My belief is that there is no such thing as understanding. Not a single person can understand anything. Whatever one thinks one knows about anything is wrong. There, quite literally, are no right understandings or wrong understandings because one cannot say that any idea is more right than another idea.

This does not mean there is no such thing as objective truth. Far from it. This means that one can never touch it or speak of it, except in the most abstract of terms.

I do believe that we can build subjective understandings. Understandings that, while still quite wrong, are more interesting to think about, more fun to use. I think the only way a person can go about building a subjective understanding is to systematically throw away everything given to oneself by others.

I have said in these forums that philisophical debate is childs play for me. This is because I have a subjective understanding that is fun to use and apply. I think that amusement is the only factor that really matters when it comes to philisophical insight. Because I have a great deal of fun with my philosophies, I think of them a lot more than the average person does.

The person who engages in debate with me quickly finds that I am far more than I seem to be on the surface. Not only that, but I have such an utter command over language and meaning and semantics that one gets turned around every second when attempting to pin me down on a topic. This all stems from my subjective understanding. It is no better, no more right, no more objective than anything you have to offer. What is different is that it is mine. I have influences ranging from Socrates all the way up to Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com).

But what I say comes from none of these people. They come from me, my own unique take on my subjective point of view. I think that anyone with the courage to drop the half-truths given to them by others, and they are all half-truths, can discuss with me on my own level, even though I have met nobody who can actually do so. It takes nothing more than courage.

Even though I say this, I am not sure anybody here can approach my level of courage. As one grows older, one's boldness lessens and lessens. One takes fewer and fewer risks. One starts to value security and comfort. These things destroy subjective understandings that one might have acquired if one had remained bold. The combined inertia of one's emotional fears destroys the capacity of the mind to hold original thoughts.

I have more respect for a six year-old than I do for anybody my age and older. Including myself, including my parents.

What do the people here have to say? Surely there will be more whining, more pitiful debate, more rampant accusations of insufferable egoism. But perhaps a few of you have some subjective understanding. Perhaps I can coax you into revealing it in this space. Perhaps one of you can earn my respect.

Quite why anyone would want to debate with such an insufferable arrogance is beyond me but I will, against my better judgement. I do essentially agree that understanding is subjective, truth is personal because it is coloured by our perceptions that are peculiar to each of us. Acquired 'truth' such as fed by priests through the sieve of dogma is just another subjective truth.
The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that debate is impossible unless premises and definitions are agreed beforehand. If this is not done, you might as well go away and have a conversation with someone who cannot speak your language any more than you theirs. A debate between people using what amounts to different languages is just not possible. I have ample experience of this as a Pagan who has been misguided enough to get involved in debates (armed conflict and warfare would be a better description!) with Fundamentalist Christians. I can actually accept much (but by no means all) of what the Bible says but can reach no agreement over it with Fundies as we just do not read things in the same way. Much the same as Churchill's two nations separated by a common language, so are differing religons, philosophies, etc. and this has to be resolved before debate can commence.
All that is required is a realisation that this is the case and an open mind that is, at least, willing to entertain the possibility of an alternative way of seeing things.

It is not beyond me. The attitude is conveyed on purpose, as a challenge to anybody who thinks he is good enough to step in the arena. It attacks the centers of emotion that tell a person what is right and wrong, it challenges you to defend that which you think is right. Nothing, not even my arrogance, is outside my ken.

What you say comes close to what I am trying to convey, and reflects understandings I had come to in the past. Yet it misses it completely. There can be no understandings, at least not of the type you think. The proof is ample. Even the senses lie to you. Nothing is as it seems. One can look at the same thing on different days and see different things. Even simple things are seen in new lights with every waking moment.

The real proof, though, cannot come from me, or anybody else. I can point the way towards an understanding of no understandings, but ultimately it comes down to each of us to witness that basic truth. One has to realize that one's own understandings are wrong, before one can appreciate the value of what I am trying to communicate. And since none of you are interested in such basic things, all of you will miss it. You lack an appreciation for the mundane.

You speak of debate and discussion and premises and definitions. These things can do nothing, and are only entertainments for a restless mind. Even people of the same persuasion speak totally different languages and have completely different values. They are each looking at a face their brain projected onto the other person. They are each completely solipsistic, dealing with the projections of the brain on the other person, and not that person directly. How can communication be possible, except on the most base of levels? How can anything be accomplished, when two people are blind to each other, even standing right next to them. It is impossible.

I've watched two pagans talk with each other, completely misrepresenting the other's speech, and they were agreeing with each other! Members of the same coven! Without even debating, they could not communicate ideas. Neither could comprehend the other, and both were intelligent people.

No, it is actions that convey truth. Words cannot do it.

Interesting, isn't it? I go from an acolyte to the temple of language to, well, whatever you people will pigeonhole me into next. But, even though my words contradict each other, each is said with the full force of my being with my entire truth behind it. Analyze that!

What you are saying is that there can be no absolute understanding. If there was no understanding whatsoever, how could anything ever be done. What we have, that we call understanding, is a working theory of how the world is, that workfor us, that explains the world as we see it. The likelihood of this being the truth is limited if not downright nonexistent in many instances. But it is the best we can hope for. The trick is to change that theory as new information (however incomplete, that doesn't matter, consistency to one's senses is all that is required) is taken in.
It must be asked, if adequate communication is impossible, what are you doing trying to communicate on an internet forum? You don't understand what you are saying, your readers don't undestand what you are saying. What's the point?

One cannot speak of understanding without speaking of absolute understanding. The reason for this is the ego. Your own mind cannot accept the fact that you don't know anything. You cannot divorce the two. What you call understanding is half-truths handed to you by others. By your parents, by your schoolteachers, by the rest of society. You have none of your own. Nothing you can call yours. One denies one's own self-worth to the point where one must accept anothers truths as one's own. One's petty emotions rule them. Fear is what keeps a person from pursuing subjective understanding, an understanding that one knows is wrong, but one has anyway. An understanding much more powerful than anybody else's 'truth'.

Even the statement that there is no absolute understanding is a statement that attempts to define absolute reality. One uses it to try to prove something to another person, to demolish that person's potential subjective understanding.

You are misstating me. There are no understandings. What I call subjective understanding is not a mere opposite of objective understanding. It is something else entirely. Something one cannot approach until one has dropped the whole idea of absolutes. For you, there is no subjective understandings. You just have what you think is objective, absolute understandings, but which is more worthless than the dirt you spit upon.

There are no tricks, there are no short-cuts. All the spiritual work you do, all of the lofty talk, all of the pleas to the Gods, aren't helping you. They cannot give to you that which is already yours. They cannot make you drop the unhealthy half-truths given to you by others. It is a singular journey, one that has to be made alone.

And as for a point, there isn't one. I am just amusing myself. Making some self-important philisophical declarations to boost my own ego. Who knows, maybe I am wrong. I might even learn something. You never know with these things. I might impress somebody enough that they might want to get to know me more. It's happened many times before. What need be there for a point, anyway? It implies that a life must have purpose for it to be valid. I don't hold to such utilitarian ideals when it comes to my own consciousness.

One cannot speak of understanding without speaking of absolute understanding.
Agreed
The reason for this is the ego. Your own mind cannot accept the fact that you don't know anything. You cannot divorce the two. What you call understanding is half-truths handed to you by others. By your parents, by your schoolteachers, by the rest of society. You have none of your own. Nothing you can call yours. One denies one's own self-worth to the point where one must accept anothers truths as one's own. One's petty emotions rule them. Fear is what keeps a person from pursuing subjective understanding, an understanding that one knows is wrong, but one has anyway. An understanding much more powerful than anybody else's 'truth'.
Speak for yourself! I find it quite easy to accept that I do not know everything, that's part of the fun of (and reason for) living. But not know anything? I think not. If you come acroiss someone else's 'truth', you weigh, see it makes sense, is it not boneheadedly ridiculous to reject it because it is not your own? Subjective understanding is all we have or, more precisely, the best we can hope for. There may be a correspondence with an absolute but we have no way of knowing that, do we? I imagine you are refering to those who swalow whatever bullshit they are fed without question and call it knowledge but it isn't. If I had the inclination, I could learn anything by rote but, apart from impressing some people, would be meanignless without an understanding underpinning what I had learnt.
Even the statement that there is no absolute understanding is a statement that attempts to define absolute reality. One uses it to try to prove something to another person, to demolish that person's potential subjective understanding.
You've lost me here. What you seem to be saying is that the only absolute reality is not absolute but subjective, which is not absolute and so the definition ofg absolute reality isthat it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist thewn there is only subjective reality, a fact which demolishes the idea of subjective understanding. The argument seems to be going around in circles and disappearing up its own backside!
You are misstating me. There are no understandings. What I call subjective understanding is not a mere opposite of objective understanding. It is something else entirely. Something one cannot approach until one has dropped the whole idea of absolutes. For you, there is no subjective understandings. You just have what you think is objective, absolute understandings, but which is more worthless than the dirt you spit upon.
Where have I said this? I thought I had said the opposite.
There are no tricks, there are no short-cuts. All the spiritual work you do, all of the lofty talk, all of the pleas to the Gods, aren't helping you. They cannot give to you that which is already yours. They cannot make you drop the unhealthy half-truths given to you by others. It is a singular journey, one that has to be made alone.
Who are you replying to here? It certainly isn't me, because from what I have said itr is pretty clear I more or less agree with this.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
No, it is actions that convey truth. Words cannot do it.


So we should just ignore everything you say as untrue...

What you call understanding is half-truths handed to you by others. By your parents, by your schoolteachers, by the rest of society. You have none of your own. Nothing you can call yours. One denies one's own self-worth to the point where one must accept anothers truths as one's own.
Ah, this is where you're entirely incorrect. Understanding is your brain piecing together percieved truths about the world and figuring out how, where, and why they connect. You can teach people truths and lies, but you can never teach them to understand. Understanding is a personal accomplishment that not every individual, it seems, can attain.

