Couldn't answer on whether we should or not. What I can say is that the fear of death isn't something you can just rationalise away and you don't have that much control over what you fear.

It isn't death specifically that we fear, it is the unknown which we fear the most. If we could be certain of an afterlife where all is merry and well, where everybody gets to go, then you'd probably have a lot less fear, but a lot more suicide. That being said people would feel less hurt by anothers suicide if they knew they were going to a better place and if they knew they would see them there again.

If I shoved you onto a bus and said that we might be going somewhere nice, we might be going somewhere bad and we might never ever stop driving, you'd be terrified. You might even try and get the driver to just keep driving if you believe it is likely it is taking you to the bad place.

Death is nothing to fear, the unknown however, is.

I mostly agree and said as much -- it's what I called the resentment at the story level -- but there is still something to it, and the story is supposed to be about buying. People who don't have resources to hand have a motivation to be "resourceful". People who can buy what they like are privileged, and feeling privileged can readily lead to feeling entitled. — Srap Tasmaner

I would say that having confusing and irrational seeming flaws and behaviours is what makes the character believable. It's easily verifiable that individuals who are strong in some areas are weaker in others. That's just human nature. It's true of me, it's true of you, it's true of everyone. Hell, I consider myself to have good sportsmanship but a boxing match with one or two of my past tormenters may see that fly out the window.

All I really read from that particular criticism when made by @Outlander was "Why didn't you make your character perfect?" Because then there would have been no moral, no realism, no humanity, no real story. It would have just ended up being a story about a perfect sage who buys a Javelin and has a good time with a new friend who can throw further than the sage can. Where is the moral? Might as well ask why JK didn't just make Voldemort a nice person and save Harry Potter all that time almost being killed while he was at school.

Admittedly my buyer character is not Voldemort but no one in my story is described as a good or a bad person. Their day is just described. One day out of thousands of possible days to have either a good or a bad one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that you can tell a lot about an author from their writing. However, you can also tell a lot about other people by how they react to a piece of writing. Which means you need to be careful you're not projecting your own emotions onto an author. They might very well be there, but why are certain criticisms only able to be made by certain people?

A linguistics major is far more likely to be able to recite Grice's maxims (it was on the midterm!) than a philosophy major. — Srap Tasmaner

Is that what you majored in? Linguistics. Just asking out of personal curiousity. You won't paint yourself as "the evil academic elite" to me, just because I am a highschool drop out. I'll maybe do that another day, maybe when I have a really bad one haha

I think the historical way to think about it is that philosophy divided, like a cell undergoing mitosis, rather than a human giving live birth. These other fields used to be considered part of philosophy, as almost everything did, until they developed enough to split off and become their own things. What we call philosophy today is what’s left after all those other fields split off, and their subjects still overlap at the fringes, but there are things within each offshoot that are clearly not philosophical now, and things within philosophy that clearly have nothing to do with that offshoot (but maybe have much to do with another).

You might think of philosophy as like a stem cell, as yet undifferentiated into any more specialized cell, while those other cells that split off from it have all become more specialized. — Pfhorrest

That's a great way to put it. Thank you for writing that! Helps put things into perspective and context.

Before answering, the reason I consider the story a "random, ridiculous example" is because you made the guy who saved up enough money, purchased an item, read the instructions, and otherwise acts as a patient individual who knows the value of planning and research at first- into an arrogant, petulant, and unrealistically petty child- for no reason other than to do so. While the other man is for some reason valiantly humble and infinitely resourceful. These facts are what will effect the answer to the above questions. — Outlander

Now I hadn't thought about this at first, however now that I am thinking about it, if anything this makes the character more realistic, not less. Maturity in one area of life does not mean we can be mature in others.

I do agree that up until this point I've been rather unfair in my perspective of my own character. Ultimately the character is human though. I happen to know of a number individuals who are mature in the same way as the character and immature in the same way. Some of the nicest people I know become absolute bastards when competition rears its head. This does make me feel more sympathy for my character, when the build up to the story matches what you described, financial maturity, patience, etc...

