It's canon-cannon-fodder week on ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) philosophy
|
19-a de nov 2007 @ 10:53
|
|---|
|
To what extent should Philosophy tolerate soggy thinking? More relevantly, to what extent should the e-philosophy community tolerate soggy thinking?
philosophy has been bombarded with mouldy cabbage-brained stupidity, the likes of which have not been seen since ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) essius was banned. No, wait. It's worse than that. This crazy kind of crap has been absent since jeffrock stopped posting.
Exhibit A.
The recent nonsense has allowed the e-philosophy community to demonstrate her varied approaches to wundershite. There are two broad categories of wundershite: the Golems and the Gargoyles.
Golems are unthinking automata of burden, capable of no thought beyond the chems lodged in their clay brains. Nothing will stop them and, if left unchecked, will attempt to drown Mickey Mouse. Some recent examples include "Talking vaguely about love and death is the zenith of depth," "My philosophy is that good and bad can be seen in different ways provided you don't scrutinize my shallow prose," and "Wow, omigod, wow."
Gargoyles still lack the creative spark, but exist as an artistic representation of the deformity of imagination. Nothing ever gets into their stone heads, but they never do anything of great harm. Examples of this trope include "I cannot believe that everybody doesn't agree automatically with my incorrect assertions about Moore," and "Infinite regress? Oh shiiiii..."
Both types of annoyance are treated with scorn and disdain, but the form of the scorn changes quite remarkably. Unto the Golem, the e-philosopher says "Begone, foul demon! Haunt this place no further!"
The e-philosopher does not try to banish the Gargoyle. Instead, the e-philosopher takes upon herself the challenge of resculpting the hideous deformity of the Gargoyle and says, "We invited you to be remade."
All of the above linked posts get thoroughly deserved instant fails, especially chamchar who should know better by now.
The rest of this entry is dedicated to the response of the Golem and an attempt to address the charge of misguided elitism/dogmatism.
It would be incorrect to claim that philosophy should be bound to a certain form of mode and manner. Such a claim is thoroughly incoherent: philosophy, by its nature, includes the metaphilosophical questions of how we should go about philosophical inquiry. That said, this is leaps and bounds from a free-for-all. The lack of a single "correct" answer to a question does not entail the lack of "incorrect" answers (consider the question "What would I like for dinner?"). It is this point which the Golems do not understand. Their lack of understanding causes them to respond with aggression and hostility ("Dogma!" they shout. "Elitism!") Being Golems, there is no way of making them understand the problem and, thus, we have a unresolvable dilemma.
In the cited cases, it was the founding ideas which bastardised the mode and manner of the philosophical inquiry. In one example, the mode and manner prevented the author from being able to see the dearth of depth. In another, the manner caused severe fragmentation of the underlying idea, preventing the author from engaging with the existing dialectic. And one of them was about Atlantis or some shit.
It is on these grounds that the e-philosopher can deny the charges of elitism (in the derogatory sense; elitism is sexy) and dogmatism brought against her by the unthinking Golem.
In completely unrelated reviews, A fucking plus with honors. Beautifully sublime.
|
|
In the beginning, there were trolls. The trolls were mighty and persuasive. They attacked the villagers in their thatched roof cottages with arguments which both annoyed and infuriated the easily annoyed and infuriated.
In response to this, the Greeks invented philosophy in order to keep the trolls at bay. Sometimes the philosophers resembled the trolls themselves (like Socrates, for example), and so the Greeks also invented acadamies in order to prove that the philosophers were different to trolls.
Since that time, whenever there were trolls, philosophers soon appeared in order to contain them. They created institutions in order to prove that the trolls were trolls and the philosophers were philosophers. Such was the case with LiveJournal, and the institution was called philosophy.
philosophy was created by detached9 on the seventh day of December in the two thousand and first year of Our Lord at 42 minutes past noon. The moderator was a pimply seventeen year old who, crazily enough, believed that vegetarianism existed.
The tone of the community never lifted. If you wanted to talk about The Matrix, it was great. If you wanted to talk about Kripke, it was not-so-great. And so it was that on the sixth day of the second month in the two thousand and third year of the Magic Jew that real_philosophy was created. They were so real that they would never speak of The Matrix.
And the first post was
Which sophist do you think Socrates had the most trouble with, in terms of debate? Not necessarily the person who had the most influence in the process of his execution, but the person who challenged his thinking in the best manner?
Can you spot the real?
Also note that the very first comment to the community mentions Ayn Rand. 1144 must feel really justified spirit that her thought-being type is justified.
