Has Professional Philosophy Been Corrupted by Logical Fallacies?

[Skepdick]

This conversation crops up whenever somebody with a bad theory to sell gets sour grapes about "academic philosophy" not appreciating their genius. The problem is always somebody else.

Is that the same kind of "genius" as Trump?

Getting other people to subsidise your lifestyle.

[PeteJ]

This conversation crops up whenever somebody with a bad theory to sell gets sour grapes about "academic philosophy" not appreciating their genius. The problem is always somebody else.

Not sure I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that we appreciate their genius and ignore their failure? There's something rather odd about this idea.

[FlashDangerpants]

This conversation crops up whenever somebody with a bad theory to sell gets sour grapes about "academic philosophy" not appreciating their genius. The problem is always somebody else.

Not sure I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that we appreciate their genius and ignore their failure? There's something rather odd about this idea.

Allow me to put it more bluntly then. This forum is awash with total idiots who think they are amazing, and they all think their own brilliance is being ignored because [academic philosophy/ western philosophy/some sort of linear logic mafia] is too corrupt or self-serving to appreciate their gifts. I can specify a few of those morons who are active on a daily basis if it helps...

In position number 1 is definitely Hedgehog 7, an utter imbecile with delusions of spectacularness. He seriously believes something about psychic pyramids and claims to use dowsing rods as calibrated scientific equipment. His philosophical efforts are absurdly formulaic bullshittery in which he names a thing, names its opposite, then declares them to be the same thing, usually there is some unnecessary geometry involved. He was convinced that he should be enrolled in a Masters of Phil. course, but he was of course told to fuck off for being an idiot. Here is a link to his pissy meltdown
And becuase it was so epic here's his amazing pyramids thing too.

Position 2 must surely go to Nick_A, a hopeless muppet who once loudly quit this forum because he wasn't getting enough respect. But he sauntered back as soon as he was banned from the other place, probably for making every conversation be about 'the BEAST' (his innaccurate reference to Plato) or his incredibly boring obsession with Simone Weil. Whenever Nick sets off on one of his "if philosophy is to be defined as the love of wisdom..." routines, he tries to make up some new thing that is "the real purpose of philosophy" but which is actually nothing than his tedious religious musings. I suppose this honorary second place can be extended to any of the idiots who ever uses the phrase "love of wisdom", there has never been any actual link between the practises of philosophy and whatever wisdom might actually be.

Third place can go to all the fools who complain that philosophy isn't good enough for them because it isn't science and they don't feel like they are getting their enquiries answered in a timely enough manner. The pissants who think that some lo-calorie substitute they are concocting on the fly is just ideal because it offers "actionable certainty" or is "optimized for eventual consistency". I would previously have nominated Skepdick for this honour, but he's been overshadowed by Advocate lately.

The point is that this conversation has cropped up a whole bunch of times. The people who pose as innocents, dismayed, shocked even, to uncover the rot at the heart of philosophy are invariably not remotely interested in philosophy as a thing that might not exist solely to serve them. They are people with their own drum to bang, and mostly just pissed off that nobody is impressed.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=474093 time=1601668226 user_id=11800]
[quote=PeteJ post_id=474044 time=1601642361 user_id=11479]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=473618 time=1601386117 user_id=11800]
This conversation crops up whenever somebody with a bad theory to sell gets sour grapes about "academic philosophy" not appreciating their genius. The problem is always somebody else.
[/quote]
Not sure I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that we appreciate their genius and ignore their failure? There's something rather odd about this idea.
[/quote]
Allow me to put it more bluntly then. This forum is awash with total idiots who think they are amazing, and they all think their own brilliance is being ignored because [academic philosophy/ western philosophy/some sort of linear logic mafia] is too corrupt or self-serving to appreciate their gifts. I can specify a few of those morons who are active on a daily basis if it helps...

In position number 1 is definitely Hedgehog 7, an utter imbecile with delusions of spectacularness. He seriously believes something about psychic pyramids and claims to use dowsing rods as calibrated scientific equipment. His philosophical efforts are absurdly formulaic bullshittery in which he names a thing, names its opposite, then declares them to be the same thing, usually there is some unnecessary geometry involved. He was convinced that he should be enrolled in a Masters of Phil. course, but he was of course told to fuck off for being an idiot. [url=viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27301&p=422987&hili ... rs#p422987]Here is a link to his pissy meltdown[/url]
And becuase it was so epic [url=viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26187&hilit=emproblemated]here's his amazing pyramids thing[/url] too.