However, this isn't the only reason the character may have had enough money to make the purchase. They may be a thief, they may be living off of parents money, they may be living off money earned in an ethically questionable way. They may have just been given a gift card with enough value to make the purchase.

None of this suggests that the person cannot possibly be the type of person who loses their head and their sense of self during competition.

By determining for us the purchaser of the javelin cares little about the art itself (distance throwing) and more about success over other people for purposes of patronizing his own ego- it casts him as the "lesser" or "less legitimate" person. Aside from the fact distance throwing is based on little more than physical strength, which is inexplicably linked to physical size/genetics. Not to say someone larger than yourself who just sits around all day will always be stronger than someone of smaller size who trains constantly with maximum effort- a smaller person can use leverage to topple a larger person who doesn't know what they're doing, but if that larger person uses the same tactic, that smaller person will likely get very hurt very quickly. Just how it is. In short, hurrah for firearms- the great equalizer! — Outlander

I'll do now what you did, how the maker character is portrayed doesn't mean he is the greater or the more legitimate than the buyer. He could be too lazy to get a job, he might have used wood from a tree that was on private property, the particular species of tree may have been endangered and/or the very last of its kind.

I hope that the higher power is watching over me
'Cause we young people don't see faith like most the older see
If he or she is listenin', a mere sign can spark me
But if the laws in the bible are bogus, then prepare for anarchy
Worst case scenario is never ever was a higher power
So in the midst of chaos now, the only real savior is fire power

- Tech N9ne, Higher power

Thought I'd put this here. That last line about firearms made me remember it and I think you'd enjoy the song and the artist it is from.

Will respond more to you and others soon. I have chores to do that I've neglected. STOP REPLYING WITH SUCH INTERESTING POINTS! MY CAR IS FILTHY! :')

might suggest that all of those are all subsets of philosophy; thus in the end... philosophical problems, but I suppose that's another 'philosophical problem' for another thread? — Mayor of Simpleton

I'd say it's a linguistic problem. If the problems of objective sciences are grouped together, then aren't we just using the term 'sub-set' when really we are just creating a blanket term for those problems?

We could think of it like paternalism. If Philosophy is the parent and something like linguistics is the offspring. If linguistics buys a house and gets a mortgage, is that philosophies problem or does it only become philosophies problem if linguistics dies?

I guess I just find it strange that philosophy makes claims to the propriety rights to problems, that were always in the domains of those objective fields, even if the other fields were as yet unnamed? Would it better to say that both those fields and philosophy own those problems? Should we say that philosophy was just the proto-form of those fields?

I'll watch the video very soon. I may not reply as quickly as usual as I've got some things I need to do. I am enjoying this conversation though. I'll probably have to move it to a new discussion thread soon however.

@Pfhorrest I think you have some skin in the game here. Would you view something like the field of linguistics, mathematics or ethics as something that was created, or discovered, by philosophy?

Indeed there are philosophical problems... in fact, quite a large number of them.

What it is I find all too often are 'impostors'; extremely poorly asked questions or statements/conclusions that are designed to act as if they were indeed philosophical questions. These 'impostors' demand the attention rather than command attention. Still they tend to attract a good number of folks due to some sort of popular affinity one might share with the notions implied, yet have the implications pimped as 'harmlessly asked' or even worse 'the given without proof', veiled with a variety of confirmation biases. Indeed they are popular as most are usually soft targets and require less critical thinking or critical self-evaluation.

Well... that didn't make much sense at all, so you see why I stick to the jokes. Believe me, no matter how far I toss this statement around (15 meter or more) I certainly won't be 'pleased with myself' or place it in a glass case. — Mayor of Simpleton

Good news! You failed my test. That doesn't mean you're wrong, I wouldn't be able to make claims that I know you are wrong. I'm actually relieved, I thought I wss going to upset you if you had passed. :P

My claim is that there are no philosophical problems. Only problems of language, mathematics, ethics and logistics, to name a few. I would claim that there are no problems in philosophy, I would say philosophy is a problem of language.

easy answer would be to try to fool death and the absurd. — dussias

Fool death or cheat it?