One can know a bunch of lies, but the understanding of them is absolute as understanding does not exist without a base, whether that base be true or not.

But not know anything? I think not.

That is the gist of what I am saying. You ego will not accept the fact that you know nothing, and until you can, you will forever know nothing. Anything you claim to know will be a claim of absolute understanding. Do you see how tricky this is? I am not making abstract arguments here. This cannot be accepted by your ego on anything but the most abstract of levels. Do you understand? Anything you think you know, is an expression of absolute understanding, and can help you not. Moreover, all such declarations keep you from obtaining an interesting and useful subjective understanding. It keeps you from truly living. There really are no understandings at all. Even my concept of subjective understanding isn't understanding at all, it just looks like that to people who don't have it.

The argument seems to be going around in circles and disappearing up its own backside![quote]

It is not the argument that does so, it is reality. It is a lot stranger, a lot weirder, a lot more complex, than we could ever give it credit for. The opposite of a factual statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound statement is another profound statement. Any real description of reality will fit that.

[quote]What you seem to be saying is that the only absolute reality is not absolute but subjective, which is not absolute and so the definition ofg absolute reality isthat it doesn't exist.[quote]

I was not speaking of reality at all! I was speaking of understandings. Our understandings will forever be divorced from reality.

[quote]Where have I said this?

What you are saying is that there can be no absolute understanding.

That was not what I said. I say there is no understanding, from where you are sitting. No absolute, and no subjective. There is simply no understanding. Nothing you think you have helps, so it cannot be called understanding. It does not help even a little. In fact, it harms.

So we should just ignore everything you say as untrue...

Quite right. Nothing I say has any value whatsoever. You cannot understand it, and you wouldn't be able to apply it even if you did. It might as well be untrue, as far as you guys are concerned. It is my own subjective understanding, and as such, has no bearing on onything but the things I am in contact with. You might as well forget it. These aren't the truths you are looking for. Move along.

Understanding is your brain piecing together percieved truths about the world and figuring out how, where, and why they connect. You can teach people truths and lies, but you can never teach them to understand. Understanding is a personal accomplishment that not every individual, it seems, can attain.

Quite right. Understanding, at least, the concept you speak of, cannot be taught. However, I have seen even those with understanding, even understanding that vastly exceeds mine, not understand the simplest of things. I have seen them destroy another person's understanding which works just as well with harsh words and punishment. The only conclusion is that persons understanding is just as useless as the person who he is trying to destroy. Without understanding, we are useless, or so the popular wisdom goes, in the form of common sense. Understanding is a crutch we use to prop us up in the world.The understanding you speak of might exist, but it is useless, and far better dropped. It is the understanding that is useless, not the person. Whether it can be taught or not, it is useless. And, if it is useless, can it be called understanding? I don't think so, which is the base for my claim that there is no such thing.

All these things are mere words. I am not arguing that the concept, the word, doesn't exist, I am arguing that it will not help you.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Quite right. Nothing I say has any value whatsoever.

So what is the point of posting it?


You cannot understand it, and you wouldn't be able to apply it even if you did.

Do you think your words are not understandable because of a lack of intelligence on the part of the reader, or a lack of expressiveness on the part of the writer?

So what is the point of posting it?

Did you forget this?

And as for a point, there isn't one. I am just amusing myself. Making some self-important philisophical declarations to boost my own ego. Who knows, maybe I am wrong. I might even learn something. You never know with these things. I might impress somebody enough that they might want to get to know me more. It's happened many times before. What need be there for a point, anyway? It implies that a life must have purpose for it to be valid. I don't hold to such utilitarian ideals when it comes to my own consciousness.

Please don't make me answer the same question twice.

Do you think your words are not understandable because of a lack of intelligence on the part of the reader, or a lack of expressiveness on the part of the writer?

It has nothing at all to do with either. It is the basic nature of the ego that it cannot accept such claims, no matter how intelligent one is, no matter how expressive the expressor.

If you quit trying to divide things into absolutes, you might just see what I am talking about. Of course, that would be dependant on my claim that you cannot understand me being wrong. My guess is that you will not, and as such, will never understand what I am trying to say.

Nap, I am sorry that you cannot absolutely understand the things that I understand. Understand?

Nap, I am sorry that you cannot absolutely understand the things that I understand. Understand?

Such is the difficulty of conveying what I am trying to convey. Essentially, there is no understanding, so understanding that is useless. It is a self-defeating philosophy. Such logical conundrums are at the heart of my whole outlook. Even though you might look at them and see nothing of worth, nothing that can be used, I see a palette and a canvas. Such things are my bread and butter, to be thought about daily. And, as such I can use them. The day may come where I will be able to convey concepts of incredible depth and blindingly recursive meaning with just a few loaded words. Until then, I just play around with the concepts, as you see here.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Such is the difficulty of conveying what I am trying to convey. Essentially, there is no understanding, so understanding that is useless. It is a self-defeating philosophy. Such logical conundrums are at the heart of my whole outlook. Even though you might look at them and see nothing of worth, nothing that can be used, I see a palette and a canvas. Such things are my bread and butter, to be thought about daily. And, as such I can use them. The day may come where I will be able to convey concepts of incredible depth and blindingly recursive meaning with just a few loaded words. Until then, I just play around with the concepts, as you see here.
===========================================
Yes,I did anticipate that a conundrum was sufficient in this situation. Glad that you understood, for understanding is just that-the acting of standing under an impression that you comprehend my intent.
Then, intent is interpreted by the intendee as to the intention of the intender. Hopefully to bring about the intended understanding.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Did you forget this?

Yes I did...why? Because you said this:

Nothing I say has any value whatsoever...You might as well forget it.


Please don't make me answer the same question twice.

What's the matter Nap, all that C&Ping wear you out?


It has nothing at all to do with either. It is the basic nature of the ego that it cannot accept such claims, no matter how intelligent one is, no matter how expressive the expressor.

Horsehockey.


If you quit trying to divide things into absolutes, you might just see what I am talking about. Of course, that would be dependant on my claim that you cannot understand me being wrong. My guess is that you will not, and as such, will never understand what I am trying to say.

I don't know what you are trying to say because you don't know either. I don't think it matters to you what you say as long as you have an audience.

Horsehockey.

An abject dismissal of my point wholly based on the refusal of your ego to accept my assertions. You proved my point with that very word. Your ego refuses to accept it, so you make such unfounded accusations. Your refusal to provide counter-argument means that I am supposed to accept it purely on your authority. Since I created the thread, and I am putting my subjective understandings here for you all to witness and be entertained by, it is you that has to back up your dismissal. On what grounds is it horsehockey?

I don't know what you are trying to say because you don't know either.

Again with the absolutes. The first claim is all you can say. If you knew what I was trying to say, then you could make a judgement. But you don't, so you are incapable of saying the second. One does not follow from the other. It is as I predicted in my first post, that whining, pitiful debate, and pointless accusations would be the rule. I am not looking for debate here. I am looking for somebody to display the understandings that are coming solely from them. If you had any, you would have realized what I was trying to say instead of making useless argument. Instead of playing chess, you complain about why you can't move your pawn three spaces instead of two.

Yes,I did anticipate that a conundrum was sufficient in this situation. Glad that you understood, for understanding is just that-the acting of standing under an impression that you comprehend my intent.
Then, intent is interpreted by the intendee as to the intention of the intender. Hopefully to bring about the intended understanding.

That's pretty good! But there is nothing underneath it, no fire. Trying to comprehend that is just going to tie your brain up in knots. I am attempting to convey clarity. That is an attempt to confuse. It can be useful, to trip people up who don't know what they are talking about. But it is not good philosophy.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
An abject dismissal of my point wholly based on the refusal of your ego to accept my assertions. ...Your refusal to provide counter-argument means that I am supposed to accept it purely on your authority... it is you that has to back up your dismissal. On what grounds is it horsehockey?

If you knew what I was trying to say, then you could make a judgement. But you don't, so you are incapable of saying the second.

I provided my counter-argument, you just didn't respond to it.


It is as I predicted in my first post, that whining, pitiful debate, and pointless accusations would be the rule.

See above.


I am not looking for debate here.

I know.


I am looking for somebody to display the understandings that are coming solely from them.

No, I don't think you are.


If you had any, you would have realized what I was trying to say instead of making useless argument.

You mean the useless argument you didn't address.


Instead of playing chess, you complain about why you can't move your pawn three spaces instead of two.

Please show me where I "complained" about anything.

In case you missed my argument before, I'll post it again. Here it is.

I don't think it matters to you what you say as long as you have an audience.

Please let me know if you'd like me to expand on that. :)

I don't think it matters to you what you say as long as you have an audience.

That is both a complaint, and an abject dismissal. That is not an argument at all. It is a refusal to deal with what I am trying to communicate. If that is all you have, then it would be useless for me to go any further. So what if it is true? So what if I am a child looking for attention? Can you play along? Or are you just going to sit there and make like the responsible adult who knows best?

Understanding, at least, the concept you speak of, cannot be taught. However, I have seen even those with understanding, even understanding that vastly exceeds mine, not understand the simplest of things. I have seen them destroy another person's understanding which works just as well with harsh words and punishment. The only conclusion is that persons understanding is just as useless as the person who he is trying to destroy.
Wait... What? "The only conclusion is"? The only conclusion here is that you're incapable of reasoning. There is absolutely no basis for your "conclusion", it is nonsensical, non sequitur.

All these things are mere words. I am not arguing that the concept, the word, doesn't exist, I am arguing that it will not help you.
What you were arguing, whether or not you realised it, was absolutely nothing. Firstly, you declared that our definition of "understand" involves it being a concrete "truth". Then you declared that we flat out cannot "understand" and in fact all of our understandings are taught to us. You claimed that it was an, as we already knew, abstract concept. What you pulled out of your ass was that it all possible understandings are false.