Position 2 must surely go to Nick_A, a hopeless muppet who once loudly quit this forum because he wasn't getting enough respect. But he sauntered back as soon as he was banned from the other place, probably for making every conversation be about 'the BEAST' (his innaccurate reference to Plato) or his incredibly boring obsession with Simone Weil. Whenever Nick sets off on one of his "if philosophy is to be defined as the love of wisdom..." routines, he tries to make up some new thing that is "the real purpose of philosophy" but which is actually nothing than his tedious religious musings. I suppose this honorary second place can be extended to any of the idiots who ever uses the phrase "love of wisdom", there has never been any actual link between the practises of philosophy and whatever wisdom might actually be.

Third place can go to all the fools who complain that philosophy isn't good enough for them because it isn't science and they don't feel like they are getting their enquiries answered in a timely enough manner. The pissants who think that some lo-calorie substitute they are concocting on the fly is just ideal because it offers "actionable certainty" or is "optimized for eventual consistency". I would previously have nominated Skepdick for this honour, but he's been overshadowed by Advocate lately.

The point is that this conversation has cropped up a whole bunch of times. The people who pose as innocents, dismayed, shocked even, to uncover the rot at the heart of philosophy are invariably not remotely interested in philosophy as a thing that might not exist solely to serve them. They are people with their own drum to bang, and mostly just pissed off that nobody is impressed.
[/quote]

Glad to see i was included, but what exactly is your problem with actionable certainty? It's still the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. And that's only one small piece of what i offer, but as usual, you have your straw glasses on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Glad to see i was included, but what exactly is your problem with actionable certainty? It's still the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. And that's only one small piece of what i offer, but as usual, you have your straw glasses on.

Dude, you are so utterly batshit that you tried to prove Scotsmen exist in order to take on the no-true-scotsman informal fallacy, and you failed even at that stupid task.

Of course it's a terrible shame that the philosophical powers that be won't engage with your many exciting spreadsheets of wisdom.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=474102 time=1601676053 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474095 time=1601669363 user_id=15238]
Glad to see i was included, but what exactly is your problem with actionable certainty? It's still the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. And that's only one small piece of what i offer, but as usual, you have your straw glasses on.
[/quote]
Dude, you are so utterly batshit that you tried to prove Scotsmen exist in order to take on the no-true-scotsman informal fallacy, and you failed even at that stupid task.

Of course it's a terrible shame that the philosophical powers that be won't engage with your many exciting spreadsheets of wisdom.
[/quote]

Are you actionably certain about that? Let's step outside.

[FlashDangerpants]

Glad to see i was included, but what exactly is your problem with actionable certainty? It's still the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. And that's only one small piece of what i offer, but as usual, you have your straw glasses on.

Dude, you are so utterly batshit that you tried to prove Scotsmen exist in order to take on the no-true-scotsman informal fallacy, and you failed even at that stupid task.

Of course it's a terrible shame that the philosophical powers that be won't engage with your many exciting spreadsheets of wisdom.

Are you actionably certain about that? Let's step outside.

Sorry if you're feeling misled, but I'm not opening up a debate with you about whether you are history's greatest philosopher, you are totally not that. I'm just using you as an example of somebody who is shit, stupid, but convinced he deserves recognition as a master of the art. The scotsman thing is just a quick example that is fun because you are now banging on about wisdom, but you aren't wise enough to realise you made an error and should just accept that and learn from the experience, which is a weakness I will just exploit at will.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=474108 time=1601678210 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474107 time=1601677686 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=474102 time=1601676053 user_id=11800]

Dude, you are so utterly batshit that you tried to prove Scotsmen exist in order to take on the no-true-scotsman informal fallacy, and you failed even at that stupid task.

Of course it's a terrible shame that the philosophical powers that be won't engage with your many exciting spreadsheets of wisdom.
[/quote]

Are you actionably certain about that? Let's step outside.
[/quote]
Sorry if you're feeling misled, but I'm not opening up a debate with you about whether you are history's greatest philosopher, you are totally not that. I'm just using you as an example of somebody who is shit, stupid, but convinced he deserves recognition as a master of the art. The scotsman thing is just a quick example that is fun because you are now banging on about wisdom, but you aren't wise enough to realise you made an error and should just accept that and learn from the experience, which is a weakness I will just exploit at will.
[/quote]

Any time you want to drop the rhetoric and get to the point, finding answers, we'll find you a seat at the adult's table.

