Is philosophical enquiry a form of trolling

[Age]

Is philosophical enquiry a form of trolling?

They're the same except for intent, and intent makes all the difference.

The intent of trolling is derailment.

But, AGAIN, the DEFINITION of the word 'troll', or 'trolling', here IS DIFFERENT, FOR DIFFERENT people. Therefore, the INTENT of 'trolling' here CAN BE VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. And, as such, is NOT necessarily just FOR 'derailment' ONLY.

The intent of philosophy is truth.

AGAIN, the DEFINITION of the 'philosophy' word IS VERY DIFFERENT, FOR VERY MANY DIFFERENT people, therefore the INTENT of 'philosophy' is NOT necessarily what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here AT ALL "walker".

In fact the INTENT of 'philosophy' IS 'TO ARGUE', TO and FOR SOME people. AND, a Truly ENLIGHTENING 'thing' here IS that the word 'argue' can MEAN two COMPLETELY OPPOSITE and OPPOSING DIFFERENT 'things'.

So, even IF TWO people AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED that the INTENT of 'philosophy' IS 'to argue', then these TWO people could STILL be MEANING TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSITE and/or COMPLETELY OPPOSING DIFFERENT 'things'.

The REAL BEAUTY, OF 'language', and the REAL Truth, HIDDEN WITH-IN 'language', is FOUND, VERY, VERY DEEP DOWN, WITH-IN the INTRICACIES, DEFINITIONS, and NUANCES OF 'language', WHERE the Truth, LIES.

ONLY VERY, VERY DEEP, WITH, and, IN, is WHERE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS LYING, but CAN BE UNCOVERED, and REVEALED.

[attofishpi]

He's not a troll, he's simply a scrambled egg brain that spends most of his life annoying people.

'I' ONLY have THE POWER TO so-call 'annoy' people like 'you', "attofishpi", BECAUSE people like 'you' GET ANNOYED WHEN I POINT OUT and SHOW 'your' CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, and/or just False AND Wrong CLAIMS.

Like I have BEEN DOING. Which 'you' OBVIOUSLY could NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE. Which HAS LEFT 'you' ANNOYED, CLEARLY.

You got the "could NOT" bit right, all you needed to add after that is..."be BOTHERED to"

You are clearly far more intelligent than everyone on the forum, we clearly cannot refute anything that you say when you point out our contradictions, inconsistencies, and/or just false and wrong claims..


These guys would better suit a man of your exceptional IQ:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

Mensa is the largest and oldest high-IQ society in the world.[3][4][5] It is a non-profit organisation open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardised, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test.[6] Mensa formally comprises national groups and the umbrella organisation Mensa International, with a registered office in Caythorpe, Lincolnshire, England,[7] which is separate from the British Mensa office in Wolverhampton.

At least they won't need to refute anything because you will all be on the same page, just imagine...even your caps-lock key might get some rest.

[Age]

could you explain what you mean?

At this level of vagueness, I'd say: it depends.

Good answer.

A troll writes short provocative posts intended to generate a response, like I did in the OP. Make of it what you like.

and just intended to generate that response only. IOW they aren't interested in the topic, they are using the topic to get people riled up.

BUT one might well be VERY INTERESTED in A topic, for example, one might well be VERY INTERESTED in A topic ABOUT say, God DOES EXIST, or God DOES NOT EXIST. So, this one could start a thread, or join a thread, by posing, and asking A question.

Which has NO other purpose other than to 'troll' FOR a person WITH the OPPOSING BELIEF. And the ONLY reason 'that one' 'through out A hook', was to 'troll' FOR, and CATCH, 'one' WITH an OPPOSING BELIEF, in order to just 'TRY TO' 'hook' 'them' UP, and 'reel' 'them' IN.

To get 'one' so-called just 'riled up', to 'me' anyway, is A VERY DIFFERENT 'thing' that LOOKING FOR 'one' to 'hook up' and 'catch'. In other words when one BELIEVES that their BELIEF is TRUE and CORRECT and that 'they' HAVE 'an argument' that COULD DEFEAT 'one' with an OPPOSING BELIEF, then 'this one' may well want to 'troll' FOR the "other" so that 'they' can 'CATCH, and release', or 'CATCH, and KILL', 'them' with the 'thought' BETTER ARGUMENT.

'This way' of LOOKING FOR "others" WITH OPPOSING BELIEFS, TO 'argue AGAINST', in the hope of CATCHING, (hooking up), and 'releasing' or 'killing' 'them' through 'arguing' can be CALLED and/or REFERRED TO as 'trolling' here, in a philosophy forum.