It has nothing at all to do with either. It is the basic nature of the ego that it cannot accept such claims, no matter how intelligent one is, no matter how expressive the expressor.
You're in college, correct? Please take a few more english composition courses to help you better express yourself in the written form. The only thing that my ego is telling me is that you enjoy yanking crap from your behind and flinging it at people pretending it's a cream pie, and that we'll all be amazed at your wittiness.

Such is the difficulty of conveying what I am trying to convey.
Or maybe because you have to resort to using the word "convey" twice in a sentence.

It is as I predicted in my first post, that whining, pitiful debate, and pointless accusations would be the rule. I am not looking for debate here.
Ohhhhhh... now I understand why you think logical fallacies, partially formed arguments, and bizzare conclusions are perfectly acceptable.
Just so you know, it's quite difficult for us to come up with intelligent arguments when all you're doing is prancing around like a fluffy little girl telling the world about your wonderful little revelations and any and all disagreements truly stem from our fragile egos and of course can be easily dismissed as untrue because truth doesn't really exist... except for yours of course. Well, you'll never say that yours exists so you can pretend to play around with our egos, but you'll never make an argument without being absolutely correct in your mind on it.

What you pulled out of your ass was that it all possible understandings are false.

Precisely. All possible understandings are false. None of it will help you. It is better to try not to understand, and deal with reality as it is, instead of trying to understand it.

The only thing that my ego is telling me is that you enjoy yanking crap from your behind and flinging it at people pretending it's a cream pie, and that we'll all be amazed at your wittiness.

That is because you are using your ego to make judgements, not your intelligence. If you could abstain from reactionary ego judgements for a few minutes, you would see. But your ego will not let you. It has too strong of a hold over you.

Ohhhhhh... now I understand why you think logical fallacies, partially formed arguments, and bizzare conclusions are perfectly acceptable.

They are indeed perfectly acceptable. Philosophy is play. Serious play, but play nonetheless. Only when one takes it too seriously does one find these things unacceptable. The reason philosophy is so staid and boring is because people are forgetting to play. Bizarre conclusions, half-assed arguments, fallacious statements, are all part of the game. To see where the game will lead. People forget that philosophy goes nowhere, and that it is quite useless. Why bother trying to convince anyone of anything? Useless! Just have fun with it!

truth doesn't really exist... except for yours of course.

Find truth for yourself, and your ego won't be so fragile.

but you'll never make an argument without being absolutely correct in your mind on it.

Why bother, otherwise? That is not good play. One must be bold.

prancing around like a fluffy little girl

You have something against fluffy little girls? I have far more respect for them than I do for people who cannot play.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
That is both a complaint, and an abject dismissal. That is not an argument at all.

It's an observation backed up by your own statements.


It is a refusal to deal with what I am trying to communicate.

By your own admission what you are trying to communicate is worthless, both in source and content.


If that is all you have, then it would be useless for me to go any further.

What else do I need? Of course it's useless, you've said so yourself.


So what if it is true? So what if I am a child looking for attention?

Usually we try to discourage children from behaving this way, and such behavior in adults is just as unpleasant.


Can you play along?

Why would I want to?


Or are you just going to sit there and make like the responsible adult who knows best?

Ok. Sure.

*shrugs* There is nothing more to say to you, Vile. You can go back to your boring life now, don't let me get in the way.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
*shrugs* There is nothing more to say to you, Vile.

Well, you could try posting something of substance that you truly mean for the sake of discussion. If you post vague rambling elliptical statements that you refer to as worthless yourself, designed only to amuse you, why would you expect a different response?

This is a debate/discussion forum...you seem to regard the other posters as your audience, rather than fellow discussion group members...maybe that's the problem.


You can go back to your boring life now, don't let me get in the way.

You know nothing about my life, so I would have to say that your statement is baseless.

You can go back to your boring life now, don't let me get in the way.

"Boring" is a very subjective term, how do you know Vile's life isn't full of intrigue and is interesting? :D

Originally posted by Napsterbater
That's pretty good! But there is nothing underneath it, no fire. Trying to comprehend that is just going to tie your brain up in knots. I am attempting to convey clarity. That is an attempt to confuse. It can be useful, to trip people up who don't know what they are talking about. But it is not good philosophy. [/B]
===========================================

That is what I would have said too. I thought it was quite clear, sorry to confuse you.
I do not attempt to trip the tripped. I merely respond on the same level that I witness.

I must go back to my designing.
Perhaps when I return you will be discussing something with the guys that requires thinking.

The fact that it is worthless does not mean that it doesn't have substance. All of the events in my life tend towards one concept. That concept is what I am trying to reveal to you guys right now. Have you ever noticed how all the other threads I participate in interrelate and provide meaning for each other? It all boils down to the same truths, the same reality. To me, there is nothing in this world that has any value whatsoever. I place no value on truth, lies, money, possessions, fame, attention, anything at all. I just play at life, taking that which ever happens to momentarily interest me. So for me to say that what I am saying is worthless has a wholly different meaning than what you mean when you use that word.

To you, it should not be worthless. To you, who would attempt to know this world, my writings should have much worth. In the end, it will not help you get anywhere, but right now, I think you need to at least try to understand what it is I am saying. At least enough to say that it is a valid point of view, one that a person can legitimately have, even if you can't bring yourself to take that attitude yourself.

I may be playing, I may think that this won't go anywhere, but that doesn't mean that the words aren't deadly serious. That doesn't mean that I don't mean what I say. That doesn't mean that this game does not have goals. That doesn't mean that we cannot all learn something.

I don't know what you actually attempt to accomplish on these forums, but how the forums were before I got here isn't pretty. There doesn't seem to be any real philosophers here, playing with real ideas, instead of abstract concepts thought up by others. Even the smartest one here, Blob, admits to only being here to exercise his educational muscle by poking holes in new-agers.

I am trying to bring to you a bright, lively world of spirited philosophy here. I am trying to bring to you the kind of philosophy that changes worlds. It might be useless to try, it might well be pointless, but I can make the attempt anyway. Because I have nothing better to do. There might be nothing in this world I value, but that doesn't mean that I might not be able to create it. I might well be able to create the kind of mental giants I am looking for. Because, quite frankly, you guys aren't even worth keeping as an audience. I can't get anything by bouncing ideas off of you. I already tried it, right here, and look what happened.

I don't even have to know anything about your life to know that it is boring. You have not said anything new, fresh, interesting. That is all the proof I need. I would not want the life of somebody whose ideas I cannot respect. You don't even seem to have them. instead, all you have is a closed fist. You are far more interesting to me then the average guy walking on the street, but not much more. Perhaps not even as much, because you don't see anybody walking these days. Not in America, anyway. I might want to know his reasons.

You might have something that may be of momentary interest to me. Perhaps you write music. But it still won't get far unless it is revolutionary new music in some way. Writing the same old stuff just seems boring to me.

You see? Interesting things to me are rare enough that I can assume that most people do not have them, unless they demonstrate something impressive to me. What's impressive to me is a fresh, unburdened outlook. So, I can safely assume that you have a boring life. I might be wrong, but I won't be making any real mistake.

Thank you Dan, perhaps I might be able to come up with something that will draw you out more. Until then, enjoy the party.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
To you, it should not be worthless. To you, who would attempt to know this world, my writings should have much worth.

I may be playing, I may think that this won't go anywhere, but that doesn't mean that the words aren't deadly serious. That doesn't mean that I don't mean what I say. That doesn't mean that this game does not have goals. That doesn't mean that we cannot all learn something.

I don't know what you actually attempt to accomplish on these forums, but how the forums were before I got here isn't pretty. There doesn't seem to be any real philosophers here, playing with real ideas, instead of abstract concepts thought up by others. Even the smartest one here, Blob, admits to only being here to exercise his educational muscle by poking holes in new-agers.

I am trying to bring to you a bright, lively world of spirited philosophy here. I am trying to bring to you the kind of philosophy that changes worlds. It might be useless to try, it might well be pointless, but I can make the attempt anyway. Because I have nothing better to do. There might be nothing in this world I value, but that doesn't mean that I might not be able to create it. I might well be able to create the kind of mental giants I am looking for. Because, quite frankly, you guys aren't even worth keeping as an audience. I can't get anything by bouncing ideas off of you. I already tried it, right here, and look what happened.


As I said before...you're not looking for a discussion, you want an audience...you wish to educate us intellectual inferiors.

Napster, you have a fine mind. It's a shame you take as a cue to consider yourself elevated somehow above the rest of the members here. Perhaps you might take the time to read some of what the other members post, you might find that we have some very intelligent and insightful people here. Blob indeed would be one of them. Blibblob would be another. Take the time to get to know some of the people here before you decide they have nothing to offer, and consider that maybe your estimation of the intellectual blight we suffered before your arrival might be wrong.

It is not intelligence that I think is lacking in you people. It is freshness and fun, new approaches to old problems. I still have not seen anything like that out of you people. Just the same old tired arguments about the same stupid crap. I don't care for intelligence. An idiot can gain my respect, and they often do. I perceive no intellectual blight, because intelligence is not what I am looking for here. My attitude is to encourage you to step up to the plate and actually contribute something of value, instead of pointless debate with somebody trying to bring something original to the forums.

I happen to be quite intelligent. So I use that intelligence to create the things I want out of life. I use others to that end. You guys should be proud that I even consider you guys worthy of my attention.

Others are quite wealthy. Wealthy people use others to create more wealth.

Strong people use others to create more strength.

Enthusiastic people inspire enthusiasm in others.

Wise people try to spread the wisdom.

Puppy dogs spread joy and laughter.