But being exclusive to people who were real was not exclusive enough, so other communities spawned. In 2003, high_philosophy was created for those people who could prove - through a secret initiation rite - that they were really real philosophy grads and professors (an American term meaning 'lecturer'). Not to be left out, philo_majors was created in 2004 for people not quite as lofty.
It is now rare for either to be updated.
Following this comes the Time of Schisms. Some terribly awful drama would occur in philosophy (accusations of over- and/or under-moderation would be bandied about and apperception would be criticised regardless of whether or not he was even a moderator of the community in question) and, in reaction to this, a new philosophy commmunity would be created only to die three weeks later of disinterest. A good example of this is open_philosophy. It's so open, it's empty. Created in 2006, it has three posts and enders_shadow. ljphilosophy was created in 2006 to be free of moderation, sarcasm, bunnies, things that upset 1144 and decent philosophy. The only people who now post to the community are thales1940 and unnamed525.
These schisms were so frequent and irritating that Amicosapientis' Law was formulated: the telos of philosophy on LJ is for every LJ philosopher to have their own philosophy community.
And now, gentle reader, we come to the future. Tomorrow, amicosapientis will be made sole moderator of philosophy so that peace and harmony can flourish in the LJ philosphere. The next day, we shall have a public execution of 1144 and there will be much rejoicing.
Amen.
|
|
Would somebody please put a bullet into philosophy? If I have to read another banal and insipid post by either 4inquiries or mercuryxrises, I'll give Appy the Grate an A+ for this very odd ramble.
Lest we forget: e_phil_index.
|
|
Have we really descended this far, filledwithawe?
|
27-a de sep 2006 @ 15:47
|
|---|
|
http://community.livejournal.com/philosophy/1548032.html?mode=reply&style=mine
We four amico-amigos are more than happy to explore ideas and thoughts outside our own cultural system. We really are. We are like Vikings. We go to distant lands, set fire to the houses, plunder anything of worth and then one of us rapes all the women. That's how open to other cultures we are.
filledwithawe's post has absolutely no content. None. It seems generous to give it an Instant Fail.
One might respond to us, "Oh, but y'know, she's just a bit airy-fairy. Don't worry, y'all."
And you would be wrong. We've been seeing more and more of this crap in the philosophy communities, even to the point where erislover can post this Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit to real_philosophy.
When people do post good things, the philosophy community is relatively silent. Curious things happen to apperception's posts. In this, the "final" of his "series" in real_philosophy we see good philosophical techniques being employed but a complete dirth of relevance. apperception sets out his problems clearly, he sets up his arguments precisely, but the subject matter is banal and pointless. B.
|
| » Arise, ye philosophers from ye slumber |
|---|
We would like to know why there have not been more public whippings. When we last updated this account, we thought it impossible for the quality of philosophical discussion to sink any further. We were wrong.
thales1940
Maths is hard.
Murrrrrrrr.
vap0rtranz
The word irrational has to mean the same regardless of context.
cabrutus
Cabby proves that if you misrepresent the arguments of your opposition, you don't need any good arguments in your favor.
The philosophy communities are far too accepting of inane drivel similar to those cited above. When the moderators put their foot down and demand that anything posted be of a minimum standard, the same troglodytes crawl out of the woodwork to cry foul. How dare we sensible people ask that others approach a minimum standard of thought and presentation? Philosophy should be about acceptance and love and standing in a circle jerking each other off.
All of the above are awarded the grade of Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit for lowering the already abysmal standards of philosophical discussion on LJ. Everybody in those communities is also on warning for allowing this sort of shit to fly.
13-a de sep 2006 @ 20:42
|
| » 1144 and the nature of insanity |
|---|
http://1144.livejournal.com/162583.html
The oldest philosophical trick in the book: claim that everybody is rejecting your philosophy because they're stupid, scared or "morally worse". Beware, 1144, they're coming with hemlock.
It's a sad fact that Philosophy on LiveJournal is so personal. Today alone, we received discussion from David_Deacon the Whiny and Mendymoo highlighting this exact point.
While we've been gone, Philosophy on LiveJournal has been rather slow. There have been a few good articles (special mention goes to epictetus_rex: you've had us discussing your post for a fortnight), some godawfully bad ones and some rather amusing shitfights.
For this reason, we thought we'd accept the challenge of being LiveJournal Philosophers for the moment and dish out some personal attacks of our own.
The definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder was given by the great authority Anonymous, http://1144.livejournal.com/162583.html?thread=1790743#t1790743
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
It is our assertion that a vast number of LiveJournal philosophers fit this definition. Your task, gentle reader, is to see how many LiveJournal philosophers you can demonstrate satisfy this definition. Bonus points will be awarded to those who provide links highlighting each separate criterion. If enough people enjoy this, we might consider making a 1144 Wing of e_phil_index based on this idea.
Get cracking.
15-a de jun 2006 @ 01:19
|
| » mendaciloquent, apperception, and meta |
|---|
http://community.livejournal.com/real_philosophy/354768.html?thread=10696400#t10696400
Three of us are "away." We'll update more when they get back.
We agree completely with Mendymoo and Appy the Grate. We're glad that Apperception likes his new image.
7-a de jun 2006 @ 20:24
|
| » i_am_lane chooses the choices that makes Coke taste good |
|---|
http://community.livejournal.com/philosophy/1471936.html
Not bad, Laney, but not exactly good.
Arguing from intuition is always a strange thing to do. When we do argue from intuition, we need to demonstrate why our intuitions should be taken seriously. It's a common problem in philosophy. Take the problem of mind.
I intuitively think that objects a, e, f, g, and h have mind.
I develop a theory about mind and it causes me to conclude that a, c, e, g, and h have mind.
Why did my intuitions come into play in the first place? Are they being used as a guide for the theory? If the theory comprehensively denies your intuitions, is the theory wrong? And so on and so forth.
The first thing anybody would do to refute any argument which was based on Laney's definition would be, "Well, my intuitions say that your definition is wrong."
Then you'd have a battle of intuitions on your hands.
That aside, we can still demonstrate that his definition is incorrect. Let us consider the example of a person, S, who has been hypnotized. S is hypnotized such that whenever he sees a cooked sausage, he must eat it. We would say that S was not free to eat sausages even though it might be the case that S would eat the sausages regardless of the hypnotism and, more importantly, even if he had other options available to him. Laney's definition states that S is free to do x if at time t S could have done y. S is eating the sausage (x) at time t and tapping his foot (y) at time t. Well done, Lane, hypnotized people have freedom of choice.
What Lane should have said was that x and y are mutually exclusive. S is free to do x at time t if S could have done not-x at time t.
His argument runs into strange problems also. Smith is free to eat the chicken even though he is allergic to it. Smith is also free to eat the chicken even though he had it last night. Even though our decisions might be influenced by outside factors, that doesn't make our decisions any less free.
Lane missed his opportunity to strike at the heart of his debate and that is a shame.
B
28-a de maj 2006 @ 21:00
|
| » We have a present for you |
|---|
e_phil_index
Anybody want to help catalogue?
21-a de maj 2006 @ 17:11
|
| » Three in One |
|---|
We apologise for not updating more frequently. We have lives. We've also been working on The Greatest Thing Ever. Stay tuned.
Lots of Continental Crap, we see. We're a little surprized that more of you Analytic Robots aren't destroying this stuff left right and center. So let's start with the Continental Stuff and work upwards.
http://community.livejournal.com/real_philosophy/348094.html
Appy the Grate has been getting lengthier, we see. This isn't philosophy. This is just drivel. It's drivel with footnotes. You know you're in trouble when the first sentence isn't even in English.
That Heidegger attempts to philosophize concretely and factically out of his intellectual and wholly factic origin, milieu, and life context is the received wisdom about Heidegger the “existentialist” or Heidegger the “hermeneuticist.”
You could drop entire paragraphs out of this pile of self-indulgent crap and you wouldn't lose any of the meaning. We'll be nice and assume that there might be some meaning buried deep beneath the jargon and pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Facticity in the “loose” sense refers to the subject’s situatedness, but facticity in the “strict” sense refers to that aspect of the subject that is unavailable to reflection.
Appy the Great extemporizes and presentalizes a non-old variant on the claim that he is a wanker. A long winded, insufferable wanker. There's no structure to this crap. There's no point to this crap. It just keeps going on and on without actually making a point. Make a claim, Appy! Make a claim!
When he finally does make a claim, he makes a false claim.
But read correctly, facticity proves that historicism, aestheticism, relativism, pragmatism, etc., all have to be wrong. Or put more precisely, they’re “inauthentic” forms of philosophy that renege on their responsibility to truth.
Bzzzzzzzt. Either learn what you're talking about or get the fuck off the microphone.
Steaming pile of donkey shit
http://community.livejournal.com/philosophy/1463064.html
Cabby's already known for being cruddy when it comes to God. This entry of his goes beyond all cruddiness and well into the realm of sloppiness. Let's look at his argument.
