still the best philosopher

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Bow thine heads before the Advocate puny shitstains

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Advocate post_id=588439 time=1659799660 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=588438 time=1659798976 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588434 time=1659797114 user_id=15238]
>All worship Advocate he is the greatest that has been, the greatest that shall be, and the best in general.

Worship is too far. And i won't be the best forever.
[/quote]
Why won't you be the greatest of all time for all time?
[/quote]

Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherently), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
[/quote]
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Advocate will grind your bones to make his bread

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:27 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:16 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:45 pm >All worship Advocate he is the greatest that has been, the greatest that shall be, and the best in general.

Worship is too far. And i won't be the best forever.
Why won't you be the greatest of all time for all time?
Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherent), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
Such humility, so grounded.
But you are the one answering every question of philosophy all at once. So there's nothing left for anyone to do after you have finished that?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Advocate will grind your bones to make his bread

Post by Advocate »

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=588442 time=1659799861 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588439 time=1659799660 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=588438 time=1659798976 user_id=11800]

Why won't you be the greatest of all time for all time?
[/quote]

Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherent), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
[/quote]
Such humility, so grounded.
But you are the one answering every question of philosophy all at once. So there's nothing left for anyone to do after you have finished that?
[/quote]

Humility had nothing to do with it. As far as grounding, that's a falsifiable claim and no one will ever disprove my points, because The Truth cannot be disproven. I'm firmly grounded in reality, both in reality-to-me/phenomenologically, and in Reality as consensus experience, especially scientific consensus.

All the answers can be found by logical extension of the core truths. There's plenty of work left to be done. The ultimate end of philosophy is Spiritual Geometry - the taxonomy of explicit relationships between all ideas. Whatever Best is next must be an extension. There's nothing to correct but minor verbiage.
Last edited by Advocate on Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:21 am
Advocate wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:42 pm Did i miss anything in metaphysics? Let me know.
When you say, "still the best philosopher", who are you referring to exactly?
Dude, this guy says he's found "The Truth" ... he doesn't even know how many letters E theeeee truth should have.
You must give him theeeeee absolute kicking.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Fear the MIGHT of the ADVOCATE

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:37 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:31 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:27 pm Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherent), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
Such humility, so grounded.
But you are the one answering every question of philosophy all at once. So there's nothing left for anyone to do after you have finished that?
All the answers can be found by logical extension of the core truths. There's plenty of work left to be done. The ultimate end of philosophy is Spiritual Geometry - the taxonomy of explicit relationships between all ideas. Whatever Best is next must be an extension. There's nothing to correct but minor verbiage.
Oh. But then you can't be the best, because you aren't extending you are completely revolutionising.

Sucks man.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Only an idiot says 'GOAT' about anything.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by promethean75 »

I never said I was the greatest. Advocate said that. And even after I requested months ago that members put their posts about my greateness in the general philosophy forum.

wait this thread is about advocate? Oh shit my bad.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:47 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:41 pm 'Coherently' to who, exactly? (See, if you were really answering everything 'coherently', then your answers would be 'coherent', or more precisely, your words would be logical and consistent while forming a unified whole. Which they obviously are not.)

And,

What does the word 'metaphysics' even mean or refer to, to you, exactly? (See for me to be able to tell you what you have missed here, I need to know what you are referring to, exactly.)
They are obviously not that way to you because you have literally no idea what you're talking about. You've never undertaken to understand them in that respect At All, and especially not with the help of the author to understand any apparent discrepancies. In reality they are coherent.
Can you not recognize just how absurd it is to claim that I have never undertaken to understand your views when it is me who has been asking you questions, for clarification?

'you' are the author, and 'my' questions were posed to 'you'. So, it is OBVIOUSLY 'you', the author, who I am actually directing my questions to, for help to gain better clarity, of 'your' views.

It is like you can NOT see and recognize what is REALLY going on here.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:47 pm Metaphysics is a coherent set of answers to all of the deepest "what is the nature of?" questions. Of which i have provided about 30.
Now, 'you' providing 'us' with 'your' answers is going to achieve 'what', exactly?

And, your circular type of reasoning is sometimes referred to as a fallacy.

See, in one post you claimed that you are the person who can answer everything 'in metaphysics' coherently, but, now you claim that 'metaphysics' is a coherent set of answers to all of the deepest "what is the nature of?" questions.

The words 'in metaphysics' implies that you can answer everything IN some 'thing' called 'metaphysics', but now you say 'metaphysics' IS just a set of answers to, some questions. You can not accurately claim that 'metaphysics' is the answers themselves, while also claiming that you can answer everything IN 'metaphysics', which would be the answers themselves. So, just in this you are NOT be coherent AT ALL. And, to conflate this even further, your supposed answer to 'what is the nature of metaphysics?' is; all of the deepest "What is the nature of.." questions;

So, you have provided us with THREE different answers to the question; What is 'metaphysics'?

