Lakefingers said:

daytripper23 said:

Why is it, for instance, that at this forum, I will hear so much about Nietzsche and the existentialists, but never about Quine or any other "analytical" philosopher? Is it because authorial disposition is considered unimportant to analytical philosophy, such that it is mostly transparent in its ordinary expression? Is analytical philosophy a “textbook procedure" that flies under the radar?

Or is it, as I suspect, because this forum has a certain unspoken disposition for continental philosophy? If that would be the case, then why?

---

Nietzsche, like Plato, Aristotle and Foucault, has been assimilated into popular culture. That's why he comes up here so often. The same with Ayn Rand and Wittgenstein (not that Ayn Rand is on par par with N. & W. ).

---

GAWD! you are so SEXIST!!!!

Quote:

Poid said:as far as I'm concerned, life is utterly meaningless, there's nothing to discuss.

---

andrewss said:

analytic is aight... i just loath laboring over symbolic logic problems and etc..... but thinkers like wittgenstein on language are pretty swell, etc etc - I never got too into the anglo tradition of that stuff - I can enjoy them just lately im into prose and poetry and story telling, I'll take the bullet points from the analytics methinks...

oh and it isn't as if nietzsche didnt have 'that side' to him...

---

Quote:

The thoughts that I publish in what follows are the precipitate of philosophical investigations which have occupied me for the last sixteen years. They concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning, of understanding, of a proposition and sentence, of logic, the foundations of mathematics, states of consciousness, and other things. I have written down all these thoughts as remarks, short paragraphs, sometimes in longer chains about the same subject, sometimes jumping, in a sudden change, from one area to another. Originally it was my intention to bring all this together in a book whose form I thought of differently at different times. But it seemed to me essential that in the book the thoughts should proceed from one subject to another in a natural, smooth sequence. After several unsuccessful attempts to weld my results together into such a whole, I realized that I should never succeed. The best that I could write would never be more than philosophical remarks; my thoughts soon grew feeble if I tried to force them along a single track against their natural inclination. —– And this was, of course, connected with the very nature of the investigation. For it compels us to travel criss-cross in every direction over a wide field of thought. —– The philosophical remarks in this book are, as it were, a number of sketches of landscapes which were made in the course of these long and meandering journeys.

---

Icelander said:

Too bad he'll never see this great response.

I mean cause of the resolution and all.

---

How do you know it’s a great response, if you have no idea what he is responding to?

Icelander, you are a hypocrite. You constantly attest to your rejection and difference to human community, and yet here at the shroomery you are the chief advocate for establishing communitarian values. Why should I have any regard for your higher sense of honor, when you have no honor yourself?

You’ve only ever spoken of double standards. When you're being interrogated in debate, you say that we are all insane, and there are no standards. This is the insanity that you will often claim, expressed as Other. ( etc...)

But in a turn of dialogue, you will often point your finger at myself or someone else, and call this person insane. This person, the alien other is what constitutes your psychological standard. Your arguments basically work by implying difference to whoever you alienate.

This is what you call “psychology”, because that is where the difference supposedly dwells. You seem to think that psychology is synonymous with an existential condition of being in the world.

Allow me to correct your misconception:

Existence may be more or less implied (formally quantified). That in turn may naturally come with psychological concern. But the latter psychological state is to be qualified. What this basically means is that a person would first have to claim a standard of sanity, before critiquing the said “sanity” of his or her debate opponent. As said previously though, you only claim insanity, and difference to it.

You hold the broad “view” that culture is just an expression of neurosis, and therein have adopted a "philosophical" skepticism to the said standard of values. For instance, "Good health" or a "tranquil mind" (etc) are considered impossible by your theory. Yet in your manner of exchange, you assume a psychological pretension that implies as basis, such standards as these.

This is expressed as nihilism. It has nothing to do with what you have say, but how you speak to the Other. What you essentially end up saying is that there are no standards for human values, but ridiculously, you submit this as (your own) standard of value.

