Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 am
Greta wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:58 am
Walker wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:14 pm

Not really.

Money and survival are irrelevant to wisdom.

An unwise person might be thrown into a desperate funk because they can only get a BMW and not a Bentley.

A captive such as Viktor Frankl who is treated like an animal can retain and expand wisdom.

Wisdom grows from adversity, if the person is so inclined.
There will always be extremes. They are not useful in analysis, rather as examples and lessons.

The human capacity to revert to a more primal state through desperation is well-documented, made famous by Goldman's Lord of the Flies and characterised by the aphorism "nine meals from anarchy" (http://www.internationalman.com/article ... om-anarchy). The fight-or-flight response might bring wisdom in retrospect but it surely suppresses any possible wisdom while active.

The more that people fall into fight-or-flight, the more conflict, which is inevitably followed by tit-for-tat cycles of retribution, made certain now by the success of weak terrorists in beating down the might of the US. When the red curtain of anger falls then wisdom - calm, proportionality and clear-sighted assessment - is not possible.
Quite true. The Great Beast is incapable of wisdom so easily falls into more primal states. Only certain individuals are capable of the quality of wisdom necessary to grasp the human condition. The Beast cannot understand them which is why the Great Beast seeks to eliminate them.
I don't think of wisdom is an on/off phenomenon like life but a spectrum. Certainly no one is wise as a baby. Wisdom increases in life, not always, but generally.
Dubious
Posts: 2501
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Dubious »

Walker wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:14 pm
Wisdom grows from adversity, if the person is so inclined.
That's the usual conviction but is it true! One rarely receives wisdom when subjected to abject misery and then take inventory of lessons learned.

Instead, it's better "applied" within a more balanced framework of independence and power. Having to "learn it" through the squalor of existence is not the best catalyst to rinse it out. If that were true, our state of awareness would likely extend far beyond its current radius. We haven't yet managed to deflect ourselves from repeating history, the only differences being that of time and context but whose commonalities are the same deficiencies which have always ruled.

For me wisdom is primarily preemptive and therefore barely existing. It may be too late to become wise when one's newly minted wisdom can no longer avoid or resolve the consequences of its forced retreat into silence.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 am Only certain individuals are capable of the quality of wisdom necessary to grasp the human condition.
Really? That doesn't seem like a very effective design. Is it possible that the ones who think they uniquely have it are blinded and trapped by self-righteousness, while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:22 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 am Only certain individuals are capable of the quality of wisdom necessary to grasp the human condition.
Really? That doesn't seem like a very effective design. Is it possible that the ones who think they uniquely have it are blinded and trapped by self-righteousness, while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?
You should write a book called "The Wisdom of War" in which you will assert that the fallen human condition is a misconception and the reality is that the cycle of war and peace is proof of man's collective wisdom. It will be a best seller.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:05 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:22 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 am Only certain individuals are capable of the quality of wisdom necessary to grasp the human condition.
Really? That doesn't seem like a very effective design. Is it possible that the ones who think they uniquely have it are blinded and trapped by self-righteousness, while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?
You should write a book called "The Wisdom of War" in which you will assert that the fallen human condition is a misconception and the reality is that the cycle of war and peace is proof of man's collective wisdom. It will be a best seller.
But that makes no sense... and that's not what I said. Rather, such a nonsensical argument serves YOUR OWN purposes, yes? Maybe you should write that book so that you can then write another book refuting the first book. Then have debates with yourself on TV. :lol: If you didn't have something to fight against, you might get bored, yes? 8)

Seriously, Nick, why would humankind be so divided in capability? Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:41 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:05 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:22 pm
Really? That doesn't seem like a very effective design. Is it possible that the ones who think they uniquely have it are blinded and trapped by self-righteousness, while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?
You should write a book called "The Wisdom of War" in which you will assert that the fallen human condition is a misconception and the reality is that the cycle of war and peace is proof of man's collective wisdom. It will be a best seller.
But that makes no sense... and that's not what I said. Rather, such a nonsensical argument serves YOUR OWN purposes, yes? Maybe you should write that book so that you can then write another book refuting the first book. Then have debates with yourself on TV. :lol: If you didn't have something to fight against, you might get bored, yes? 8)

Seriously, Nick, why would humankind be so divided in capability? Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?
You wrote: while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?
Is blind reacting to external circumstances really a sign of wisdom and something to celebrate?

People are far more different than you can imagine. Denying it feels good but denies reality.
“There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain.” Plato
Are these people the same? Can a lover of gain appreciate a lover of wisdom? No. To understand why is real psychology.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:14 pm You wrote: "while everyone else remains flexible and adaptive as they naturally ebb and flow through the vast ocean of awareness that they are naturally a part of and capable of?"