1. Metaphysics is; some 'thing' that you can answer every thing IN.

2. Metaphysics is; the coherent set of answers, themselves, to all of the so-called 'deepest', 'What is the nature of?' questions. And,

3. Metaphysics is; the deepest, 'What is the nature of ...?' questions, themselves.

So, to you, is 'metaphysics' the questions, or the answers, themselves? And, when you say, 'in metaphysics', then what are you referring to, exactly?

Oh, and by the way, when I look in just but one dictionary the definition for 'what metaphysics is?' is; the studying or dealing of 'the nature of some things', and thus is NOT the answers, nor the questions, themselves.

While "others" view 'metaphysics' as something different.

And this is not taking into consideration what the 'meta' - 'physics' words once meant or referred to, exactly, which was; 'meta', denoting some position behind, after, or beyond, or denoting some thing of a higher order, or outside of. Or, even referring to 'its' OWN Self. And, 'physics', referring to physical things, or just matter itself, which is just Nature, Itself, or just a 'natural thing'. (But then again absolutely EVERY 'thing' is, naturally, a 'natural thing' anyway, and which is just a part of Nature, Itself, obviously.)

So, one can take their pick here. Which one are you going to choose, and advocate for, here, "advocate"?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm How interesting to note that two different people have referenced coherence this morning without a single appeal to an accepted definition of coherence.
Do I have to put in writing the accepted definition of EVERY word I write and use here, for you?
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm If this doesn't prove my point about missing the point, what could?
I could ask you, What 'point' are you referring to here, exactly? but would you inform me? Or, would you just keep repeating that I am missing 'the point' you are making here?
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm Intellectual morons aren't capable of judging meaningful answers
'meaningful' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

You have not even informed us of what is the purpose of you providing us with your answers. What is the 'meaning' for you doing so? What do you envision, that you doing this will 'achieve', exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm and therefore are incapable of finding any and should feel bad about themselves, at least as philosophers if not thinkers in general.
What does the word 'philosopher' even mean, or refer to, to you, exactly?

Are you even AWARE that words, themselves, have DIFFERENT meanings, to DIFFERENT people?

If you were NOT, then you are NOW.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm Coherent
adjective
1. (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.
Well you just providing 'your' answers to some 'What is the nature of ...?' questions, besides being illogical and inconsistent, as I just showed above just in relation to the one word of 'metaphysics', which you have been using here, what you have provided so far are NOT 'arguments', 'theories', NOR 'policies'. What you have provided are just what you, individually, BELIEVE are the answers to some 'What is the nature of ....? questions.

Which, when NOT explained was the purpose for doing this, comes across as just being inherently, incoherent, itself.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm 2. united as or forming a whole.
If 'your' answers were meant to be uniting together to form some 'whole', then the 'whole' of 'what', EXACTLY?
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm con·sist·ent
adjective
1. acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate
Do you think or believe that 'you' re-repeating 'your' OWN answers, in the same way over time, makes what you say and claim 'consistent', itself?

And, besides 'you', who are 'your' OWN answers fair with, and accurate to, exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm 2. compatible or in agreement with something.

Yes, i can easily meet those criteria,
If you can easily meet this criteria, then WHEN are you going to do it.

So far you can NOT even get 'what is the meaning of the 'metaphysics' word?' 'consistent', let alone beginning to delve down deep into answering, 'What is the nature of 'metaphysics', itself?' question.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm and that alone is much more than any other philosopher has ever been able to rationally claim.
Look, you are absolutely FREE to claim absolutely ANY thing, but as for being 'rational', then 'you' are on your OWN here.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm My metaphysics is both internally and external consistent, but how would any of you know it? You're all bad thinkers.
Now to conflate this even further 'you' now have 'your (OWN) metaphysics'.

Oh, and by the way, I found 'knowing' to be much more enlightening than just 'thinking' ever was.
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:59 pm We could break down logical, fair, and accurate if you like, but that's a point if diminishing returns.
Are you AWARE that some of your sentences do NOT make ANY sense to some of us, and that we do not even bother to clarify with you what you were actually saying and meaning?

For example, like this one above here just now. What is a point, if diminishing returns? And, how, exactly, did diminishing go away, and diminishing in relation to 'what', exactly, here?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Advocate will grind your bones to make his bread

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:37 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:31 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:27 pm

Because while i've found The Truth (others have parts, but none so coherent), it wouldn't be hard to extend it or to make it prettier than i can.
Such humility, so grounded.
But you are the one answering every question of philosophy all at once. So there's nothing left for anyone to do after you have finished that?
Humility had nothing to do with it. As far as grounding, that's a falsifiable claim and no one will ever disprove my points, because The Truth cannot be disproven. I'm firmly grounded in reality, both in reality-to-me/phenomenologically, and in Reality as consensus experience, especially scientific consensus.