If I said that part of the sum of my life is in my ideas, and my ideas outlive me and stick around. Then has a part of me cheated death? Or were they never my ideas to begin with? Why would I even think it acceptable to think of ideas that cross into my head as my property? Just because they were in my head? What if someone else puts them there? Aren't I then just keeping a part of someone else alive or does the person who put them there run into the same problem when trying to claim proprietary rights?

Humour does quite often sheds unwanted light upon the 'agents' of philosophical problems who prefer to live in the shadow lands (or behind the curtain) and exposes supposed philosophical problems for being poorly asked questions or just statements being stated with a inquisitive tonality (conclusions wearing a questions clothing).

I do hope I failed... success is so boring.

I prefer fail again, try again, try to fail better over any participation trophies...

... or collapsible Javelins (most likely an impulse purchase one late night from the ACME Corporation as recommended by Wile E Coyote - 'Super Genius': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHDO78QfLbE ) in a glass case (something only a helicopter mother can be proud of). — Mayor of Simpleton

You sir, are hilarious! I really mean that.

So your answer, if I am understanding it correctly is that there are no philosophical problems?

I'm a refugee from the old 'Philosophy Forums' and, where my philosophical skills lacked quite a bit, I often tried to lighten the mood with a bit of 'non-sequitur' humor. I kind of always sided with Ludi Wittgenstein who said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." — Mayor of Simpleton

Couldn't agree more! If you listen to any decent comedian do stand-up for more than five minutes, this is extremely apparent.

I feel like stand-up comedians are extremely good at highlighting problems in many areas of life.

Question for you. Does humour ever shed light on philosophical problems? And yes. I'm testing you right now.

Accidental pun appreciated! Made me laugh. :) Thanks for your contribution. Anything that helps to bring out the nuances of it is great!

Those who have the most wealth, those are the ones who will matter the most in the history of human kind. — Yozhura

Interesting theory. I disagree with it. You only have to take a look at history to see that those who allegedly matter the most are individuals who contribute more than just selfishly amassing wealth. I'd also point out that some of the wealthy who ended up mattering, were the ones who did their best to try and rid themselves of that wealth through charitable works.

I think the wealthy would like to think they matter more, but they don't. Even the rich people who matter to history, usually ended up being held in such high regard because of things unrelated to their wealth.

Hume came from a rich Scottish family. But it wasn't his wealth that made him important to future generations, it was his ideas that did that. Are wealthy people more likely to be remembered? Probably. Does them being remembered more suggest they mattered more than others? Nope.

That's okay, all this suggested was that the Javelin is in three sections that fit into each other. Like a tri-partite staff.

I also used to do Javelin. I know as well as you know that a collapsible staff is completely immaterial to whether or not it makes an effective Javelin. It's more likely to reduce the effectiveness, if anything.

The reason I included it in the story was to illustrate that appearances and novelty matter to the buyer.

Thank you for this comment! I suppose I got ti caught up in quantity of replies over quality. If I'd spent more time focusing on the latter, I'd have seen that my posts and comments were more engaging than I first thought they were.

Bit of a tangent, but I have a question. Why do you think we want to write, contribute and share ideas?

The way I interpret this is that the first guy has a loser's mindset. He'd rather protect his own ego and simply follow what the instructions (i.e. learn the "right" way) say than actually learn how to do his craft better. Then when someone upstages him he just gets resentful and bitter instead of either trying to learn from the guy or look inward and critically examining his own approach to the javelin instead of just regarding it as flawless because he knows the instructions. He thinks he knows the craft because he seems to be possess a limited amount of knowledge that he gained from the instruction manual, it's classic amateur thinking he is expert.

