K: OK, I ask you for an "interesting or original post"Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:27 amThank you for acknowledging you only do this. This means you would not know what you claimed about me.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:45 amK: and what of it?Iwannaplato:
Well, you only focus on your own threads and in your own threads, your own posts.
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.
By your own admission, you wouldn't notice it. And you haven't.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
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.
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