Because this pretended standard naturally cannot fit in with an "inherently flawed" human discourse, it is pretentiously wielded above and beyond it. Here I am speaking of the arbitrary manner that you look down on other people (humans), and will often discuss other posters' authenticity and psychological states, as if this were your privilege.

All you are really doing here is predicating discussion on an Ad hominem. But indeed, there is no such standard of values, and no common context from which you can discuss other people in this certain manner. This is why the ad hominem is considered a fallacy.

Your interrogations are weak and unfounded, and yet you go on speaking in this way. This is a simple and idle intelligibility. Your posture and manner of conduct, as of late, has been explicitly authoritarian. You act as if you are above the standards and rules of a civil debate, even as you submit your own higher standards.

You are not really higher though. So why don't you just feign a lofty sense of humor with the obligatory series of emoticons, and move on?

Oh, and by the way, I am not entirely sure if you and Lakefingers are actually in collusion. From what I can see though, you are breaking the rules of the forum by attempting to establish your higher community standards.

Poid said:

Diaboleros said:

Poid said:

I think the philosophy of language is far more interesting than the topic of "the meaning of life"--as far as I'm concerned, life is utterly meaningless, there's nothing to discuss.

---

So according to you language is not a part of life?

---

No, I never said that at all...

Diaboleros said:

Poid: "Life is utterly meaningless, there is nothing to discuss. I think the philosophy of language is very interesting to discuss"

The fact that you manage to contradict yourself in only one sentence is simply amazing! Congratulations man.. you have just won the internet. Here's your prize:

---

Where did I contradict myself?

Icelander said:

Poid said:

It kind of scared me, and I'm still recovering after almost seven years...

---

Of course it's frightening.  Much of what we are is frightening and that's why we run from facing it so often.

You know this. You've had the courage to look into it. That takes guts that few humans have. Give yourself that much credit at least.

---

Yeah, !

---

Quote:

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
In fact, Heidegger lived a rural lifestyle. What is interesting to consider is how this notably "common" way of living and thinking was transparent to the figure he became...or perhaps, to put it the other way, how this figure was transparent to a common folk existence.

---

Heidegger grew up in a rural area. As an adult he had a little cabin looking over a mountain valley. Most of his time he spent in an uppermiddle class apartment in Freiburg with all the modern appliances and gadgets.

What's transparent is the rural image he projects, but the technophile within him.

---

daytripper23 said:

Icelander said:

Too bad he'll never see this great response.

I mean cause of the resolution and all.

---

How do you know it’s a great response, if you have no idea what he is responding to?

Icelander, you are a hypocrite. You constantly attest to your rejection and difference to human community, and yet here at the shroomery you are the chief advocate for establishing communitarian values. Why should I have any regard for your higher sense of honor, when you have no honor yourself?

You’ve only ever spoken of double standards. When you're being interrogated in debate, you say that we are all insane, and there are no standards. This is the insanity that you will often claim, expressed as Other. ( etc...)

But in a turn of dialogue, you will often point your finger at myself or someone else, and call this person insane. This person, the alien other is what constitutes your psychological standard. Your arguments basically work by implying difference to whoever you alienate.

This is what you call “psychology”, because that is where the difference supposedly dwells. You seem to think that psychology is synonymous with an existential condition of being in the world.

Allow me to correct your misconception:

Existence may be more or less implied (formally quantified). That in turn may naturally come with psychological concern. But the latter psychological state is to be qualified. What this basically means is that a person would first have to claim a standard of sanity, before critiquing the said “sanity” of his or her debate opponent. As said previously though, you only claim insanity, and difference to it.

You hold the broad “view” that culture is just an expression of neurosis, and therein have adopted a "philosophical" skepticism to the said standard of values. For instance, "Good health" or a "tranquil mind" (etc) are considered impossible by your theory. Yet in your manner of exchange, you assume a psychological pretension that implies as basis, such standards as these.

This is expressed as nihilism. It has nothing to do with what you have say, but how you speak to the Other. What you essentially end up saying is that there are no standards for human values, but ridiculously, you submit this as (your own) standard of value.