(1) Suppose God has complete foreknowledge now.
In what sense? If Cabby were even remotely familiar with the literature on the problem of omniscience, he would know that he should define what he means. People can - with a straight face, no less! - say that God is omniscient/has complete foreknowledge and still doesn't know exactly what the future entails. God can do this because certain future states might not be factual. If they're not really facts, then God still has a complete knowledge. If I have a complete set of Yoda models, I'm not expected to have the Yoda models which don't exist. You can't point to my complete set and say, 'They're not complete because you don't have nonexistent Yoda models.'
(2) It follows that God now knows the number of meteors n that will strike earth in 2100.
No it doesn't. It might follow that God only knows how many meteors are probably going to strike the Earth. Asserting that something follows doesn't actually mean that it follows. Are you turning into a_clean_escape, Cabby?
(3) It follows then that it is impossible now for any number of meteors other than n to strike earth in 2100.
Let's say that (2) was correct. This doesn't necessarily follow either because you've been sloppy in your use of the word 'impossible'. Maybe if you weren't such an asshat, you would have picked up on that before you spouted off complete bullshit?
(4) It follows that when 2100 occurs, it will be impossible for God to strike earth with a meteor more times than he now knows meteors will strike it.
This doesn't follow either. Maybe God only knows what will be the case if he doesn't intervene? See, this is when it's good philosophical practice to DEFINE YOUR GODDAMN TERMS.
(5) But surely an omnipotent being can strike earth with a meteor as many times as he wants.
No. An omnipotent being can strongly actualize the state of affairs such that Earth is struck with meteors, or maybe God can't strike the Earth with as many as he wishes but can only prevent meteors from striking (on account of the historical limitation), or maybe you should have defined omnipotence beforehand?
(6) Therefore, it would follow that God isn't omnipotent in 2100.
This would only be true if (4) and (5) were in contradiction. They're not. For more on this point, you should just read anything by Weirenga, Urban and Walton, Moonan, Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, Mavrodes, Frankfurt or Savage.
(7) Therefore, if God has complete foreknowledge now, then God isn't omnipotent in 2100.
If everything else you had said wasn't complete crap, then this might be true. Actually, given that this is just a rephrasing of point (6), that would make it complete crap also.
Instant fail
And, finally, we have the last death coughs of Non-Denoter in http://community.livejournal.com/just_philosophy/25858.html?mode=reply
Oh, God. Oh, God. Ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod.
Oh, God.
The Non-Denoter seems to be confused as to the nature of an argument. Assertion is not an argument. This is especially the case when you don't even understand what you're asserting.
There's nothing here which even remotely looks like a sensible thought. Maybe he should stop declaring himself to be the next big genius and maybe go and study some logic. Reading Priest's Introduction to Non-Classical Logic will only get you so far. There's a reason why the title starts with the word 'Introduction'.
Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit
19-a de maj 2006 @ 08:59
|
| » The List Begins |
|---|
1144
_Reepicheep_
A_Clean_Escape
Alienus
Anosognosia
Apperception
Ariston
Aristotaled
B_Munchausen
Cabrutus
Confliction
DangerZooey
Dialogic
Epictetus_Rex
Fanha
Force_of_Will
GentleSatyr
Gerbilsage
Hollowman
I_am_lane
Jalden
Jeffrock
JohnathonJones
Larvatus
Mendaciloquent
Mikri
N_Lande
Nanikore
Noobhat
PhilosophyJeff
Pooperman
Sacundim
Sisyphus
Telecart
TheMaskedMedea
TheSwede
Unnamed525
Xiota
Zentiger
jupitah
zarathustrasape
amplimax
savestheworld
erislover
paulhope
thinkingthing
thisisnotsteve
booksoverbombs
synapsomatic
a_theist
catachrestic/tiresias2
peramble
drsmax
Who are we missing?
12-a de maj 2006 @ 01:39
|
| » Meta-Philosophy Communities Explored |
|---|
Eventually, we're going to try to put together a ranking of LJers based on their philosophical capabilities in the various fields. This is such a daunting task that we've been putting it off in favor of participating IRL.
But we have prepared a few notes on the various rankings which already exist for philosophers. We're not going to bother with the Theologian Rankings provided by a few members because we feel that they're not relevant to the machine that is amicosapientis.
There are a few noteworthy rankings.
1. i_am_lane's dojo
2. apperception's categories
3. cabrutus' tiers
4. nanikore's Middle Earth.
i_am_lane's dojo
Cute.