People should feel proud that they get to be a part of something that creates. Even if it is just some fool shooting his mouth off, trying to bring something to the rest of you. I am willing to be patient through all the foolishness, through all the mistakes, through all the negativity, to get through to find the gold lying underneath. I am not going to sit here and play nicely. That is far too boring, and undermines my purpose here.

I am not going to ask cautiously for your respect, begging for positive attention, giving my power away to you guys. I am not going to be properly assertive and upbeat. I am going to take respect in the way that I do best. I am going to pursue my own path through this quagmire, take my own crown, force the respect from you. That is what I am about. That is who I am.

I am going to have fun with this, and I will let no one take my fun away.

Humility is an important virtue...;)

Originally posted by Napsterbater
It is not intelligence that I think is lacking in you people. It is freshness and fun, new approaches to old problems. I still have not seen anything like that out of you people. Just the same old tired arguments about the same stupid crap. I don't care for intelligence. An idiot can gain my respect, and they often do. I perceive no intellectual blight, because intelligence is not what I am looking for here. My attitude is to encourage you to step up to the plate and actually contribute something of value, instead of pointless debate with somebody trying to bring something original to the forums.

Fine, so it's not intelligence you wish to grace us with, it's some other perceived thing which you have and we don't. You're here to enlighten us in some way. We get it.


I happen to be quite intelligent.

So I've noticed.


So I use that intelligence to create the things I want out of life.

Nothing wrong there.

I use others to that end.

That's where it gets unpleasant.


You guys should be proud that I even consider you guys worthy of my attention.

You should bite me.


I am not going to be properly assertive and upbeat. I am going to take respect in the way that I do best. I am going to pursue my own path through this quagmire, take my own crown, force the respect from you. That is what I am about. That is who I am.

Knock yourself out.


I am going to have fun with this, and I will let no one take my fun away.

I wouldn't think of it. :)

We get it.

Obviously you don't, otherwise I wouldn't be talking.

You guys are just like every other self-important gaggle of gurus out there. You think your little web community is actually worth something, like you have something I can't get right down the road. Sure, you guys 'get it'. And everybody who doesn't 'get it' is made an example of. Well, I'm not going to play nicely by your dumb little subjective rules, moderator or not.

I use others to that end.

That's where it gets unpleasant.

I don't see why it should. If you don't want to play, don't play. Your boss uses you to get rich. Don't like that, quit your job. Nobody is telling you to stick around.

You guys should be proud that I even consider you guys worthy of my attention.

You should bite me.

Biting is too good for you.

Evakian...: ;)

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Obviously you don't, otherwise I wouldn't be talking.

Sure you would Napster, you like to hear yourself talk.


You guys are just like every other self-important gaggle of gurus out there.

It is you that has an inflated sense of self-importance.


You think your little web community is actually worth something, like you have something I can't get right down the road.

It's worth something to me, and if you stick around long enough, maybe you'll see why. The fact is that you're so focused on yourself that it makes all of your perceptions and observations suspect.


Sure, you guys 'get it'. And everybody who doesn't 'get it' is made an example of.

Huh?


Well, I'm not going to play nicely by your dumb little subjective rules, moderator or not.

Like I said before...knock yourself out. :)


I don't see why it should. If you don't want to play, don't play. Your boss uses you to get rich. Don't like that, quit your job. Nobody is telling you to stick around.

Is it your intent to drive away everybody?


Biting is too good for you.

Indeed? What would be appropriate? :)

The fact is that you're so focused on yourself that it makes all of your perceptions and observations suspect.

I am not focused on myself here, I am focused on you guys. That is how I can keep a thread running this long. Were I truly focused on myself, I would have left long ago. This is an affected attitude. I can change it at will. I have not seen the need to do so, I am having fun already. Why bother changing what works?

Is it your intent to drive away everybody?

I have already made perfectly clear what my intentions are. To create from you that which I want to see. You don't want to play, so why do you stick around?

Indeed? What would be appropriate?

Clothespins, a bucket of ice, and peanut butter come to mind... ;)

Not to mention, It has been about a week since I created a thread. If I were such an attention hog, surely I would be making threads every day, and butting my head into discussions I don't belong merely to get kicks.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am not focused on myself here, I am focused on you guys. That is how I can keep a thread running this long.

Of course...you are the one keeping the thread going.


Were I truly focused on myself, I would have left long ago.

Aww...don't do that.


This is an affected attitude. I can change it at will.

I know.


I have not seen the need to do so, I am having fun already.

And as long as you are having fun, the discussion has value. But of course, you're not focused on yourself.


I have already made perfectly clear what my intentions are. To create from you that which I want to see. You don't want to play, so why do you stick around?

Has it not occurred to you that maybe I'm trying to create from you that which I want to see? The main reason I say you're focused on yourself is that it's obvious you look at others based on how they interact with you, rather than how they interact with everyone. If you look at this thread, you'll see that you've responded to me as often as I've responded to you, yet you've convinced yourself that it's you who are directing the course of the discussion, and you who are keeping this thread going. Why is that?


Clothespins, a bucket of ice, and peanut butter come to mind... ;)

What an interesting combination...I can only wonder at what you'd do with each of these items. :)

Not to mention, It has been about a week since I created a thread. If I were such an attention hog, surely I would be making threads every day, and butting my head into discussions I don't belong merely to get kicks.

Point taken.

What an interesting combination...I can only wonder at what you'd do with each of these items.

...do laundry? ;)

Has it not occurred to you that maybe I'm trying to create from you that which I want to see?

Of course, but I have stated that I will not play nicely.

We all do so. It is not limited to certain people. What makes the difference is who is stronger than the other. Who has more leverage. That is the person who will succeed in the creating. Who's vision is stronger. Whose understanding, subjective or otherwise, is wider. One of the reasons I come into places like this with the attitude I do is to try these things against others. So that I might learn from my interactions. I have said before that I am trying to teach you guys, but that was only a ruse. A game, if you will. The one learning is me.

I do not think it is possible to teach you. Whether it is a matter of understanding or expression, I do not know. My focus is two-pointed. At the same time I am watching you guys intently, trying to reveal your humanity, so I am watching myself, observing my own ego. Watching how it reacts.

All of my observations and my insights come from this, because I am always watching. It does not take an effort of will to separate myself from my ego, like it does most people. Which is why I can coccoon up, keeping a portion of my consciousness to myself, and letting my ego and body take control of the rest. I think the only reason I can do this is because I was born this way. I have observed nobody else with the capability.

My unique perspective leads to some unique ideas. I try to bring them to you guys, as my duty to the world for giving me this gift. Perhaps this can be taught, maybe it cannot. I won't know until I make the attempt.

If you look at this thread, you'll see that you've responded to me as often as I've responded to you, yet you've convinced yourself that it's you who are directing the course of the discussion, and you who are keeping this thread going.

Aside from my first post in the thread, everything I have said has been a response. Whenever I say something, I am responding to something you guys have said. Whenever any of you have said something, you have been attacking me. It was the quality of my responses that kept the thread going, not who has been responding to who.

Even now, you have not said anything, and have merely been attacking me. You have not said anything of value at all, I have been the one providing the material for discussion. Namely, my insufferable ego, and my belief that nobody except me can understand anything. Neither of those things exist, but that is how your mind reads them. All you could do is attack what your ego could not accept.

I think that ego gets in the way of personal learning. Threatened ego seems to make the person go to the defensive/anger mode.

Learning to control ego, rather than the other way around, helped me to look at things more from a neutral viewpoint.

I learned a long time ago that when I talk I can only say things that I already know. When I listen I can learn. Sometimes, when being controlled by the ego, the mouth is engaged before the brain. One feels that a response is necessary in defense.
One day I asked myself "in defense of what?" "Defense to whom?"
Why would it matter to me what another thought? Others are temporary in our lives.

I interject, I receive. These are the two actions of life.

Now, I watch the arguements of others. I learn from both sides.
I can usually do this without interjection.

There are usually no points to be awarded in arguements or discussions. It usually amounts to who thought of what first.
Winners are usually chosen by like-thinking people of the choice.

Egos seem to get in the way.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
It does not take an effort of will to separate myself from my ego, like it does most people. Which is why I can coccoon up, keeping a portion of my consciousness to myself, and letting my ego and body take control of the rest. I think the only reason I can do this is because I was born this way. I have observed nobody else with the capability.

You're not as special as you think.


My unique perspective leads to some unique ideas. I try to bring them to you guys, as my duty to the world for giving me this gift.

You do have the gift of intelligence, it's just a pity you use it to annoy people.


Aside from my first post in the thread, everything I have said has been a response. Whenever I say something, I am responding to something you guys have said. Whenever any of you have said something, you have been attacking me.

Attacking you? If you mean mentioning your self-centered outlook, you've been so open about having such an attitude it didn't occur to me that you'd perceive this as an attack. My apologies if I was harsh.


It was the quality of my responses that kept the thread going, not who has been responding to who.

I don't suppose it would surprise you if no one shared this opinion.


Even now, you have not said anything, and have merely been attacking me. You have not said anything of value at all, I have been the one providing the material for discussion. Namely, my insufferable ego, and my belief that nobody except me can understand anything.

Of course.


Neither of those things exist, but that is how your mind reads them. All you could do is attack what your ego could not accept.

They may or may not exist, but that's how you represent yourself. I guess that just goes to show that if you're going to behave poorly people will respond accordingly. Again, I'm sorry if you feel attacked, that wasn't my intent.

nobody except me can understand anything.

It all makes sense now...i better just stop thinking since it's an exercise in futility...

You're not as special as you think.

My mom says i'm cool...http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/milhouse.gif

I think that ego gets in the way of personal learning. Threatened ego seems to make the person go to the defensive/anger mode.

Learning to control ego, rather than the other way around, helped me to look at things more from a neutral viewpoint.