It could now be said or argued that 'these ones' who like to FIGHT FOR 'their OWN position or belief', and who go 'trolling' here, ACTUALLY are VERY INTERESTED IN 'the topic', which 'they' have CHOSEN TO throw 'LURES' out and into.

I guess I don't see all philosophical enquiry OPs as doing this.

But, OBVIOUSLY, NOT ALL 'philosophical inquiries' are intended to just generate 'that response', only, are where ALL people are NOT interested in the topic in which they are 'trolling' IN, nor are USING 'the topic' to get people 'riled up'. So, I would be OBVIOUS that 'you' do NOT see ALL 'philosophical inquiry opening posts', as doing these 'things'.

But I get that perhaps you did actually mean enquiry and not inquiry and the OP was self-referential.

What I FOUND the opening post DOING here is PROVIDING a GREAT example of what 'trolling' CAN ACTUALLY BE, especially IN a philosophy forum, like this one here.

The opening post here HAS got SOME of 'you', poster, here to LOOK AT and SEE 'trolling', and hopefully some other 'things', FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE.

I think one can get the ball rolling with a general vague-ish question and not be trolling,

'This' IS VERY, VERY True, TO 'me'. This is BECAUSE one might JUST WANT TO have A DISCUSSION in regards to FINDING OUT and DISCOVERING, or UNCOVERING, for example what the ACTUAL Truth of some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, INSTEAD of just WANTING TO FIGHT FOR one's OWN BELIEF ABOUT some 'thing', which is 'what' I FIND 'trolling' here in a philosophy forum REALLY IS.

The latter I ALSO FIND is just about ALL that happens, well in this philosophy forum anyway.

since trolling implies things about your intentions. I don't think it's a great way to start a thread, and some forums even demand that you put something of your own position out there.

Which 'forums' DEMAND that one PUT SOME 'thing', of one's OWN position OUT THERE?

[Age]

He's not a troll, he's simply a scrambled egg brain that spends most of his life annoying people.

'I' ONLY have THE POWER TO so-call 'annoy' people like 'you', "attofishpi", BECAUSE people like 'you' GET ANNOYED WHEN I POINT OUT and SHOW 'your' CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, and/or just False AND Wrong CLAIMS.

Like I have BEEN DOING. Which 'you' OBVIOUSLY could NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE. Which HAS LEFT 'you' ANNOYED, CLEARLY.

You got the "could NOT" bit right, all you needed to add after that is..."be BOTHERED to"

At least 'you' here ADMIT that 'you' could NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what and when I have POINTED OUT your INCONSISTENCIES, et cetera here.

ALSO, it would NOT matter ONE IOTA if I added, 'be BOTHER to'. 'you' ALREADY ADMITTED that 'you' 'could NOT' anyway.

You are clearly far more intelligent than everyone on the forum, we clearly cannot refute anything that you say when you point out our contradictions, inconsistencies, and/or just false and wrong claims..

BUT NO one is MORE 'intelligent' than "another one", IS. WHY would 'you' ASSUME or THINK such 'a thing'?

AND, if 'you' COULD REFUTE what I SAY and CLAIM here, then WHY NOT DO 'it'?

Are 'you' AFRAID of some 'thing'? Or, is there some 'thing' ELSE going on here?

These guys would better suit a man of your exceptional IQ:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

Mensa is the largest and oldest high-IQ society in the world.[3][4][5] It is a non-profit organisation open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardised, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test.[6] Mensa formally comprises national groups and the umbrella organisation Mensa International, with a registered office in Caythorpe, Lincolnshire, England,[7] which is separate from the British Mensa office in Wolverhampton.

At least they won't need to refute anything because you will all be on the same page, just imagine...even your caps-lock key might get some rest.

1. It does NOT matter HOW MANY TIMES I INFORM SOME of 'these people', BACK THEN, that I do NOT USE some 'caps lock key', 'they' STILL PERSIST WITH the BELIEF, and the CLAIM, that I DO. Which JUST FURTHER PROVES True what I SAY and CLAIM in regards to HOW the BELIEF-system, through and with 'the brain' STOPPED and PREVENTED 'people' FROM FINDING OUT and LEARNING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, MUCH EARLIER.

2. What 'this one' has WRITTEN and LINKED here, in regards TO what 'these people', BACK THEN, THOUGHT or BELIEVED was 'Intelligence' SHOWS and PROVES just how FAR BEHIND 'they' WERE, BACK in those days, or times.

It is like 'this one' is 'arguing': 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'intelligence' is 'this', and/or that we ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'the sun revolves around the earth', SO what 'we' SAY and CLAIM here, MUST BE TRUE. AND, TO PROVE what 'we' SAY and CLAIM IS TRUE 'you' ONLY need to LOOK AT 'our writings'.

