the soul/ consciousness and the state..

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: the soul/ consciousness and the state..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:27 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:45 am
Iwannaplato:
Well, you only focus on your own threads and in your own threads, your own posts.
K: and what of it?
Thank you for acknowledging you only do this. This means you would not know what you claimed about me.
I have repeatedly said that there is nothing wrong with you ignoring other people's posts and treating your threads in the main like blog entries. Much better than those rarer occasions when you pseudorespond. So there's nothing wrong with focusing only on your own posts and threads. But it does keep you in the dark about some things, like your claim about me. It's really that simple.
So, write something interesting or original or
even vaguely philosophical and I might even read you
and if it is interesting or original enough, I might even answer you
By your own admission, you wouldn't notice it. And you haven't.
Which is also fine.

I've read and gotten a lot out of Wittgenstein, Nietschze and Kant. Though I had a harder time with Kant because he is so damn organized. I prefer the shorter explorations which characterize the first two philosophers. I think it is, too put it mildly, inaccurate to think that your posts share qualities with those philosophers and so I would reject them for the same reasons I am critical of you. The lack of self-knowledge about your skill as a communicator will limit your ability to improve, if you can somehow find a way to conflate your posts here with their work.

All three of those philosophers had long periods of interaction with other people, whether students or peers or both. IOW they were going to get feedback about their work and communication, not all of it positive. That's how one develops skills.

Yes, my communication has gotten snarkier over time, but your responses to criticism and not clear and are generally pseudoresponses: where you label the people disagreeing with you, make assumptiosn about their politics, or like here where you hallucinate something I would do but have not done as if this makes any sense. In this thread, fair enough. I didn't express and specific criticism. But when I have responded to your posts with criticism and done this politely, I get pseudoresponses and a lot of posturing.

You seem incapable of considering that your writing here is unfocused and unclear. Or, for example, that you engage in binary thinking and the way you describe people you disagree with is shallow and problematic. IOW you don't seem able to learn from feedback REGARDLESS of who it comes from and how it is presented to you.

Obviously that's your right. And it's telling that you often react, when it is pointed out that you can't interact well with other people, that it's your right to not respond, etc. Of course. When I argue that you have no right to do this, then that becomes a relevant counterpoint.

All your philosophical heroes had some sustained, long term dialogue with people around their own work. Even people like N and W who both had isolationist tendencies.

I don't think you've done this and it will keep you from developing

Which, again, is, of course, your right.

You have the right to ignore opportunities to learn and improve.

And you have the right to keep an online diary of your thoughts somehow related to philosophy.

A diary of mulling.
K: OK, I ask you for an "interesting or original post"
and all I got was another critique of my writing/style...

lets try this.... you create an interesting and original thread
with actual philosophical content and I guarantee I will not
only respond but I will engaged at long as you want me to...

so there is the challenge.... I create at least 3 to 5 threads a week
with my thoughts with philosophical content..(we can debate their
interest and originality later) but in any case, go ahead and
work out a philosophical theory, as I have done, about whatever
topic you want...whomever you want... but it must be interesting
and it must be original....can you do that?

Kropotkin
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the soul/ consciousness and the state..

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:55 pm
I've responded with substance to your posts on many occasions.
If you want to engage with my ideas in relation to yours, towards the end a recent post here.....
viewtopic.php?p=646178#p646178

I talk about why I disagree with a point your make.
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: the soul/ consciousness and the state..

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:47 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:55 pm
I've responded with substance to your posts on many occasions.
If you want to engage with my ideas in relation to yours, towards the end a recent post here.....
viewtopic.php?p=646178#p646178

I talk about why I disagree with a point your make.
K: and this isn't what I asked for... make a new thread with
an interesting and original thought with some engagement with
philosophy... responding to someone isn't the creation of
a new thread....and responding to someone isn't
about having a new or original thought....

I write/create at least three new threads every week,
(now if they are original or new or even interesting,
that is the thing, but at least I am making an attempt..
something I don't see you doing)

I am challenging you.... are you up to this challenge?

Kropotkin
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the soul/ consciousness and the state..

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:19 pm K: and this isn't what I asked for...
That's correct, I am not doing what you asked for.
make a new thread with
an interesting and original thought with some engagement with
philosophy.
And now you're giving me an order.
.. responding to someone isn't the creation of
a new thread....and responding to someone isn't
about having a new or original thought....
The last point is a false dichotomy. One can certainly respond to someone with a new or original thought.
I write/create at least three new threads every week,
(now if they are original or new or even interesting,
that is the thing, but at least I am making an attempt..
something I don't see you doing)
As you've admitted before you don't read posts outside your own threads and mostly read your own posts. So, you don't know if my responses have included original or new throughts.

But, again, there's a significant difference between us. You have claimed to be the peer of people like Nietschze and Kant. You have claimed to be presenting orginal ideas at a very high level. I think that's extremely rare and that your posts don't do this. Further, you take any crticism or disagreement as having to do with negative qualities in the people who disagree, period.

As I have said a number of times: if you are not interested is responing to people, don't. That's fine. Use a discussion forum as a blog. That's better than pseudoresponsing and mindreading, etc.

Here you are making the implicit argument that because you write a number of threads and are 'trying' then any critique of what you have written and any critique of the way you respond to people who post in your threads is not justified.

It's a fallacious argument, and I think you have some sense of that, since you don't openly make it.

So, I will continue to post, in general, much like I did here....
viewtopic.php?p=646596#p646596

I don't think this is an especially original set of thoughts on my part. In fact, I think I am pointing out some rather obvious objections to your argument as a whole, while having some sympathy for parts of it.
Post Reply