I learned a long time ago that when I talk I can only say things that I already know. When I listen I can learn. Sometimes, when being controlled by the ego, the mouth is engaged before the brain. One feels that a response is necessary in defense.
One day I asked myself "in defense of what?" "Defense to whom?"
Why would it matter to me what another thought? Others are temporary in our lives.

I interject, I receive. These are the two actions of life.

Now, I watch the arguements of others. I learn from both sides.
I can usually do this without interjection.

Good post Dan :)

Whenever any of you have said something, you have been attacking me.

He is appaled at your egoism.

Lego your ego-

http://www.andersenabc.dk/multimedia/lego-logo.gifhttp://www.homegrocer.com/images/products/eggo-10-ct-blueberry.jpg

You're not as special as you think.

I really don't give a damn.

it's just a pity you use it to annoy people.

Such is your subjective observation.

If you mean mentioning your self-centered outlook, you've been so open about having such an attitude it didn't occur to me that you'd perceive this as an attack.

Everything you have done in this thread has been attacking. It doesn't really bother me, but it gets in the way of constructive discussion. You give no other handles for conversation. Nothing I can grab onto and turn into a new viewpoint.

Even now, you have not said anything, and have merely been attacking me. You have not said anything of value at all, I have been the one providing the material for discussion. Namely, my insufferable ego, and my belief that nobody except me can understand anything.

Of course.

Is that all you have? Point proven. You say nothing.

but that's how you represent yourself.

That is how you perceive me to be representing myself. That was my whole point. My attitude is a genuine response to the people around me. When I speak in IM to others, the attitude changes. I give each person what they are giving me. It is an intelligent response to stimuli. Forget about my perceived 'bad behavior' and the behavior in question will disappear as well.

It is your very attitude as a parent disciplining a child that causes me to act this way. I could stop, because I know what is going on, but I prefer not to. I have learned over the years that a genuine response is best, instead of trying to control the flow of interactions.

Parents evoke bad behaviour from their children, not the other way around. It is always the parent that needs to change his attitude, never the child.

You are representing me. And that representation forms in your mind as a mental understanding of who I am. The understanding exists only in your mind, but it influences my actions just as strongly as if it were a real understanding. But it is no more real than your dreams at night. That is what keeps the ego in control of you. It has nothing to do with good or bad behaviour or controlling oneself. All attempts to control oneself only end in greater control by the ego. The ego is the controlling mechanism in your head. Controlling it is self-defeating. One must let go of control completely if one hopes to gain any freedom whatsoever.

You are a fool.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Everything you have done in this thread has been attacking. It doesn't really bother me, but it gets in the way of constructive discussion.

From what I've read the only thing getting in the way of constructive discussion is you, but o wait... its all subjective right? *sighs*

Originally posted by Napsterbater


You are a fool.

I could be wrong here, and excuse this if those of you enjoy this, but it seems to me that Napster is a troll. A very clever troll in respect, however still a troll, who seems to thrive on setting about trying to frustrate people. He lacks any respect for anyone and since these kinds of people arnt unfortunatly rare, the simple remedy is to just ignore them?

Plain insults as the one above, serve no purpose other than to directly attack other posters and it just seems to further prove his obvious intentions.

From what I've read the only thing getting in the way of constructive discussion is you, but o wait... its all subjective right? *sighs*

This philosophy thing just doesn't seem to be your bag, Loki.

I'm sorry, but I am really losing my patience right now. Vile, it is probably better for you to close this thread, because it seems to be getting worse and worse, and I am not going to back down. I can go back to lurking for a few weeks, until I can be bothered to start a new thread.

I didn't understand a single word of that original post, but then according to Naps I shouldn't

Having tried to follow this thread but merely finding the originator changing the premises upon which he started leads me to to think that maybe he doesn't realise there is more to philosophy than talking utter bollocks and, when people point this out in as many words, wail that no one understands you!

That is fine, it is a tough concept to grasp. At any rate, thanks for at least trying.

This philosophy thing just doesn't seem to be your bag, Loki.
Hmm... Nietzche comes to mind...
Oh, ye, in thy philosophical wisdom, what do I mean by my simple comment?

I'm sorry, but I am really losing my patience right now. Vile, it is probably better for you to close this thread, because it seems to be getting worse and worse, and I am not going to back down. I can go back to lurking for a few weeks, until I can be bothered to start a new thread.
Tsk tsk tsk. Again you back down from a thread? I'm begining to sense that it's possible you're not as good as you think. Can't even find ways to defend your own egoism except by stating that we just don't get it.


I didn't understand a single word of that original post, but then according to Naps I shouldn't
Worry not, those of us who did understand it can inform you that it was nothing more than poppycock. Don't waste your time trying to make sense of it, you'll end up back where you started.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Worry not, those of us who did understand it can inform you that it was nothing more than poppycock.

I beg to differ Blib, that wasn't poppycock, or any other kind of cock for that matter, it was dash...balderdash to be precise. At first I thought it was horsehockey, but that wasn't quite right...definitely balderdash. There might be a trace of bullshit in it, but that doesn't destroy the overall theme of the balderdash.

...and here i was thinking it was rubbish...

Way to go Evak! :(

Hmm... Nietzche comes to mind...

Well, I am essentially rethinking Nietzche's "will to power" line of thinking. Interestingly enough, Nietzche is not a primary influence of mine, but many of the thinkers that are have been.

Can't even find ways to defend your own egoism except by stating that we just don't get it.

Whenever I find that I am using an argument too often, I attempt to find a philisophical justification for it. That is what this thread is.

you'll end up back where you started.

That is where all philosophy leads.

that it was nothing more than poppycock

If it really is poppycock, then why not make arguments to that end instead of making absolute judgements.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
If it really is poppycock, then why not make arguments to that end instead of making absolute judgements.

That might be fun.

pop·py·cock n.

Senseless talk; nonsense.

I refer you to some of the nonsense you've posted so far in this thread:

I have more respect for a six year-old than I do for anybody my age and older.

I think that anyone with the courage to drop the half-truths given to them by others, and they are all half-truths, can discuss with me on my own level, even though I have met nobody who can actually do so.

Perhaps one of you can earn my respect.

I go from an acolyte to the temple of language to, well, whatever you people will pigeonhole me into next. But, even though my words contradict each other, each is said with the full force of my being with my entire truth behind it.

And as for a point, there isn't one. I am just amusing myself. Making some self-important philisophical declarations to boost my own ego.

Nothing I say has any value whatsoever. You cannot understand it, and you wouldn't be able to apply it even if you did.

So what if I am a child looking for attention?

I don't know what you actually attempt to accomplish on these forums, but how the forums were before I got here isn't pretty.

You guys should be proud that I even consider you guys worthy of my attention.

I am not going to ask cautiously for your respect, begging for positive attention, giving my power away to you guys. I am not going to be properly assertive and upbeat. I am going to take respect in the way that I do best. I am going to pursue my own path through this quagmire, take my own crown, force the respect from you. That is what I am about. That is who I am.

The above nonsense came from just the first two pages of this thread...we also shouldn't forget your sig:

Everything said above came out of my ass. Please wipe the shit off before ingesting.

I'd say that a lot of what you've posted is the very definition of "poppycock".

Well, I am essentially rethinking Nietzche's "will to power" line of thinking. Interestingly enough, Nietzche is not a primary influence of mine, but many of the thinkers that are have been.
Nope. It has to do more of his opinion of philosophers.

Whenever I find that I am using an argument too often, I attempt to find a philisophical justification for it. That is what this thread is.
No, no no no. This thread is about you, about how absolutely wonderful you are. It has been since the thread starting post. Of course it was masked in the semblance of an actual topic to debate, which we tried to do, but in reality it was nothing more than you giving a speech about you. Then of course it turned into you continuing to discuss how great you are and how we're entirely incapable of understanding your "points" and "arguments" at all. Well, of course we don't understand your actual arguments, because we don't know you as a person, and that's what they're all about. You. Ye, the most unique sack of decaying organic matter on this planet.
If you don't believe me, I think we should take a look at a few choice quotes from your first post:

"I have said in these forums that philisophical debate is childs play for me. This is because I have a subjective understanding that is fun to use and apply."

"The person who engages in debate with me quickly finds that I am far more than I seem to be on the surface."
Sorry, not really... You are a wee bit more predicable than I originally thought. I applogize for giving you the benefit of the doubt, my ego shouldn't have let me do that.

"Not only that, but I have such an utter command over language and meaning and semantics that one gets turned around every second when attempting to pin me down on a topic."
Ah... so that's where we lose you, your convoluted sentence structure. Worry not, I'm good at getting through funky ass writing, but it'd still be easier to debate or discuss if it wasn't all about you.

"This all stems from my subjective understanding."
That only you seem to have... funny.

"It is no better, no more right, no more objective than anything you have to offer. What is different is that it is mine. I have influences ranging from Socrates all the way up to Maddox. "
Yours... of course, the only truly subjective and most educated opinion here.

"But what I say comes from none of these people. They come from me, my own unique take on my subjective point of view. I think that anyone with the courage to drop the half-truths given to them by others, and they are all half-truths, can discuss with me on my own level, even though I have met nobody who can actually do so. It takes nothing more than courage. "
An easy way to avoid debate. Pretend that it's impossible to actually occur because only you would be the one that could hold one.

"Even though I say this, I am not sure anybody here can approach my level of courage."
I AM TARZAN! Hear me roar!

"I have more respect for a six year-old than I do for anybody my age and older. Including myself, including my parents."
Sweet, if I can't comprehend any abstract concepts I hold a lot of respect in Nabsterbater's eyes. If only that was desirable.


That is where all philosophy leads.
Not all. Only the philosophies that nobody listens to, since the rules of debate and philosophy state that circular arguments are inherently flawed. And unless properly supported(which in this case, is quite impossible) can be simply thrown out of the debate since there's no reason to waste time on something improperly reasoned.