Because this pretended standard naturally cannot fit in with an "inherently flawed" human discourse, it is pretentiously wielded above and beyond it. Here I am speaking of the arbitrary manner that you look down on other people (humans), and will often discuss other posters' authenticity and psychological states, as if this were your privilege.

All you are really doing here is predicating discussion on an Ad hominem. But indeed, there is no such standard of values, and no common context from which you can discuss other people in this certain manner. This is why the ad hominem is considered a fallacy.

Your interrogations are weak and unfounded, and yet you go on speaking in this way. This is a simple and idle intelligibility. Your posture and manner of conduct, as of late, has been explicitly authoritarian. You act as if you are above the standards and rules of a civil debate, even as you submit your own higher standards.

You are not really higher though. So why don't you just feign a lofty sense of humor with the obligatory series of emoticons, and move on?

Oh, and by the way, I am not entirely sure if you and Lakefingers are actually in collusion. From what I can see though, you are breaking the rules of the forum by attempting to establish your higher community standards.

---

Couldn't you have condensed your diatribe on my personal character as you know I'm not good with long posts?  In the future lets try and keep it short and sweet.

Why should I have any regard for your higher sense of honor, when you have no honor yourself?

Have I ever once asked you to have any regard for me personally? 

Lets remember it's not just me here who has told you that your posts are often unintelligible. That's been my complaint here. And I don't remember ever saying you personally were insane at least not on the boards. I try not to flame anyone as that has gotten me banned in the past.

As far as me being in collusion with Lakefingers that's a joke.  I've never asked for special favors from any Mod.  If you remember correctly it was Diploid who told you last to STFU (his word) about your whining about me.  Yet you continue. You have always had the opportunity to flag any of my posts and the mods will warn or ban me for infractions. You must have me confused with God.

"Good health" or a "tranquil mind" 

Why would I personally work towards these things if I didn't think improvement was possible?  My claim has always been that "perfection" in these areas is what's impossible. You know if you are going to rag on me how about some accuracy?  I have never said there were no values for society but instead my position is that all values are subjective. That's why I like mine above yours. Again lets try to be more accurate.

So why don't you just feign a lofty sense of humor with the obligatory series of emoticons, and move on?

I thought that was my standard operating mode here?  I drop it for the rare thread that really grabs my interest. The rest is mostly social for me.  OK with you?

Remember, you're the one who posted your resolution in the New Years Resolution thread. I'm just the one who is reminding you what you said. Yet you call me a hypocrite?

Diaboleros said:

Poid: "Life is utterly meaningless, there is nothing to discuss. I think the philosophy of language is very interesting to discuss"

The fact that you manage to contradict yourself in only one sentence is simply amazing! Congratulations man.. you have just won the internet.

---

Quote:

Luman said:I don't understand how you cannot see that you at least appeared to imply what Diaboleros showed...  In one sentence you did, more or less, that.  Life is utterly meaningless, yet the language that those in that life use is fascinating?  How are these not connected?  Maybe it didn't come out right?  I'm not trying to be a dick, but you did seem to contradict yourself.  Life is meaningless, but the subtle things that help make it up are not?  I don't really buy that...  Why else would these things, like language, be there?

---

Quote:

These human entities are alive, and they use communication to display this fact to others and to grow as a whole species.  Yes, that, and its significance, is of course fascinating.  Language enables us to share ideas.  But doesn't that, in itself, show that we are anything but meaningless?  If we have evolved to the point where we can share ideas to grow as a species?  Its kind of a hard connection to put into words, but I do not see how it is not there.

---

Quote:

Do you think humans and other creatures to be soulless, inanimate things?  Our simple existence seems to argue differently, to my mind at least.

---

daytripper23 said:

I would like to be addressed for what I say in the contingency of a common discourse, not by some imagined communitarian context.

Fuck you, and the mods. I don't need to raise any complaint, when I can piss on your tyrannous standards as they are. That's all - goodbye.

---

Good bye and best of luck in your endeavors.