[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.