If it really is poppycock, then why not make arguments to that end instead of making absolute judgements.
Absolute judgements? What are you talking about? Everything we've said is relative. Since it's all about you, it's relative to you. Not relative to the absolute universe... oh wait, as a stringent follower of science I don't believe in that. Well, relative it is. The only thing that's been attempted to be argued from an absolute perspective is you arguing your egoism.
Oh, and by the way. We did. We tried, but you pulled us away from that since your reason knew full well that it was complete bullshit and instead your ego yanked us back to it, since it has more control over you than anything else in your cerebral cortex.
I'm trying to learn from the best, was that a good egotistical argument to make?

Damn you Vile! Why'd you have to be faster!

Oh well, mine includes commentary, oh yeah!

Vile, you are cherry picking some statements of mine that you don't particularly like and using that to judge my side of the entire three page argument. That is horrible, appeal to emotion-type argument. More abject dismissal type stuff that I predicted in the very first post.

Very few of those statements have any relation whatsoever to my line of reasoning. They are merely asides.

Blibblob, you do a little better, and attempt to tie your cherry-picking with an argument that the entire thread is about me, not about anything of importance I have to say.

But how can I not be an important topic of philisophical discussion? Or you, or Vile, or anyone for that matter? And I admitted as such in the first topic of the thread. I said right off the bat that these were my subjective understandings, not shared by anybody else. Of course the thread is about me, it is about an understanding I, and only I, have. What is wrong with original thought?

rules of debate and philosophy state that circular arguments are inherently flawed

According to your rules! Not everybody need follow those rules. Simply because it is in some book somewhere doesn't mean it should be held to as gospel truth. If a web forum isn't the place to question those rules, I don't know what is. Original thought is bound to break the rules.

Absolute judgements? What are you talking about?

The example above is a perfect one, that there are rules to philosophy. To place rules on something as broadly reaching as philosophy is as much an absolute judgement as Christianity's idea of sin.

Another is the baseless judgement of my ideas as some random epithet. My statements are absolute poppycock. The absolute is implied in the statement. If you did not think they were absolute balderdash, you would have made a statement to that end.

But how can I not be an important topic of philisophical discussion?
LOL. The mere fact that you have to ask that question... You're saying that philosophy is open ended discussion about anything?
Philosophy:
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

In case you didn't know, and it seems you didn't, we define words to mean certain things for a reason. So that discussion can be on topics and not what certain words mean.

What is wrong with original thought?
Blah blah blah, I'm awesome, blah blah blah, yay me, blah blah blah I rule. Oh yes, original thought... Original thought stops being original after you've already told somebody it. And since you've repeated time and time again how awesome you are, it's not quite so original anymore.

According to your rules! Not everybody need follow those rules. Simply because it is in some book somewhere doesn't mean it should be held to as gospel truth. If a web forum isn't the place to question those rules, I don't know what is. Original thought is bound to break the rules.
Not as well versed in philosophy as I originally thought it seems... That and it appears that you know absolutely nothing about debate, philosophical or otherwise. Rules of debate, universal rules of debate, were created in order to keep people from doing what you have been, spouting meaningless nonsense and wasting people's time. Now, hardly anybody in these forums ever actually holds themselves to the standards of a debate, however one would think that those who would actually wish to be considered intellectuals, or just flat out intelligent and worth listening to, would.

The example above is a perfect one, that there are rules to philosophy. To place rules on something as broadly reaching as philosophy is as much an absolute judgement as Christianity's idea of sin.
Philosophy isn't as broadly reaching as you would think. What we call what you're trying to do is "talk". "Talk", pertaining to the discussion of anything and everything. "Philosophy", pertaining to abstract concepts and their analysis through logic and reason instead of experimentation. Discussing you... hmm, would that be philosophy or talk... hmm, I wonder if the six year old next to me can answer this.
Talk he says, though I'm not sure he is absolutely correct, since he can't understand abstract concepts in the first place, but you respect him.

Another is the baseless judgement of my ideas as some random epithet. My statements are absolute poppycock. The absolute is implied in the statement. If you did not think they were absolute balderdash, you would have made a statement to that end.
Relative to you! I already explained this! Or is your subjective understanding incapable of comprehending something so simple, should I put it in more complex words and sentences? Convoluted loop-de-loops? What I might consider absolute is you thinking that you're the only person with a "subjective understanding" of the world. Though, one might question what exactly that means. I think it sounds like assybabble, like technobabble but relating to one's ass instead of technology.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Vile, you are cherry picking some statements of mine that you don't particularly like and using that to judge my side of the entire three page argument.

Actually I was just responding to your challenge to show how your posts contained a predominance of poppycock. I thought the best way to do that was by the use of examples, and thoughtfully, you had provided me with many examples to choose from.


That is horrible, appeal to emotion-type argument.

What emotion was I appealing to?


More abject dismissal type stuff that I predicted in the very first post.


You're wrong.

That would be an abject dismissal. I know you desperately need to believe that your powers of precognition are infallible, but really the only point I'm trying to make is that if you wish to have debates, or discussions, or whatever you wish to do here...it would be greatly facilitated if you were to leave your arrogant comments out of the mix. Believe me when I say that my response to your behavior is quite reserved compared to what some of the posters here would probably say to you. Just a friendly suggestion Napster.

Blibblob, I might well be talking instead of philosophising. There are many things I do not like about traditional philosophy. I have said before that I don't have the patience for the academic mindset. You might be more inclined in that direction. I honestly don't care for the academic mindset. I believe it is flawed in many ways. I have my own approaches to the subject of philosophy.

My knowledge of philosophy is very limited. I do not care to become an expert. I do not care to wow anybody with pure knowledge. I read about the philosophers that interest me and nothing more. I am surprised that you originally thought I was well-versed in philosophy. I never pretended to be. When you asked me about Nietzche, I went to Wikipedia and looked him up, because I only have a passing knowledge of him and his ideas. I am not interested in Nietzche's ideas, though now that I realise how similar some of his ideas are to my own, I might have to reverse that judgement. I am interested in my own, and any original ideas you guys might have.

I have said before in this thread that I want to bring a new kind of radical philosophy to people. This philosophy is something anybody can engage in, without any kind of study, without any kind of special requirements whatsoever. To you it might look like mere talk, or dumbed down philosophy for the masses. But it is my entire life, contemplating ideas like "Can we really understand anything?" Or, "What is the ego, anyway?" I think it is the eternal preoccupation with questions of that nature, that makes one a philosopher, not anything one has studied.

I think that there is a big difference between somebody who truly asks himself those questions, and attempts to live his life in accordance with the answers he comes to; and those who are preoccupied with the rules of the whole game. Those who keep trying to play correctly, forgetting to have fun, forgetting to apply the lessons.

The former is a true philosopher, in my arrogant opinion, and the second is just a dabbler, a dabbler even if he seems to be far more knowedgable that the first, even if he might win every single structured debate he engages in. A dabbler because he never learns, he just adds to his storehouse of knowledge. A good memorizer, a horrible philosopher, because he warps the true spirit of the ideal, making others think that this is what philosophy really is, when it was all about the question in the first place.

Vile the answer to your appeal to emotion question lies in the above paragraph. You were throwing a bunch of fluff in the air to score points.

leave your arrogant comments out of the mix

Your entire argument boils down to that? But then I already knew that.

I would rather not. They serve an important purpose. If one wishes to discuss with me, they are going to have to put up with it. Whoever doesn't want to hear it can set me on ignore. I didn't want to talk to them anyway.

I believe arrogance and egoism is a good thing, not a bad thing. I drink the Kool-aid.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
A dabbler because he never learns, he just adds to his storehouse of knowledge.

Contradiction in terms.

If he is adding to his own storehouse of knowledge then he is learning.

If he is adding to his own storehouse of knowledge then he is learning.

I suppose you think late night cramming for an exam is real learning. I suppose you think memorizing facts and figures is learning.

Anybody can remember a series of words. It takes a real learner, a true philosopher, to seek the truth no matter where it leads. Memorization is not truth-seeking. It is not a preoccupation with important questions. It is an obsession with answers. A dabbler is preoccupied with trying to look like a philosopher, a learned man, and missing the whole point of the philisophy in the first place.

I suppose you think memorizing facts and figures is learning.

Heh, he'd do great in those soulless, mindless, dank, and depressing Japanese education system schools. :D

Anybody can remember a series of words. It takes a real learner

Perhaps one of the most sensible posts you've made

If he is adding to his own storehouse of knowledge then he is learning.

Intellectual capacities and intelligence are different things.

I drink the kool-aid

http://www.natenichols.net/temp/kool-aid_man_200.jpg

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I suppose you think late night cramming for an exam is real learning. I suppose you think memorizing facts and figures is learning.

Right firstly...

Learning - The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.

Knowledge - Specific information about something.

Therefore... Learnng is the act, process, or experience of gaining specific information about something.

So yes, I do think late night cramming is learning and yes i do think mesmorizing facts and figures is learning because the english language to which you speak depicts so.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Anybody can remember a series of words. It takes a real learner, a true philosopher, to seek the truth no matter where it leads.

No it doesnt.

The real problem here Napster is that you just cannot get around something being simple, Oh no, everything in your demented little world has to be grandoise and vastly complicated so that somehow you can tell yourself that your somehow more intellegent than the rest of us for knowing it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

Memorization is not truth-seeking. It is not a preoccupation with important questions. It is an obsession with answers.


No one said it was??? Its like your quoting from entire conversations that never took place. Are you trying to prove this stuff to yourself, cause no one else has questioned any of this.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
A dabbler is preoccupied with trying to look like a philosopher, a learned man, and missing the whole point of the philisophy in the first place.