[attofishpi]

It is like 'this one' is 'arguing': 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'intelligence' is 'this', and/or that we ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'the sun revolves around the earth', SO what 'we' SAY and CLAIM here, MUST BE TRUE. AND, TO PROVE what 'we' SAY and CLAIM IS TRUE 'you' ONLY need to LOOK AT 'our writings'.

But the Sun does revolve around the Earth, in fact they revolve around each other, the only difference is that the Sun has far more affect on the Earth than vice-versa.

(back in the days when this was written and the Sun hadn't consumed the Earth)

[Age]

It is like 'this one' is 'arguing': 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'intelligence' is 'this', and/or that we ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'the sun revolves around the earth', SO what 'we' SAY and CLAIM here, MUST BE TRUE. AND, TO PROVE what 'we' SAY and CLAIM IS TRUE 'you' ONLY need to LOOK AT 'our writings'.

But the Sun does revolve around the Earth, in fact they revolve around each other, the only difference is that the Sun has far more affect on the Earth than vice-versa.

(back in the days when this was written and the Sun hadn't consumed the Earth)

See, HOW absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative, to the observer?

So, ALL of the DISAGREEING and BICKERING, which used to go on, was mostly because 'these people', BACK THEN, would JUST NOT seek out CLARIFICATION, FROM the "other observer", NOR JUST seek out THE UNDERSTANDING, FROM the "other observer".

[Iwannaplato]

At least 'you' here ADMIT that 'you' could NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what and when I have POINTED OUT your INCONSISTENCIES, et cetera here.

No, he precisely did not do that. He did not admit that. He said he couldn't be bothered to. IOW he had no interest. That doesn't no mean he lacked the ability, that he could not do it.

ALSO, it would NOT matter ONE IOTA if I added, 'be BOTHER to'. 'you' ALREADY ADMITTED that 'you' 'could NOT' anyway.

Did you not understand? He meant that THEN, with the addition, it would be correct. Without the addition it was not.

BUT NO one is MORE 'intelligent' than "another one", IS. WHY would 'you' ASSUME or THINK such 'a thing'?

He didn't. That was irony. How can you possibly know what humans need when you can't understand rather blunt irony/sarcasm.

1. It does NOT matter HOW MANY TIMES I INFORM SOME of 'these people', BACK THEN, that I do NOT USE some 'caps lock key', 'they' STILL PERSIST WITH the BELIEF, and the CLAIM, that I DO. Which JUST FURTHER PROVES True what I SAY and CLAIM in regards to HOW the BELIEF-system, through and with 'the brain' STOPPED and PREVENTED 'people' FROM FINDING OUT and LEARNING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, MUCH EARLIER.

2. What 'this one' has WRITTEN and LINKED here, in regards TO what 'these people', BACK THEN, THOUGHT or BELIEVED was 'Intelligence' SHOWS and PROVES just how FAR BEHIND 'they' WERE, BACK in those days, or times.

It is like 'this one' is 'arguing': 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'intelligence' is 'this', and/or that we ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'the sun revolves around the earth', SO what 'we' SAY and CLAIM here, MUST BE TRUE. AND, TO PROVE what 'we' SAY and CLAIM IS TRUE 'you' ONLY need to LOOK AT 'our writings'.

Instead of asking clarifications about his tone or what he meant with his 'suggestion', you ran along with all your assumptions and completely misunderstood what he meant. You fit right in with your own assessment of what people are like in the time this was written. Welcome to humanity.

[Age]

At least 'you' here ADMIT that 'you' could NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what and when I have POINTED OUT your INCONSISTENCIES, et cetera here.

No, he precisely did not do that. He did not admit that. He said he couldn't be bothered to. IOW he had no interest. That doesn't no mean he lacked the ability, that he could not do it.

THANK 'YOU' for 'this' "iwannaplato". 'you' ARE PROVING, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY, just how Truly SIGNIFICANT MY CLAIM that, 'Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative, to the observer'', REALLY IS.

What 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here is HOW DIFFERENT 'ones', can SEE VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

What I SAW was VERY DIFFERENT to what 'you' SAW, and SEE.

Now, AFTER RE-READING AGAIN, a few times, I SEE what 'you' SEE and SAW, here.

Now that 'this' has been SHOWN TO 'me' FOR what was, maybe, Truly MEANT, then, if "attofishpi" would now like TO CLAIM that 'it' COULD COUNTER and/or REFUTE what was being talk ABOUT, then just SAYING and CLAIMING that 'it' could NOT BE BOTHERED, is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY True NOR Correct, and COULD BE just ANOTHER EXCUSE TO just ATTEMPT TO RUN AWAY and TO 'TRY' and HIDE for 'its' True and REAL LACK OF ABILITY TO COUNTER and/or REFUTE.