Lane's dojo separates people into their ability and their method. While we'd argue that it slips up in places (certain people are far too high on the ability scale and others are far too low -- though this might be due to the age of the article), it's quite objective. People with philosophies contrary to Lane's have been treated well. It also provides an interesting insight into the way Lane views people on LJ. Of course, there are mistakes caused by sentimentality. I'm sure he wouldn't place unnamed525 nearly so high these days. We also find it amusing that he bothered to rank one of his sock puppets. Overall, B.
apperception's categories
Excellent.
Appy the Grate separates people not by ability but by function. It's also remarkably objective even though you can smell the distaste he has for the 'Meatheads'. It's possible that he overrates himself as a 'Force of Darkness' and it's hard not to smell a whiff of hubris in his words. It would be good to see the extra dimension of ability come into the ranking system. At the moment, that lacks. C+.
cabrutus' tiers
Petty.
It's interesting that he sets out to be objective, but it clearly isn't. Some of the footnotes indicate that Cabby simply doesn't understand certain areas of philosophy as well as he might. It seems to be a list of Cabby's friends in the alpha tier and then beta and omega are distinguished according to how much they've pissed off Cabby. It also lacks the category dimension of the other two. How can you link actual philosophers with non-philosophes (see the omega tier). If it's a pro tanto ranking, then there's not a chance in hell Cabby should be anywhere near the top. He's certainly excellent in some areas. In others, he's completely dismal. Lane should be higher than Xiota. TheMaskedMedea should be lower than Sisyphus. There is no objectivity about this ranking at all so it fails as a ranking of ability. C.
nanikore's Middle Earth
What?
Does anybody else think this is just a demonstration of nanikore's feelings towards the subjects? Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit.
DarkHorse Entrant!!!
cabrutus_or_not: A+. Who knew e-philosophers could be so bitchy? This is the single most objective ranking system because attractiveness is much easier to determine than philosophical ability.
10-a de maj 2006 @ 00:14
|
| » Because you all asked so nicely |
|---|
Some of you have been wondering who we are.
What you know already:
1. There are four of us.
2. Two of us are female.
3. There are two Americans, one Brit and an Australian.
4. None of us have been banned from real_philosophy.
5. One of us has been banned from philosophy.
i_am_lane thinks that this means that the Americans are female.
One of the Americans is offended and would have you all know that his penis is larger than i_am_lane's.
Time for new stuff!
1. One of us has a MA in philosophy (Philosophy of Mind).
2. One of us has a PhD in philosophy (Dispositions in Philosophy of Metaphysics).
3. All four of us went to tier one (or equivalent) universities. Then again, didn't most of the internet?
4. All four of us have been honor roll students in philosophy.
5. One of us likes long walks on the beach. One of us hates sand, people, animals, plants, the internet, computers, and pretty much everything else.
6. We all are varying degrees of realists and nominalists. None of us are Objectivists. One of us is a theist. One of us is a radical skeptic. Two of us think Quine is the greatest thing since Russell who, in turn, was the greatest thing since Hume who, in turn, was the greatest thing since the Persians. One of us thinks that Putnam is God.
7. One of us is a neo-Kantian who detests Rawls.
8. Despite 7, we're all analytical philosophers although we're not the robots who think that the other team doesn't say interesting things occasionally.
9. All four of us studied logic. Three of us studied modal logics, including Paraconsistent and Relevance Logics. One of us studied mereology and wrote a thesis on it.
10. One of us is a communitarian. They don't think they are a communitarian but everybody else knows that they are. That's one of the key signs of being a communitarian.
There. You should be able to work out who we are from that information.
9-a de maj 2006 @ 23:35
|
| » a_clean_escape demonstrates why religious philosophy is a big pile of shit |
|---|
http://community.livejournal.com/religiousdebate/336567.html
There is nothing remotely credible about religious philosophy. It's crap. It's what people do when they're procrastinating from doing real philosophy. There are a few reasons why this is true:
1. It's intellectually dishonest. The philosophical 'theist' position is, and always has been, the Judeo-Christian position. Religious philosophy belongs in theology and not in philosophy.
2. At any moment, your opponent can drop any inconvenient claims and still maintain the existence of God.
3. Richard Swinburne is treated with respect.
These three together demonstrate conclusively that anybody who does religious philosophy professionally should be put to death. Well, nearly anybody. There are a few, few exceptions. Those exceptions are people who do epistemology/metaphysics/phenomenology which have side consequences for religious belief. Sure, some of them deserve to be shot anyway but some don't.