All the answers can be found by logical extension of the core truths. There's plenty of work left to be done. The ultimate end of philosophy is Spiritual Geometry - the taxonomy of explicit relationships between all ideas. Whatever Best is next must be an extension. There's nothing to correct but minor verbiage.
Will you provide an example of what 'you' claim is 'The Truth', which cannot be disproved?

If no, then why not?
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by Age »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:38 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:21 am
Advocate wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:42 pm Did i miss anything in metaphysics? Let me know.
When you say, "still the best philosopher", who are you referring to exactly?
Dude, this guy says he's found "The Truth" ... he doesn't even know how many letters E theeeee truth should have.
You must give him theeeeee absolute kicking.
Why do you use so many 'e's?

And, have you not seen the 'thee' word used before? It is used with two 'e's only. The way you use it is obviously just absurd and unnecessary.

'Thee' means similar to 'the', but not the exact same.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:41 pm You're still concentrating on me instead of the worth of my ideas, proving my point immaculately.

1) I am posting in a thread where you announce you are still the best philosopher. You are the topic of the thread. I am on topic. And you first responded to my focus on you and continued to focus on yourself. After I pointed out how silly your idea of what GoAT would act like, suddenly I should be focusing on your ideas in other threads. It seemed like you had no rebuttal to that point, so I should focus elsewhere . But I focused on the idea you presented in this thread.
2) More important: you make a really rather fundamental logical error in this response. If it was somehow in error focusing on you, this does not prove your point. At the very best it might prove a specific point about me. It certainly does not prove that you are the best philosopher, nor would it prove anything about people in general or your arguments in the mass of threads you recently created. So, even at this rather basic level in philosophy your thinking is fallacious.
That ordinary folk don't recognize or laud it has no bearing on the worth of anything in philosophy at all
Here you support my argument. Notice that I have pointed out the silliness of making claims to greatness in a little online philosophy forum, rather than with people who you are claiming are your peers. The Lebron James example. The Einstein expecting the people at the patent office to get that he was one of the best physicists in the world. It's both silly and telling.

Also, note that you jump to the conclusion that I think your posts have no bearing on the worth of anything in philosophy. I never said that. Nor do I think it is true. That's incredibly binary thinking on your part that if people do not accept you as having solved all philosophical issues and that you are the best philosopher in the world, your ideas have no worth. That's not only fallacious, but comes off very fragile. I don't think your posts are clear enough and I have had enough to do with you to not find the process of clarifying what you said attractive at all.
Credentials and integrated success are no part of being the best philosopher, just as academic knowledge isn't. And many of the Acknowledged best philosophers wouldn't meet that criteria either.
Right, but note, you look down on the people here. Most people here are not experts - that doesn't mean they or I should say we need to have college degrees in philosophy. But if you have solved the problems of philosophy in a series of very short posts, you would gain the interest of academic philosophers. Perhaps many or most would poo poo you out of hand, but others would not. And the investment of time on any of the issues would pose little time investment for them.

Ordinary people and experts are both dismissed in your post. Again, fragility seems possible. In any case, it's a nice pre-empitve strike: neither ordinary people not experts are fit to judge you.

Last, the best philosopher on the planet would have figured out the quote function by now. How to quote from other people's posts, as I did here in the post, quoting parts of your post.

Philosophy may focus on a lot of abstraction and generalities, but this is a basic practical skill that everyone here you look down on has managed to master.

This may all seem harsh on our part. But you closed down the possibility of meaningful dialogue right from the start. Further it might be useful to be open to critique. If you view it as binary, then you cannot admit to possible problems with your communication (or arguments and ideas), because then it has no worth. That's a sad view and one that is hard to improve while holding.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: still the best philosopher

Post by Advocate »

This particular thread isn't about proving anything, it's about how people don't recognize truth, proof, meaningful answers, etc. when they see them. I offer a coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics and by some insanity it's not automagically Nobel prize territory. That's not reasonable. This isn't civilized.

I asked for anything missing and i've gotten everything except a serious engagement with that question. The same has happened in various threads which Were about proving something. I've been looking hard for years for someone capable of being both rational and progressively interactive. They're not in academia - they require credentials to give you a hearing. They're not here. Nothing is ever accomplished here.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Bow to the MEGA-Advocate and he may show you mercy

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:03 am I asked for anything missing and i've gotten everything except a serious engagement with that question.
Are you salty because nobody cared about those 50 idiot threads you kicked off about grokking stuff?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Bow to the MEGA-Advocate and he may show you mercy

Post by Advocate »

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=588582 time=1659869395 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588567 time=1659862998 user_id=15238]
I asked for anything missing and i've gotten everything except a serious engagement with that question.
[/quote]
Are you salty because nobody cared about those 50 idiot threads you kicked off about grokking stuff?
[/quote]

That's not intellectual conversation. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop it.
Post Reply