Immanuel Can

[Immanuel Can]

Male, fifties; by training, a philosopher and theologian both.

Socrates said he knew nothing. I am sure, therefore, that my own wisdom is strictly limited. I cannot account for most of what goes on in the universe...

But Immanuel can.

[The Voice of Time]

But Immanuel can? Is this some mystical way of saying "Immanuel Kant" is your dear favourite philosopher?

A theologian? Then the Philosophy of Religion forum is a place you should find yourself in interesting company, not that I have the slightest care for religion or any spiritual mungo jumbo.

You say you are "trained" a philosopher. Please elaborate on that. I'd be the judge if you are trained a philosopher or merely wanting to appear that way.

[Immanuel Can]

Answer 1 = No. Smart man, though. Badly misunderstood these days. I'm partial to Allan Wood's take on him.

Answer 2 = Of course, but not just there.

Answer 3 = I don't bluff, except in Texas Hold 'Em and occasionally in Risk.

[The Voice of Time]

Answer 1 = No. Smart man, though. Badly misunderstood these days. I'm partial to Allan Wood's take on him.

Answer 2 = Of course, but not just there.

Answer 3 = I don't bluff, except in Texas Hold 'Em and occasionally in Risk.

1) Elaborate? Why did you say "Immanuel can"?

2) Then raise your shields as you enter the rain of arrows.

3) I was not talking bluffs, but about insufficiency. Please elaborate what exactly you mean by "trained".

[Immanuel Can]

Your solicitude for my welfare is kind: however, as you know, timidity is a poor motivation for taking up philosophy. I remain undaunted by the prospect. Besides, some arrows are sharp, while others come from toy bows and have rubber sticky-cups on the end.

How attentive have you been to my previous comments? If indeed you are well positioned to "be the judge," as you put it, then you have enough information in those two messages to content yourself on the answer to your question.

That is as much as a spirit of parsimony will suffer me to say.

[The Voice of Time]

... okay, so we are dealing with somebody likes to keep things secret?

Your previous comments did not inform me of anything relating to my question and I do not indulge in mere guesses, I ask question to get answers not (poorly made) riddles.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, come on...have a little fun.

Don't you even want to play, "What has it got in its nasty little pocketses?"

Then in my "pocketses" the answers will stay.

[The Voice of Time]

Oh, come on...have a little fun.

Don't you even want to play, "What has it got in its nasty little pocketses?"

Then in my "pocketses" the answers will stay.

Aye but if you don't remember that was indeed not a riddle but a random question Bilbo asked himself. Gollum had no possibility for a right answer because there was no logic to it.

[Immanuel Can]

True. But there is in this puzzle.

If you have the background in the two disciplines I named, you should not have much trouble at all tracking down the answer. And my indirectness has purpose -- reticence and reasons, as 'twere.

P.S. Impressive that you are a Middle Earther and can summon such details. Well done.

[The Voice of Time]

And my indirectness has purpose -- reticence and reasons, as 'twere.

Then I'll stubbornly remain too stupid to crack the nut.

P.S. Impressive that you are a Middle Earther and can summon such details. Well done.

Who hasn't seen the Hobbit (although I've also read it, but I've not read Lord of the Rings, though I've read Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin)? Most people at my age, 21 years old, must've seen it, unless some special reason prohibits it (yeees I know I look older and maybe talk as if I were older, beard is most at fault for that, I got a good growth and non-existent shaving habits)

[Immanuel Can]

That's funny.

Perhaps I can leave the matter of my "credentials" at this: judge me by my messages, if you would. I would prefer that. On the one hand, if I were insufficiently credentialed, then to be critical of my views on that basis would be to fall into the ad hominem fallacy; if, on the other hand, I had credentials and waved them in everyone's faces, I would be asking them to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority -- and again, I would rather be judged by the truth or falsehood of what I offer.

And don't shave the beard: maybe curl it and die strips of it purple and tie gold coins into it or something, just so you acquire the "mad sage" aura. Then you can intimidate the heck out of people just for fun.

[The Voice of Time]

That's funny.

Perhaps I can leave the matter of my "credentials" at this: judge me by my messages, if you would. I would prefer that. On the one hand, if I were insufficiently credentialed, then to be critical of my views on that basis would be to fall into the ad hominem fallacy; if, on the other hand, I had credentials and waved them in everyone's faces, I would be asking them to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority -- and again, I would rather be judged by the truth or falsehood of what I offer.

I judge you by your actions whatever you say, I'm pretty good at that, like up until now I see you got your Latin in place (which I'm I'm not well-versed in but I know about most of the conventional fallacies and discussion fallacies though I've not cared for learning their Latin names... one usually says "personal attack" and not ad hominem for once, the only occasions I'll speak foreign that I can think of is with words like Laissez Faire or Tabula Rasa and possibly "Geist" although I really prefer calling it "spirit"). But one of your actions was to say you were "trained", and I like putting people into context, so it matters greatly whether you went to a university, whether the university was a "top university" (which gives me the option to presuppose something about your commitment to it all, or maybe that you're rich) or whether we're perhaps talking about a college. Or maybe you were "trained" by online videos, by people you know, or maybe you were "trained" in high school... endless possibilities. And of course it matters what you studied. Perhaps you even "trained" yourself. It's not that those things makes big difference by themselves, but, they help build a picture of you over time that would be more correct than without it. It allows me to make presumptions that can be tested, and when tested they can be utilized. So I won't utilize a mere assumption, but if it tests correctly, it might very well be utilized.

And don't shave the beard: maybe curl it and die strips of it purple and tie gold coins into it or something, just so you acquire the "mad sage" aura. Then you can intimidate the heck out of people just for fun.

I'll consider that option x)

[Arising_uk]

... and occasionally in Risk.

Ooo! Original Risk or the new abomination?

[Immanuel Can]

A-UK: Original, of course.

We're not barbarians here.




VOT: Good ratiocination so far. "Ad Hominem" is just a big, fat pretentious term for "arguing against a person's character, rather than rationally evaluating the statements he or she makes." It's a fallacy because who a person is does not tell us if what he/she says is truthful. Good people make logical mistakes; and even dedicated liars find that they have to make truthful statements -- if only to advance their lies. So I'm concerned to let the readers of my comments judge the truth value of the comments themselves; for I wish to stand or fall by that truthfulness, not by appeal to my personality or credentials -- if indeed I have any, which I neither admit nor deny at present.

[reasonvemotion]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Male, fifties;

What a pussy you are, grow some.