Is blind reacting to external circumstances really a sign of wisdom and something to celebrate?
I didn't say that. Why are you asking me about your view?
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:14 pm People are far more different than you can imagine. Denying it feels good but denies reality.
Since you seem to have trouble focusing on what I say, here's what I said that I think you're twisting into some idea of "sameness" (again, to serve your own purposes): "Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?"
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:14 pm “There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain.” Plato
Are these people the same? Can a lover of gain appreciate a lover of wisdom? No. To understand why is real psychology.
Where did I say that people are the same? And how does being a "lover" of one thing, mean that the person doesn't have nor share all sorts of other capabilities? It seems that you try to draw very specific lines between people (yes? perhaps to define yourself or your platform, yes?), and I don't think that represents broader truth or potential -- I think it represents smaller, contained ideas (far too limited for the vast potential reflected in this Universe) for the purpose of certain (perhaps self-validating) arguments.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
"Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?"
We all to some extent are capable of emotion, sensation, and intellect. However, the human condition has made them out of balance. Some are thought oriented, others emotional, and others by sensation. That is the main reason people rarely understand each other. Each has a different center of gravity. The intellectual person is led by logic and the emotional artist is led by emotion. They will talk at each other but never understand each other by arguing.The e people of intellect, emotion, and sensation all have a piece of the truth You don't respect differences between people and unfortunately you are not alone. On a large scale all this attitude does is serve the practice of spirit killing.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by -1- »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:24 amYou don't respect differences between people and unfortunately you are not alone. On a large scale all this attitude does is serve the practice of spirit killing.
Yes, indeed. You demand respect, Nick_A, and your sole and only supportive reason for that is that you are wise and everyone else is not.

This invites disrespect for you, Nick_A. For one, you show a huge amount of disrespect for others by belittling them; for another thing, you generate disrespect by the nature of your claim, because it rests not on proof or on evidence, but on mere doggonedly repeating and parroting the same thing over and over again: that you are wise and the rest of us are not. This convinced you and Walker, but it never convinced anyone else on the site.

It's not differences we disrespect; It's you whom we disrespect. It is you, because we disrespect stupidity, hifolutin' haughty talk, and claims of superiority without evidence to the claim, and you display all these required components in your posts. It is you whom we disrespect, and it is you due to your ways, not because you are different, you puffed-up air-bag. Sure you are different; but that's incidental. Lacewing is different from me, and I respect her; Johndoe7 is hugely different from me, but I respect him or her; that lady whose current picture resembles Russell's "Flying Teapot in Space" and whose name I can't remember at this moment, I respect, and she is different from me.

Part of what demands disrespect for you on this site by people like me is your displacing causation, and always to prove your point. Your causational (logical) mistakes are so numerous, that it's futile to even start to argue with you; you are an empty airbag, a puffed-up self-egotist thinker, who seems to have dug himself in the ego shield of a mental-emotional bunker, which is that you and you alone possess wisdom. And this keeps on carrying you on this site, it helps you slide over all the bitter criticism you receive.

You are an idiot and a subservient minion to your own delusions. At the same time, your delusions save you from seeing reality, and that is the only saving grace that keeps your ego intact.

Your only friend on the site is Walker, who is in awe of your intellect and your insight, but if you ask me, he is just as blind as you are, and it is highly suspicious that he is not only the one that supports your claim, but he supports you in everything else. No two separate philosophers on this site will always agree on any given topic, but you, Nick_A, and Walker. And since it's Walker who gives you lip service, but not the other way around, I am concluding (this is an opinion, not a fact, and should be treated as an opinion) that Walker is your grandmother.

So, in conclusion, in my opinion: you are delusional, and you doggonedly stick to your parroting your own delusion. Unfortunately this site does not screen for mental-emotional fitness, so you can parade and prance around brandishing your version the likes of which used to be termed "fixed ideas" by the psychiatric profession of past. A fixed idea is one that is not related to reality, yet the person who has it believes in it totally, and will not be talked out of it.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:24 am You don't respect differences between people
Why are you accusing me of this? It's absolutely absurd. I've acknowledged my acceptance and appreciation for the diversity of people. Why do you keep skipping over that? Is it because it doesn't fit into your model? C'mon Nick, if you and your platform are truthful, you won't need to accuse me of things that are NOT true. Your false accusations make you look deceitful. So, why are you doing that?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:24 am On a large scale all this attitude does is serve the practice of spirit killing.
I think your deceitfulness is spirit killing. Where does your inaccuracy/dishonesty end, and truth begin?

