is clear that High intellect must become chosen over Low, inferior intellect. And so, as Administrator of this Philosophy Forum, one must deduce what is High and Low in intellect, include the former, and exile the latter.

It is about Judgment concerning subjects.


Your presence only exists to pull this thread off-course, because you are a troll who misunderstands basic sentences & statements. And you're a terrorist, by looks of your Avatar. So I guess you're some islamic fundamentalist, probably, invading England. You're too common, and trying to "think" here with your philosophy.

Rather you should just listen, and fully comprehend what is becoming said and stated, rather than insult with your "fucking moronic" attitude.

I want you to continue laughing, as your true desires become exposed.


You really have not discounted anything I've said, without first fully understanding what I've said.

What is a "true want"? You don't even know, or have even thought about it. You believe Transvestites and Transsexuals truly want to become female or women??? Then you've missed the point entirely!!! Hahahahahahaaaaa.

Hume as an turbaned terrorist, well may just be.

I think so, AUK....

You have great patience.
I find it harder to suffer fools so gladly.
WHilst I admit that Ikezal might have something he is trying to say, his last offering was so garbled and confused one has to conclude at some point that this is a reflection of what is going on upstairs. His grand second critique did not seem to know whether is was about criticising terms, or people. It had nothing to support his thoroughly misunderstood terms, as if his use of them was little more than an attempt to give the text some authority which he seems not to possess.
"Second Critique" sounds so grand. But what is is: " women and children are nicer than men."
And this thing about man is limitless - he can be anything he truly wishes to be. It is asinine.

Ike wouldn't know Hume if Hume farted in his face!

Did anyone see "The Princess Bride" ? It was a movie from the late 80's. The antagonist short bald guy in the game of wits with the poison. I wish I cuold quote it. So much last comment.

Its amazing what you can get on the Internet.

http://sfy.ru/?script=princess_bride

I presume you mean the character Vizzini played by Wallace Shawn. But I don't remember the film.

What is most funny about the above comment is that Ike is ranting at me for believing a thing about Trannies - even though I have never mentioned Trannies in any context.

This is most curious - and I think a psychologist would have a field day with Ike. Trannies are actually an example of men who do indeed want to be women, and are the closest any man can EVER come to becoming a woman.
Of the three examples I quizzed Ike on concerning his theory of "imagining, wanting then becoming".- the other 'becoming a cuboid planet", and the other being "immortal" - it is the man becoming a woman that most support the view that you can be anything you want to be. But Ike refused to allow this!! This is beyond bizarre!

I really think Ike is struggling to keep up with his own ideas.

Categorization, an act of Discrimination/Judgment, separates & divides all that is.

Whether you believe it or not, you have a definition of Man/Him in your own mind. My job here is to use an ice cream scoop, open your cranium, and scoop that definition out of you, if you will not freely hand it over to Me. I want your definition. I truly want your definition. I offer you my own. And I expect an exchange here, even if it is in your own favor. What else is Philosophy than this?

We are the "Dream Traders". And I want to bargain for some dreams, here.



The individual is the position. Because the individual has a location in space and time that may not reflect other types (categories) of objects.

This is the Reason-Why man is that "Magnificent Beast" of the OP. Because Man...He is Transcendental within time and space.



Knowledge is comprehension, and realization, of ones own Dream-State.

Knowledge is the Reason-Why behind any Dream-State, whether your own or of any other living thing.

One could ask: Why do people dream? in the same way: Why does life-itself dream?

This thread isn't about my personal happiness. It's about Man, and Human Nature.

Perhaps your Narcissism, and attempt to skew the conversation toward yourself, indicates your own Neediness in terms of "Happiness".

Happiness is a frivolous emotion, one better spent on women and children. Man, in many senses, is not allowed to be/come "Happy" because this is a childish, emotive state. Man must shed Himself of all emotion except one: Passion, with respect to Fear/Death. That is all emotions affordable to (Pure/Post) Man.

Emotions are signs of intellectual inferiority.

Intuition and Reason are opposing, logical analyses, used to Deconstruct phenomena.

You could use some more Reason, indicated by your limited responses thus far.



I'm trying to simplify things here! It's not easy to simplify, sometimes.



I accept all possibilities in this regard. I am Responsible for these Possibilities.



How do you figure this? I merely define these terms in such a way, with an explicit goal in mind...to Critique Human Nature (humanism).



I see it more that others conceive the world this way, than I do. My own, personal, subjective terms are not as limiting as those proposed by the masses, of common-blooded, commoners. Do you really see yourself as one of them, the "mere commoners"? No, of course not. Your ego revels in the prospect of these such propositions as I've laid them out...especially designed to do so for that reason!

The enticement exists...because of Man!

It is because, Man can Become! Man is Becoming! In the same way a child develops into 'Man' (from boy) or 'Woman' (from girl), through Maturation, Man becomes something else through the Transcendent propositions of His own, creative logic, and creative principles (of the imagination)!



I do this....

Man may not be 'Good'. Man may not be 'Evil'.

I went further, already... to solve this problem (of Morality), I've posited further: Man may become Good or Evil, as an attempt to fulfill an ideal, of social, cultural, and religious proscriptions. It is not enough to stop at the Commoner's ability to reason. This is why Philosophy is so important, here, and always.



We must put things into the Perspective of one Ego compared to another, Me to You and You to Me.

Where can we 'disagree' on anything here, any sentence or statement, except via the Prepositions, and Logic?

Consider where we Agree or Disagree, to start.


If you (and Cheeeeeze) fail to disagree with me, then what is left to say? Nothing, but the Critique must continue!

But you see, it's clear. "Trannies" do not want to "truly become" women, otherwise what would stop their Becoming except ***you*** Cheeeze?

I'm not the one stopping Trannies from becoming women/females, Cheeze, YOU ARE!!! You are the one limiting them, and putting *YOUR* impossibility on top of them, like a farmer puts the plow upon his Oxen. It is a type of mental slavery. YOU are propositioning your own impossibility, and lack of imagination.


ME? I'm not the one limiting 'Trannies' to say what they can or cannot do, or should or should not Become!

I merely relate the essence of Becoming itself, and relate this to the innate, instinctive, "Natural State" of Mankind.

My critique is a rebellion against rebellion, and attempt to understand and identify the causes for the original rebellion (against Nature).

This is a Deconstruction of Man, as well as women and children, as well as nature, as well as human nature and "HUMANISM".