Anyway, back to the subject. A few years ago, Derrida was up for an honorary degree from Cambridge. Of course, he shouldn't have got it because Derrida is a complete fraud. This didn't stop Derrida from saying something rather profound about philosophy. On being accused of being obtuse and dense, Derrida noted that academics dealing with science aren't expected to make their theories easily accessible by lay people who've never studied science. Why, then, are philosophers consistently expected to be within the intellectual reach of complete twits? Here, a_clean_escape seems to think that complex religious philosophy should be in the grasp of people who don't know the first thing about religious philosophy.
(We briefly acknowledge that many of the problems might have been caused by _my_evil_twin. However, we imagine that a_clean_escape would, if she were a sensible philosopher (which she isn't), have included a statement saying that she accepts all faults as her own).
The first major problem is when people think they intuitively know what technical words mean and, as seen in the comments, when people think that they intuitively know what the word 'definition' means. It was a problem that cabrutus' philosophy suffered and a problem which caused the death of a_clean_escape's argument.
P: Humans have free will
Q: A God that can predict everything exists
R: Human behavior is predictable
1. (P -> ~R) by definition
2. (Q -> R) by definition
"If humans have free will then human behaviour is not predictable" is not assertable by definition alone. You don't need to open up many text books to realise that statement is far from being definitionally true. The fact that she didn't even bother to give a definition of her terms also makes it difficult to agree with her.
The same can be said for the second statement. Q seems to be worded very strangely indeed. If we assume that she's written "God can predict all outcomes perfectly" then we're still a long way away from a definitionally true statement.
LJ's Philosotroll, gerbilsage, is already in the community bashing heads with exactly this point. You can't just assert things as definitional when the definition of words like "omniscient" are a matter of contention and debate. This isn't well-known outside of academia so why should some tit on LiveJournal be able to assert otherwise? Furthermore, why should we treat this nonsense with respect?
jeffrock never says anything that has even a modicum of philosophical merit and yet everybody is supposed to treat him with respect.
unnamed525 consistently gets points of philosophy incorrect, bans people who disagree from his own community (now defunct) and yet everybody is supposed to treat him with respect.
1144 bleeds from her vagina so frequently that she never actually gets around to demonstrating why anybody should take Objectivism seriously and yet everybody has to treat her with respect.
We're still waiting for somebody to call apperception a "Jap-monkey".
Compare this to the behaviour of people in scientific communities. If you try to argue that IQ tests prove that all Hispanics are intellectually subnormal in a science community, you're going to get shot down in flames, laughed at, and ridiculed. Why should the internet promote uneducated babble in philosophy communities and, in the same breath, destroy uneducated babble in science?
a_clean_escape doesn't deserve respect and yet it is considered somehow unbecoming of the 'Philosopher Stereotype' to yell at her for being stupid. Traditionally this is exactly what would have happened. Do you really think that Hume wouldn't have opened a can of whoopass on a_clean_escape? Of course he would. He hated stupid people. Mild mannered Hume turned into a froth machine of anger in philosophy. Russell said in his letters that "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
In the end, it's hard not to agree with the Jap Monkey when he says "An ad hominem approach is both appropriate and important as a pedagogical device."
So, philosophers of LJ, stop trying to be nice to each other, you fucking pretentious shitheads.
a_clean_escape's post is awarded the mark of Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit because it is.
9-a de maj 2006 @ 23:14
|
| » A word from our adoring public |
|---|
I'm bored. Incredibly bored. Why the hell did [info]amicosapientis add me? Or did I add them? Anyways, was checking my friends and deleteing people (and discovering I CAN'T delete certian people- god that was annoying and pissed me off royally. christ.) when I saw the [info]amicosapientis people and went- whoa. That's a funky name. Latin folks right? Hurrah!
NO.
It's PHILOSOPHY. Whoa. Deep. I went and read soem crap and went, well what the hell? I don't know anyone of these people (which isn't really a surprise- I hardly know half the people I harass on LJ, AIM, Yahoo!, GChat, or any TV forum invovling House, LOST, CSI, or Law and Order:SVU. Of anything pertaining to what I like. I talk to WALLS people.) But still- I was flattered and suspicious on why these people (whom all seemed learned, or faking it. I don't know. So I went, well, add back. Lalalalalala read more, discover they like the drama (which makes it LJ- if there was no drama or emoness the entire point of having one of these things would loose appeal to me and thousands of others. LISTEN TO MY BLEEDING WRISTS!) I felt compelled after reading such posts and arguments to type something profoundly fascinating that intrigued and boggled the human mind beyond normal, cohesive comprehension. But I went, that's crap I have no idea what i'm doing. Plus Law and Order is on and i'll be DAMNED if Elliot dosn't wax poetic when he's harassing or crying about a case. I love you Elliot. You are the most amazing detective EVER. And Munch. Munch should have his own SHOW, or like philiosophy LJ. Munch could explain's lifes problems and speak them in russian while inovlving some jewish meaning or morale at the end. MUNCH KNOWS ALL. I'm serious. How do you think he got all those wives he's constantly harping about? His wit and superior intelligence befuddled them so they left him. Plus he has the hots for Olivia. I SEE IT. I most likely should buy the season series so I can stop staying up till four to catch up on episodes i've missed. Why the hell are their only random seasons out? Goddamnit USA!