If there were such a thing as a “great beast”, it would be that which draws dividing lines and separates people while denying the vast capabilities that are inherent for all in their divine nature. It would also be that which sees itself as one of a chosen few, or capable few. That poor slobbering great beast playing with itself would be very foolish indeed. But oh how magnificent to create such a hideous thing with one’s imagination and energy. As magnificent as so many other creations for better or worse.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing, you wrote:
Seriously, Nick, why would humankind be so divided in capability? Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?
Our difference is that I recognize humanity as separated in capability as a result of the human condition and you seem to deny this acquired imbalance of attributes

Why are you accusing me of this? It's absolutely absurd. I've acknowledged my acceptance and appreciation for the diversity of people. Why do you keep skipping over that? Is it because it doesn't fit into your model? C'mon Nick, if you and your platform are truthful, you won't need to accuse me of things that are NOT true. Your false accusations make you look deceitful. So, why are you doing that?
You are only concerned with appearance and believe with the correct progressive education people will all react the same because they are the same in their essence. I see this as absurdity promoted by wishful thinking. This is why you do not understand the concept of the Great Beast:
If there were such a thing as a “great beast”, it would be that which draws dividing lines and separates people while denying the vast capabilities that are inherent for all in their divine nature. It would also be that which sees itself as one of a chosen few, or capable few. That poor slobbering great beast playing with itself would be very foolish indeed. But oh how magnificent to create such a hideous thing with one’s imagination and energy. As magnificent as so many other creations for better or worse.
Yes, in you eyes these “chosen people should be eliminated and I support their need to return home and open the path for others to follow
"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" ~ Meister Eckhart
Should these peculiar people especially when they are young, be mocked, ridiculed, and experience other such “delights” the educated secular mind can concoct since they are not “normal" within the guidelines of superficial diversity?

I’ve verified through the Secular Intolerance thread that these peculiar people are not wanted and should be cast out. I support them. It is our essential difference.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Arising_uk »

Nick_A wrote:...
Should these peculiar people especially when they are young, be mocked, ridiculed, and experience other such “delights” the educated secular mind can concoct since they are not “normal" within the guidelines of superficial diversity?
Have you any examples of such people having such things happening to them?

If you are talking about kids who have already been indoctrinated in their religion then surely it's their parents and religious leaders job to support them not me the tax-payer.
I’ve verified through the Secular Intolerance thread that these peculiar people are not wanted and should be cast out. I support them. It is our essential difference.
You verified nothing other than your monomania with your idea.
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

-1-
You are an idiot and a subservient minion to your own delusions. At the same time, your delusions save you from seeing reality, and that is the only saving grace that keeps your ego intact.

You are a fine example of the secular progressive mindset. Whatever doesn't glorify the Beast is seen as idiotic. Philosophy beginning with wonder is an alien concept for you. Nothing positive. No quaities of consciousness greater than your own. I'm just happy that I am not limited by such a dogmatic mindset.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:38 pm Our difference is that I recognize humanity as separated in capability as a result of the human condition and you seem to deny this acquired imbalance of attributes
Again, your response misrepresents and ignores what I said -- to manipulate it for your purposes.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:38 pmYou are only concerned with appearance and believe with the correct progressive education people will all react the same because they are the same in their essence.
Where have I ever said anything like this? Where have I ever said that everyone will react the same? Why are you so deceitful in the way you represent other people, Nick? Is your platform so fragile and twisted that the truth of another's words and positions is too threatening for you to engage with honestly?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:38 pmI see this as absurdity promoted by wishful thinking.
Well it's YOUR nonsense -- it's not anything I've thought or said -- so you are seeing your own nonsense as absurdity. Are you able to grasp that?
Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:38 pmYes, in you eyes these “chosen people should be eliminated
What the hell are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone needs to be eliminated?

STOP LYING NICK!!! If your position is honorable, you don't need to project this crap onto other people.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:38 pmI’ve verified through the Secular Intolerance thread that these peculiar people are not wanted and should be cast out. I support them. It is our essential difference.
Did you do that by false representation and deceitfulness as you're doing here?
Nick_A
Posts: 5202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
Seriously, Nick, why would humankind be so divided in capability? Doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that we're all connected to the same capabilities, but we use them and play them out differently because diversity and experimentation (for better and worse) is NATURAL?
You either believe we are connected to the same capabilities or you don’t. Which is it?
Where have I ever said anything like this? Where have I ever said that everyone will react the same? Why are you so deceitful in the way you represent other people, Nick? Is your platform so fragile and twisted that the truth of another's words and positions is too threatening for you to engage with honestly?
If we are all connected to the same capabilities, then secular progressive education would work and further cooperation based on this sameness. If we are not connected to the same capabilities, then cooperation is impossible and progressive secular education is destined to fail. Which is it?
What the hell are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone needs to be eliminated?
The Secular Intolerance thread which you participated in revealed how secular education seeks the destruction of the impulse towards eros in the young. This is the process of eliminating a sacred part of the young psych. It is spirit killing. Do you support spirit killing? That is what I mean by "needs to be eliminated."
Post Reply