Once again you retailating against things that dont exist. I never said I was a philosopher? I've never mentioned that I am one? You come on here and define what you think a learned man should be, what skills he should posses and expect us all to suddenly bow down to your twisted visions? Everyone bar Evak isnt buying into this so I can only presume your once again trying to further concrete this warped perception you have.

Originally posted by Evakian
[b]

Intellectual capacities and intelligence are different things.


Your point in relation to my comment being?

Everyone bar Evak isnt buying into this so I cant only presume your once again trying to further concrete this warped perception you have.

What is this blaspheme?!?!?! Mistruth!!!!! Heathen!!!!

Originally posted by Evakian
Everyone bar Evak isnt buying into this so I cant only presume your once again trying to further concrete this warped perception you have.

(edited by sub-admin)

Evak what are you his cheerleader?

Originally posted by Evakian
Evak what are you his cheerleader?

(edited by sub-admin)

lol you really are just his bitch arnt you, agreeing with posts that make no sense and are debunked by a simple check in a dictionary.

I made some posts above asking you questions but nooo, you dont want to have to answer something that will prove your comment above is bullshit... nooo, simply stick to putting smileys on the end of your post so we all know what your saying is a joke.

Originally posted by Evakian


Anybody can remember a series of words. It takes a real learner

Perhaps one of the most sensible posts you've made

Originally posted by Evakian
.............you do realize i am trying to fight the impulse to (edited by sub-admin) because you suggested that i agreed with Napster, which is mistruth.....

I originally thought you had disagreed with my point that he has this warped perception he is trying to concrete, therefore agreeing that he is not warped in his perceptions and thus why i assumed you agreed with his points.

If you honestly disbelieve his mindless rambiling as much as me, then I apologise.

edit - Agreed, we shall wait for Napsters responce to the points made

Blibblob, I might well be talking instead of philosophising. There are many things I do not like about traditional philosophy. I have said before that I don't have the patience for the academic mindset.
Then maybe for clarity you should be more careful about your word choice, for example, don't claim that your philosophying if you're not making logical arguments that can be defended in a logical and reasoned way. Avoid calling talking points that only stand due to your will of arrogance philosophical arguments. And if you're just talking and know full well that what you're claiming is not based off of a reasoned and logical method then don't expect actual arguments against your points and certainly do not think that our lack of arguments or the poor quality thereof is due to our inability but instead due to your lack of creating an argument that has defined parts.

I am not interested in Nietzche's ideas, though now that I realise how similar some of his ideas are to my own, I might have to reverse that judgement. I am interested in my own, and any original ideas you guys might have.
This could possibly be another part of the problem. You originally declared that you have a wide range of influences from Socrates to Maddox, however now it seems as though the middle of that is lacking. There are a bunch of philosophers that you appear to be rather unaware of and it only adds to the ignorance and undeserved arrogance you hold regarding your statments against traditional philosophy in general. There are people in this world more intelligent and wiser than you. You threw out the vast majority of them with your overly generalized dismissal of actual philosophy. Your method is weak in comparison and could never hold any test as it is incomplete. In more than just the content, but also the structure and proof.

The former is a true philosopher, in my arrogant opinion, and the second is just a dabbler, a dabbler even if he seems to be far more knowedgable that the first, even if he might win every single structured debate he engages in. A dabbler because he never learns, he just adds to his storehouse of knowledge. A good memorizer, a horrible philosopher, because he warps the true spirit of the ideal, making others think that this is what philosophy really is, when it was all about the question in the first place.
Your arrogant opinions stem from ignorance. You know and understand little of actual philosophy and instead create your own definition that allows half reasoned and unupported deductions into the mix. Which will dilute the overall quality of philosophical thought with illogical child's play "revelations" about a world only barely understood by the "philosopher".

Are you trying to prove this stuff to yourself, cause no one else has questioned any of this.

No, I am attempting to convey a concept.

Once again you retailating against things that dont exist.

No, you are. I am not calling you a dabbler or a philosopher specifically. I am setting the concept out for debate, in response to Blibblob's arguments. You are taking offense to an attack I am not making. If anything, I am attacking Blibblob more than you, because he is the one who claims to know what philosophy is, and says that I am not engaged in philosophising. I have poked fun at the retaliatory nature of your posts though, and I can understand if you got confused.

Blibblob, I really don't care enough to take your advice. You are probably right, but I am not interested enough in traditional philosophy to make the effort. I cannot hold to your 'one true way' of doing things mentality. I can understand if you might not want to argue with me or discuss with me because of it. What I am doing is good enough for me. I am not about to go through an inordinate amount of work to impress you guys. You guys just aren't worth the effort. It also undermines my own philosophy. I believe a philosopher is one who questions reality, not one who can quote Nietzche at length, or even someone who can form fully reasoned arguments. Others can help me to that end.

And I could honestly care less about what you think my arrogance stems from. If you think you can make accurate judgements about that without even knowing me, then you are even more arrogant than I am. I do not think it is a bad thing, and I am not going to change at your whim.

And as for the dictionary, you should know Loki that not everybody has the same definitions for the same words. Ask everybody in your English class what love is, and you will find as many definitions as people. Real learning to me is not knowledge, and has nothing to do with facts, figures, or quotes.

Blibblob, I really don't care enough to take your advice. You are probably right, but I am not interested enough in traditional philosophy to make the effort. I cannot hold to your 'one true way' of doing things mentality. I can understand if you might not want to argue with me or discuss with me because of it. What I am doing is good enough for me. I am not about to go through an inordinate amount of work to impress you guys. You guys just aren't worth the effort. It also undermines my own philosophy. I believe a philosopher is one who questions reality, not one who can quote Nietzche at length, or even someone who can form fully reasoned arguments. Others can help me to that end.
*Sighs* You still don't understand what I'm talking about. Be wary of putting words in people's mouths, you'll find yourself wrong. First of all, I have never said that there is one true way of doing something. What I have been saying is that for an argument to be even possibly true it must have logical reasoning and support. Philosophical arguments are observations of the world and this world and--no matter how much many people try and skew it--it is a logically deducible place. Often it seems as though it is not, however this is due to a lack of knowledge about certain workings, not because it just doesn't make sense. The world can be predicted by mathematics, observations about the world have to lead to something that makes sense and is logical. Secondly, an argument must have support. What the fuck is an argument without support? Logical reasoning will only get you so far, people may have incomplete knowledge of the world and thusly incapable of reaching an observation that is logical to the rest of the populous. You may claim that you have a greater understanding and knowledge of the world then the world's most renown scientists and philosophers, however then you'll be nothing more than a dirty hairbrained liar. These simple requirements do not get in the way of doing things different ways. Science is entirely different from philosophy, however both hold themselves to these standards and out of both have come logical theories that hold against all observations. These standards are only there to keep things reasonable.
Secondly, you have entirely the wrong idea of a philosopher still. Philosophy majors must regurgitate Locke, Kant, Nietzche, etc. on command. Philosophers know their theories and continue to think about additons or new and different theories that could even contradict the most accepted theory. To be an actual philosopher you must be figuring out something new. However at the same time you must still be knowlegable of past excursions into this arena and you must also restrain yourself to coming up with something that makes sense, or as I've been calling it, reasonable and logically deduced.

And I could honestly care less about what you think my arrogance stems from. If you think you can make accurate judgements about that without even knowing me, then you are even more arrogant than I am. I do not think it is a bad thing, and I am not going to change at your whim.
My statement comes only from what you have been conveying. This has nothing to do with your personal life, soley to do with how you're portraying yourself here. So far you have stated nothing that could even give the possibility of an indication that base your crackpot theories off of anything reasonable. You have never given the logical reasoning behind it, nor your support. You're the one that want's to come up with something new, however at the same time you just want people to agree with you, to ignore how full of holes it is and just blindly nod our heads to your abilities. Sorry, not going to happen. You have yet to give logical reasons as to why you are correct other than statements of how absolutely wonderful you are.

What I have been saying is that for an argument to be even possibly true it must have logical reasoning and support.

I am not interested in being right. I am interested in being interesting. Whether my arguments are right, or can even remotely be considered right is none of my concern. I am like one of those people who write to raise awareness of something. He might be wrong all over the place, but at least he succeeded in getting the word out.

I am not interested in exploring the world logically. So, it doesn't matter to me whether my arguments are logical or not. Logic is a set of rules.

Philosophical arguments are observations of the world and this world

It is the observations that come first, not the philosophy. Humans are irrational beings.

What the fuck is an argument without support?

When a doctor tells his patient that he's going to make it, even though he knows the guy only has a thirty-percent chance to live. God. A song.

Logical reasoning will only get you so far, people may have incomplete knowledge of the world and thusly incapable of reaching an observation that is logical to the rest of the populous.

This does not make sense. Didn't you just get done saying everything is deducible with logic?

You may claim that you have a greater understanding and knowledge of the world then the world's most renown scientists and philosophers, however then you'll be nothing more than a dirty hairbrained liar.

The current ones maybe, but I have access to information that the dead ones don't.

Also, scientists are greatly focused on their area of expertise, and they give their entire lives over to their practice. They know a whole lot about a little.

And as for the philosophers, well, let me just say that if Socrates had been alive today, he would have had no need for the government to tell him to drink poison. Diogenes would have been thrown in the mental ward.

Philosophy majors must regurgitate Locke, Kant, Nietzche, etc. on command.

Then it is a great thing that I am not a philosophy major. I have already told you of my lack of respect for the academy.

However at the same time you must still be knowlegable of past excursions into this arena and you must also restrain yourself to coming up with something that makes sense, or as I've been calling it, reasonable and logically deduced.

That is only if I care to be accepted as a philosopher. Anybody can call himself a philosopher, just like anybody can call himself a real-estate investor. It's all in the subjective definitions.

So far you have stated nothing that could even give the possibility of an indication that base your crackpot theories off of anything reasonable.

So far, you have yet to touch them, only whine about them.