ALSO, it would NOT matter ONE IOTA if I added, 'be BOTHER to'. 'you' ALREADY ADMITTED that 'you' 'could NOT' anyway.

Did you not understand? He meant that THEN, with the addition, it would be correct. Without the addition it was not.

YES I UNDERSTOOD.

WHY did 'you' ASSUME otherwise and/or NOT WAIT FOR my REPLY, FIRST?

I TOOK the words 'could NOT', which "attofishpi" SAID and CLAIMED, 'were right', IN RELATION TO what I was SAYING and CLAIMING. Whereas, now WITH the HELP FROM 'you' I WAS ABLE TO SEE, MORE CLEARLY, that "attofishpi" was, apparently, REFERRING TO the two words ONLY, in relation to 'themselves' ALONE. Which, if true, MAKES 'my reading' here VERY CLUMSILY and a VERY HUGE MISTAKE. And, it is ONLY FROM the HELP of 'you' CLARIFYING 'things', which MAKES the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' COME-TO-LIGHT and be REVEALED MORE EASIER and SIMPLER FOR "others".

BUT NO one is MORE 'intelligent' than "another one", IS. WHY would 'you' ASSUME or THINK such 'a thing'?

He didn't. That was irony. How can you possibly know what humans need when you can't understand rather blunt irony/sarcasm.

One of the VERY REASONS WHY 'you', human beings, do NOT YET KNOW, in the days when this was being written anyway, WHAT 'you', human beings, NEED, in Life, IS BECAUSE of 'your' sarcastic and ironic language and USE of words.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that INSTEAD OF REFUTING or COUNTERING what is CLAIMED COULD BE, 'that one' just CLAIMED that 'it' COULD, BUT, USES THE EXCUSE, 'I just could not be bothered to'. AND THEN went on with the MOST RIDICULOUS OF sarcastic or ironic CLAIMS, which I Corrected by the way, to 'TRY TO' DEFLECT FROM the ACTUAL Truth, which IS; ACTUALLY the REAL REASON 'that one' does NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what I SAID IS BECAUSE 'it' COULD NOT, and NOT BECAUSE 'it' just could not be bothered to, AT ALL.

As WILL BE PROVED, IRREFUTABLY True.

Also, WHY are 'you' PRESUMING that I did NOT UNDERSTAND the rather blunt irony nor sarcasm there?

Am I NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE, and RESPOND, DISREGARDING what was/is BLATANT irony or sarcasm, and JUST Correct the ACTUAL Wrongness and Incorrectness that was being SAID and WRITTEN?

Furthermore, was that 'that one' was IMPLYING that some are MORE INTELLIGENT than "other's" ARE, ALSO 'sarcasm' and/or 'irony', or was 'that' what was ACTUALLY BEING MEANT?

'your' HELP in CLARIFYING 'things' here would be MUCH APPRECIATED, as ALWAYS.

1. It does NOT matter HOW MANY TIMES I INFORM SOME of 'these people', BACK THEN, that I do NOT USE some 'caps lock key', 'they' STILL PERSIST WITH the BELIEF, and the CLAIM, that I DO. Which JUST FURTHER PROVES True what I SAY and CLAIM in regards to HOW the BELIEF-system, through and with 'the brain' STOPPED and PREVENTED 'people' FROM FINDING OUT and LEARNING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, MUCH EARLIER.

2. What 'this one' has WRITTEN and LINKED here, in regards TO what 'these people', BACK THEN, THOUGHT or BELIEVED was 'Intelligence' SHOWS and PROVES just how FAR BEHIND 'they' WERE, BACK in those days, or times.

It is like 'this one' is 'arguing': 'we' ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'intelligence' is 'this', and/or that we ALL SAY and CLAIM that 'the sun revolves around the earth', SO what 'we' SAY and CLAIM here, MUST BE TRUE. AND, TO PROVE what 'we' SAY and CLAIM IS TRUE 'you' ONLY need to LOOK AT 'our writings'.

Instead of asking clarifications about his tone or what he meant with his 'suggestion', you ran along with all your assumptions and completely misunderstood what he meant.

BUT THANKS TO 'your' HELP "iwannaplato" I WAS and AM ABLE TO SEE-THE-LIGHT, as some might say.

You fit right in with your own assessment of what people are like in the time this was written. Welcome to humanity.

AND, IF 'you' STOPPED 'running along with all your OWN assumptions', ALSO then 'you', TOO, would NOT be, completely, MISUNDERSTANDING what I have MEANT here, (and in other places), AS WELL.