Anyways. Philosophical.....however it's spelled. Yeeaaaaaaahh. I'm planning on majoring in Anthro/Psychology anyways. Philosophy always reminds me of old men in togas screaming at each other then having sex in bathhouses. With younger men. Because their wives said so. So their wives could sleep with eachother. You know, if you consider, Rome was the most accepting of people liking the same sex- I mean it was like a national pasttime- SLEEP WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR! AND HIS SON! AND HIS SON! AND THE DOG. AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS A HOLE TO STICK IT!
Okay this is tiring me out and Munch is talking about serial killers and that's way more important than why philosophy LJers are seeking me out (other than for my dance master skills and gouda cheese.) Plus I just ran out of frosting and I havn't thrown up nearly enough for tonight.
MUNCH = PHILIOSOPHY (Rachel I just can't SPELL, and it makes me who I am!
7-a de maj 2006 @ 10:15
|
| » LJ 'Philosophers' appear to be something like Discworld's wizards... |
|---|
A fight breaks out and suddenly everybody's scrambling to make their own tower.
Before we get started, did anybody like our entry on philosophy? How typical of apperception to ban us and delete our post!
So how many 'philosophy' groups are there on LiveJournal worth noting?
Well, we start that question by answering a smaller question: how many 'philosophy' groups are there on LiveJournal?
There's:
philosophy
real_philosophy
just_philosophy
unjust_phil
ljphilosophy
only_philosophy
high_philosophy
faux_philosophy
meta_philosophy...
And the list goes on. The interesting thing about this is that the members in each community are generally the same people. The other interesting thing is that whenever there's a particularly nasty fight between the members and the moderators, a new community will be born.
This trait was first demonstrated when Appy the Grate became moderator of philosophy. His atrocious moderating style (he banned a group of people due to their association with a specific member) resulted in the creation of just_philosophy (the penal colony...).
Those of you with IRL lives might have missed the recent DRAMABUS in just_philosophy. unnamed525 discovered that the easiest way to win arguments in philosophy was to ban anybody who argues against you (or, rather, him). In fact, we strongly suspect that this is not just the easiest way for unnamed525 to win arguments of philosophy but the only way for unnamed525 to win arguments of philosophy. As we demonstrated in a recent post, unnamed525 spouted a great deal of nonsense about metaphysics and epistemology. sisyphus (what a good boy) correctly pointed out these errors only to find himself banned - banned! - from just_philosophy. When gerbilsage argued against unnamed525's nonsense, unnamed525 banned gerbilsage and then demodded i_am_lane and amplimax.
Astute observers will notice the new and improved profile page of just_philosophy.
This spawned a few things. The first, was a renewed interest in 1144's community ljphilosophy. This community seems to be founded on the 'Play Nice, Oh Dear God, Please Play Nice!' philosophy of 1144. Secondly, it caused the creation of unjust_phil by the dispossessed moderators of just_philosophy and gerbilsage. Next, it caused the creation of only_philosophy. This community seems to already be a shithole given that the only 'philosophy' post has been 'Well, what about them there furries? Aren't they philosophical?!' Finally, it created a lot of emo posts in meta_philosophy.
So there definitely seems to be a telos to philosophy on LJ. Philosophy on LJ will end when and only when every single LJ 'philosopher' has his own community.
The title of this post has given us an idea (two of us are drinking while writing this diatribe) of associating LJ 'philosophers' with the wizards of Discworld. cabrutus is obviously the Lecturer in Recent Runes. jeffrock is the Bursar. i_am_lane is Ponder Stribbons. gerbilsage is Rincewind. mendaciloquent is Windle Poons. apperception is, quite rightly, Ridcully. You could combine this with Hogwarts. unnamed525 is obviously Lockheart. nanikore is Snape. 1144 is McGonagall.
Wow, the image is creepy of that Faculty.