Napsterbater: Argue, argue, argue.
everybody else: bitch, bitch, ego, whine, ego, ego, logic, bitch.
Napsterbater: You guys are worthless!
everybody else: EGO!
Napsterbater: Yeah, no shit!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am not interested in being right. I am interested in being interesting.

That's ok, but you should be made aware that it's possible to be interesting without being obnoxious.


Whether my arguments are right, or can even remotely be considered right is none of my concern.

You've made that abundantly clear.

I am not interested in exploring the world logically. So, it doesn't matter to me whether my arguments are logical or not. Logic is a set of rules.

Rules, even though we may chafe at them, are what allow human beings to co-exist without killing each other rather more than they do already. Rebelling against authority when that authority is unjust is fine, but arbitrarily deciding that you won't follow the "rules" tends to make for unpleasant interactions with your fellow beings.


Humans are irrational beings.

They certainly are at times, but they are also the only beings that we know of to which you can apply the term "rational".


So far, you have yet to touch them, only whine about them.

Napsterbater: Argue, argue, argue.
everybody else: bitch, bitch, ego, whine, ego, ego, logic, bitch.
Napsterbater: You guys are worthless!
everybody else: EGO!
Napsterbater: Yeah, no shit!

Let's put this question simply...if you are going to openly show disrespect for others, why would you expect anyone to have even enough respect for you to listen to your ideas?

That's ok, but you should be made aware that it's possible to be interesting without being obnoxious.

Still wanting to act like the wise parent? Find some other way to interact with me, and my 'obnoxiousness' will disappear. It is you guys that are eliciting that out of me. I have little respect for those who demand respect from others when they are too lazy to gain it from those they demand from.

Rules, even though we may chafe at them, are what allow human beings to co-exist without killing each other rather more than they do already. Rebelling against authority when that authority is unjust is fine, but arbitrarily deciding that you won't follow the "rules" tends to make for unpleasant interactions with your fellow beings.

This has absolutely nothing to do with logic and philosophy, which was what we were talking about. Do you understand yet why I consider you worthless? Ignoring the whole discussion to yammer on about respect.

They certainly are at times, but they are also the only beings that we know of to which you can apply the term "rational".

That is a big negative there, Vile. Humans are the only creatures capable of acting irrationally, not the other way around. The collective animals and plants of the world act according to the rules of their biology. When you see an animal perform an action, it is mostly in concert with their own well-being, on a simple, biological level. Humans are the only creatures capable of ignoring their own well-being.

Let's put this question simply...if you are going to openly show disrespect for others, why would you expect anyone to have even enough respect for you to listen to your ideas?

Napsterbater: Argue, argue, argue.
everybody else: bitch, bitch, ego, whine, ego, ego, logic, bitch.
Napsterbater: Ummm, about the argument...
everybody else: bitch, bitch, ego, whine, ego, ego, logic, bitch...
Napsterbater: You guys are worthless!
everybody else: EGO!
Napsterbater: Yeah, no shit!

Whether one person listens to another has little to do with respect. In fact, I think it may be better to be not respected than respected in order to be heard. People are drawn to the darker side of human nature, those things they detest. The consciousness is drawn to those things it doesn't like every bit as strongly as it is to those it does like. Like and dislike are the exact same thing, the only thing that makes the difference is fear.

Forums like this need people like me, people to shake things up and make them interesting once more.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Still wanting to act like the wise parent? Find some other way to interact with me, and my 'obnoxiousness' will disappear. It is you guys that are eliciting that out of me.

Ahhh...the "you made me do it" defense. Honestly I expected better out of you Napster. You're an adult (at least chronologically), at least have the fortitude to take responsibilty for your bad manners.


I have little respect for those who demand respect from others when they are too lazy to gain it from those they demand from.

You mean like telling everyone how wonderful you are while posting philosophical nonsense?


This has absolutely nothing to do with logic and philosophy, which was what we were talking about.

That's the nature of these discussions I'm afraid.


Do you understand yet why I consider you worthless? Ignoring the whole discussion to yammer on about respect.

Don't lose your temper Napster, petulance is unbecoming in a philosopher.


That is a big negative there, Vile. Humans are the only creatures capable of acting irrationally, not the other way around. The collective animals and plants of the world act according to the rules of their biology. When you see an animal perform an action, it is mostly in concert with their own well-being, on a simple, biological level. Humans are the only creatures capable of ignoring their own well-being.

See, now you're in such a hurry to disagree with me that you didn't even notice that I agreed with you...tell me Napster, doesn't a creature have to be "rational" before you can rightfully refer to them as "irrational"?


Whether one person listens to another has little to do with respect. In fact, I think it may be better to be not respected than respected in order to be heard.

This would certainly explain your unpleasant attitude to some degree.


People are drawn to the darker side of human nature, those things they detest.

The consciousness is drawn to those things it doesn't like every bit as strongly as it is to those it does like.

I can't agree with that, sometimes the things we dislike repel us.


Like and dislike are the exact same thing, the only thing that makes the difference is fear.

So I guess that means that the fact that I like peas, but dislike lima beans means that I'm afraid of lima beans on some level...:rolleyes:


Forums like this need people like me, people to shake things up and make them interesting once more.

Of course. We need you Napster....this forum couldn't get along without you...before you came along we were just wasting our time.

How many of you fools do I have to knock down? This reminds me of a whack-a-mole game!

If you really want to know, go back and read every single thing I've posted. Then go and read my blog. Don't bother me with this shit!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
How many of you fools do I have to knock down? This reminds me of a whack-a-mole game!

If you really want to know, go back and read every single thing I've posted. Then go and read my blog. Don't bother me with this shit!

Wow!! Napsterbater, why are you posting here? :confused:

Wow!! Napsterbater, why are you posting here?

I am looking for people worth talking to. I am acting as Diogenes once did, shining a light into people's faces, looking for an honest man.

I am happy living in my bathtub. But I still have to do something with my life, and exercises like this one make me realize why my bathtub is just as good as your palace.

Oh I see - it might be a little difficult to find anyone who'll talk with you if everything comes out of your ass. It's kinda hard to carry on a good conversation if all you're saying is shit.

Let's see you make some interesting topics then.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Let's see you make some interesting topics then.


I was just making fun of your tag line.

I was wondering why you posted under the subject of understanding?
No I don't want to read all of your posts - and I don't have a palace.
How about the subject of misunderstanding - what brings that on? Misunderstood words or fixed ideas. I say a little of both.

Ahhh, I see, I see. These fools made me so hopping mad... *starts jumping up and down* ;)

I would agree with you, only not a little of both, a lot of both! I don't think it is possible for us to truly understand anything. No matter what we do, we are always limited to our own experiences, not to mention what existance put us here to work through. Words and ideas take on a life of their own, and they can control people even more effectively than we can control ourselves.

Think back to the nationalistic furor of the Cold War, and our current obsession with terrorism. Violence in schools, political infighting, all of these are but abstract concepts for most people (most people don't have to deal with these constantly) yet they rule our minds very effectively.

In fact, there is an entire science (advertising) dedicated to the use of words and ideas to control people's behavior. They take advantage of people's misunderstandings in order to profit.

I would say that what most people think of when they think of understanding is actually misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Ahhh, I see, I see. These fools made me so hopping mad... *starts jumping up and down* ;)

I would agree with you, only not a little of both, a lot of both! I don't think it is possible for us to truly understand anything. No matter what we do, we are always limited to our own experiences, not to mention what existance put us here to work through. Words and ideas take on a life of their own, and they can control people even more effectively than we can control ourselves.

Think back to the nationalistic furor of the Cold War, and our current obsession with terrorism. Violence in schools, political infighting, all of these are but abstract concepts for most people (most people don't have to deal with these constantly) yet they rule our minds very effectively.

In fact, there is an entire science (advertising) dedicated to the use of words and ideas to control people's behavior. They take advantage of people's misunderstandings in order to profit.

I would say that what most people think of when they think of understanding
is actually misunderstanding.

Well we can understand many things, Napster, just not everything. When we do think we understand everything - I'd say somebody has a fixed idea. But if we understand nothing - I'd say somebody has misunderstood words.
(or maybe alzheimers)

What makes you think we can understand anything at all?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Napsterbater
What makes you think we can understand anything at all? [/QUOTE

Obviously you understand how to turn your computer on and get to where you want to be on it and how to use your keyboard. What makes you think we don't understand anything?

That does not mean that I understand computers, only that I know how to use one computer, the one I have for some specific purposes.

Even should you go to school and learn about computers, you can never truly understand them. Even were you to invent a computer in some pre-computer time in some other universe, you wouldn't really understand what it is you are inventing.

I have taken an illogical stance, trying to prove a negative, in my first post. I have already told you guys why I don't think we can understand anything. The points are summarized in my first post. According to Blibblob's vaunted rules of logic, you have to prove that we can understand, because it is impossible for me to prove that we cannot. Let us play by the rules for the time being.

So why do we have to understand everything about everything?

At the moment I understand the jokes on Prairie Home Companion.

We don't.

And, to be pedantic, you know what makes those jokes funny, you do not understand the jokes themselves.

For conversation purposes, we use the word, only because to say what we truly mean is so difficult. It is possible to grasp the idea behind processes, in a limited way. It is not possible to understand an object. To do so, it is necessary to grasp the entire universe, because information about one thing bleeds into everything else. It is a logical conundrum.

We cannot understand anything.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
We don't.

And, to be pedantic, you know what makes those jokes funny, you do not understand the jokes themselves.

For conversation purposes, we use the word, only because to say what we truly mean is so difficult. It is possible to grasp the idea behind processes, in a limited way. It is not possible to understand an object. To do so, it is necessary to grasp the entire universe, because information about one thing bleeds into everything else. It is a logical conundrum.

We cannot understand anything.


Is life really that hard for you?:eek:

*chuckles* No more than the average wise man who claims he knows