[PeteJ]

Allow me to put it more bluntly then. This forum is awash with total idiots who think they are amazing, and they all think their own brilliance is being ignored because [academic philosophy/ western philosophy/some sort of linear logic mafia] is too corrupt or self-serving to appreciate their gifts. I can specify a few of those morons who are active on a daily basis if it helps...

Yes. I also struggle with the approach of some f0lk. But there's a non-forum related issue here.

If nobody had a workable metaphysical theory than there would be no issue. However, while their is no theory in professional philosophy, not even a glimmer of one, there is an old theory that works perfectly well that they rarely bother to study. This lack of study is a disgrace, and it means that amateurs are just as likely to conquer philosophy as any tenured professor.

I feel that if the profession wants to stem the flow of criticism then it must falsify the Perennial philosophy. If it cannot do this, doesn't even bother to try and cannot find an alternative theory that works then we might as well ignore it. Complete waste of time.

As for those who think they can invent a fundamental theory the world had never seen before, I share your opinion.

[Advocate]

>I feel that if the profession wants to stem the flow of criticism then it must falsify the Perennial philosophy. If it cannot do this, doesn't even bother to try and cannot find an alternative theory that works then we might as well ignore it. Complete waste of time.

That needs to be extended to any philosopher who does not admit finding philosophical solutions is possible (including especially those who seem to be able to create an infinite regress at every turn off thought).

>As for those who think they can invent a fundamental theory the world had never seen before, I share your opinion.

What about a new fundamental theory being Compiled? Most philosophical thoughts have been independently derived many times, probably, but new combination happen all the time and are how progress occurs.

[FlashDangerpants]

If nobody had a workable metaphysical theory than there would be no issue. However, while their is no theory in professional philosophy, not even a glimmer of one, there is an old theory that works perfectly well that they rarely bother to study. This lack of study is a disgrace, and it means that amateurs are just as likely to conquer philosophy as any tenured professor.

That seems a bit teasy. What is this old theory?

[PeteJ]

If nobody had a workable metaphysical theory than there would be no issue. However, while their is no theory in professional philosophy, not even a glimmer of one, there is an old theory that works perfectly well that they rarely bother to study. This lack of study is a disgrace, and it means that amateurs are just as likely to conquer philosophy as any tenured professor.

That seems a bit teasy. What is this old theory?

It's the theory that the Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. A.k.a. the Perennial philosophy.

It's surely about time someone falsified it. But how many philosophers of the Academy know it well enough to even try?

[FlashDangerpants]

If nobody had a workable metaphysical theory than there would be no issue. However, while their is no theory in professional philosophy, not even a glimmer of one, there is an old theory that works perfectly well that they rarely bother to study. This lack of study is a disgrace, and it means that amateurs are just as likely to conquer philosophy as any tenured professor.

That seems a bit teasy. What is this old theory?

It's the theory that the Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. A.k.a. the Perennial philosophy.

It's surely about time someone falsified it. But how many philosophers of the Academy know it well enough to even try?

I thought that was a religious theory

[seeds]

If nobody had a workable metaphysical theory than there would be no issue. However, while their is no theory in professional philosophy, not even a glimmer of one, there is an old theory that works perfectly well that they rarely bother to study. This lack of study is a disgrace, and it means that amateurs are just as likely to conquer philosophy as any tenured professor.

That seems a bit teasy. What is this old theory?

It's the theory that the Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. A.k.a. the Perennial philosophy.

It's surely about time someone falsified it. But how many philosophers of the Academy know it well enough to even try?

I don’t think it’s so much that Consciousness and Reality are the “same” phenomenon, but more that they are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance, and that neither one could exist independent of the other in any meaningful or logical context.

Furthermore, if by “Reality,” you mean the multifarious features of the universe that we can see, touch, hear, smell and taste, then I challenge you to name one single aspect of “Reality” that would have any reason whatsoever for existing if “Consciousness” did not exist.
_______

[PeteJ]

I thought that was a religious theory

It's a fundamental theory. As such it has implications for physics, metaphysics, religion, psychology and just about everything else.

Those who think it is a 'religious' theory and thus nothing to do with science or philosophy just need to read a book about it.

My complaint is that nobody ever bothers to explain what is wrong with it, yet many philosophers feel able to write whole books about philosophy and consciousness that ignore it. This is not professional conduct,

In my view it 'stealing the keys to knowledge' much as Jesus accuses the Pharisees.