So, to conclude:
So how many 'philosophy' groups are there on LiveJournal worth noting?
One. aidsbonnet.
29-a de apr 2006 @ 21:46
|
| » Has apperception written something reasonable? |
|---|
http://community.livejournal.com/real_philosophy/340216.html
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we have PHILOSOPHY!
*waits for the cheers to die down*
What can we say? We disagree wholeheartedly with the conclusions and the claims. We disagree with the assertions and the premises. Hell, we even disagree with the smarmy self-righteousness.
But we cannot deny that this is actually rather good philosophy. It's clear. It's precise. It's not a bad read. We do, however, wonder when Appy the Grate will get over his hero-worship of Kant. In many respects, Appy the Grate seems to denounce Analytic philosophy simply on the grounds that his beloved Kant wasn't a part of it. That is by the side with this post of Appy the Grate. This post also shows that when Appy the Grate does philosophy, he does it reasonably well. He should stick to philosophy instead of Classics (he is crap at it) and Moderating LiveJournal Communities (even worse).
In fact, the only way to respond to his article is by posing an argument against it. That's not too hard at all and has been done nearly every single year since Kant's stuff was translated into English.
Well done, A.
26-a de apr 2006 @ 23:02
|
| » unnamed525: LJ's stupidest person |
|---|
http://community.livejournal.com/just_philosophy/23159.html
The man who once claimed to be as brilliant a philosopher as David Hume has managed to bungle everything once again.
But thank God that somebody wrote something that we could criticize. real_philosophy's current format seems to have stifled discussion rather than promote it. Good work there, guys. For that reason, the Non-Denoter (ha! geddit?) will probably escape getting the mark of Steaming Pile of Donkey Shit.
Probably.
So let us jump headlong into that old debate of realism versus nominalism. It's very rare that somebody is 100% realists or 100% nominalists. More often, we find that people are realists about some issues (like, for example, we're realists when it comes to a metaphysically real universe which is actually there regardless of what we think about it) and nominalist about other issues (like, for example, we're mostly nominalists when it comes to topics like 'God').
The Non-Denoter has never really grasped the concept of nominalism. In discussions with him, he tends to argue (accidentally) for nominalism and then declare, triumphantly, that the res used by nominalists are actually real. He gets really annoyed at you when you laugh at him and then goes and sulks in just_philosophy ('the LJ philosophy equivalent of a penal colony' - apperception).
Here, the Non-Denoter has demonstrated this lack of sophistication once again. Check out this amazing little comment:
'numbers and mathematical objects are abstractable causal features of potential objects. I'm going to say that all that's required for numbers to be real properties'
Er... right. Care to elaborate?
'it's trivially obvious that what we talk about using numerals [...] has causal effects on the world.'
This isn't even English, let alone philosophy.
And what's this claptrap about things being abstracted from potential objects?
It doesn't take long before sisyphus (what a good boy he is - honorary A) turns the Non-Denoter into a babbling idiot.
The Non-Denoter tries to explain the difference between numerals and numbers:
'Anti-realism accepts the existence of numerals, but denies that they actually denote anything.'
Er... no. The Non-Denoter has just filled the anti-realist's world with non-denoting terms for utterly no reason whatsoever.
So, it is our consideration that the Non-Denoter just really doesn't know what he's talking about. This doesn't surprise us in the slightest.
VERY generous D
24-a de apr 2006 @ 01:54
|
| » n_lande and the art of presentation |
|---|
Another dull week on real_philosophy.
http://community.livejournal.com/real_philosophy/336700.html
There is an important question to philosophy which has been asked for quite some time. Which is more important: the idea or the presentation of the idea.
For a very long time, all philosophy had to be presented in Latin because it was the language of scholars. If it wasn't in Latin, it wasn't scholarly. It didn't look scholarly.
In modern times, we've become a little more relaxed about the language of choice. Hell, people are even allowed to write philosophical essays in French, of all languages.
However, some things never changed. Philosophy was equally about expression as it was about idea. That was one of the reasons why we gave i_am_lane a high mark and apperception a low mark.
n_lande seems to have an idea (we've been disagreeing on that idea for a few days now) but it's not expressed well and it's not expressed clearly. That's a problem. Sentences run on far longer than they should. Ideas are lost and confused with a lack of correct terminology. The only thing that N. Lande managed to say was that Kant's metaphysics is mega ghey (or does he, we can't tell). That, however, is a no-brainer.
We would give this a 'Resubmit' but we fear that he might. We give this a D if he promises not to write anything else.
19-a de apr 2006 @ 22:01
|
|