I see this in poker a lot. Nobody cares how you think the game "should" be played - everyone thinks they're decent or an expert. Learn when people get the better of you and leave your ego at the door. At least that's the way I read it. — BitconnectCarlos

I like this interpretation. Notice that all the rules the Buyer takes issue with are not really anything to do with the rules of throwing a Javelin. IE, don't step over this line, the person who throws furthest, wins. He doesn't even know if holding the Javelin a certain way yields better results. Maybe if he had asked the Maker character to throw it the way he had been taught, he could have found out if that was truly the best and only way to hold the Javelin. If the maker had thrown further than 50 meters that time, it was indeed the best way, if he couldn't repeat or beat the feat of a 50 metre throw, then it wasn't the best way. He'll never know now.

I liked how you brought poker into it. Any player worth his salt knows that even if given the worst possible hand, he can still bluff his way to a big pot win.

Couldn't agree more. But there's always behavioral cues, Big, that you can gather from me without me being aware, small, I'm giving away my secrets, i.e. liking the fireworks. — Caldwell

Indeed, behavioural cues and what you say definitely contribute to the data set, even if they do fall short of the task of completing the data set.

While that is a lovely idea, I think it would take a very rare personality to both do philosophy well and also survive a political race. Most people with aptitude in one arena seem to lack it in the other. — Pfhorrest

I agree to some extent, what I disagree with however is characterizing philosophy and politics as just two arenas, one is happening in a centre with multiple arenas, one is a warzone where many weapons are used. I can function in both formats, so long as I've practiced hard with my weapon in one of the arenas. The harder I practice and the more weapons I learn to use, the more effective I can be in the warzone.

That sums it up for me. It's a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work. — Olivier5

Okay, let's say it is narrow minded. What if philosophy is travelling through a tunnel?

How do you think the Analytical school is beneficial for philosophy as a whole?

I'd observe that every philosopher, by way of their humanity, has tunnel vision to some extent. All individuals are narrow minded. It is only when they come together that their field of vision increases and blindspots are revealed.

That sums it up for me. It's a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work.
— Olivier5

I am genuinely puzzled by this, because it sounds like the sort of anti-intellectualism I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board; it sounds like the sort of sweeping generalization I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board; it sounds like the sort of baseless impugning of other people's motives I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board.

I just can't figure out how else to read it. Even if you had filled in exactly what you mean by "actual productive work" instead of leaving us to guess, it would still be all of those things.

Why does this seem okay to you? — Srap Tasmaner

Have to agree here. I may have said the original quote but I didn't say anything about productivity. Analytical philosophers were obviously productive.

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim.
— schopenhauer1

It's a good thing to be able to overcome pain, but I see your point. Pleasure is not the word we want, to me the word is 'satisfaction'. Normally we don't put ourselves into pain and suffering (I don't mean the kind we get from workout), but we find ourselves in one, and this is simply because we live a human life. ( Yes, I know. Bear with me) We are aware of relationships, and the eventual pain when those relationships disappear, as in death or separation. Experiencing suffering allows another dimension to a life where everything is in order and works like clockwork. — Caldwell

@schopenhauer1

Not for nothing, but I suffered some traumas this past week. I couldn't tell you if I deserved the suffering or if it was good for me. I have however noticed an improvement in how I philosophise for it. Take that as you will. So while no pleasure was had, writing leaves me more satisfied.

Yes, I saw it many years ago, probably when toy story two first came out, as I was still a kid at this time. I had actually forgotten about it up until now. Part of what put this into my mind recently was watching Elliot Alderson play against himself as Mr Robot. Due to the nature of that mind fuck of a show I wasn't even sure if I made the playing with yourself problem or if I plagiarised dialogue from the show. I was writing with Elliott's voice going through my head so I'm still not sure. I think there might be a few lines of his in the problem, but I'm not sure.

Due to reasons, I had to learn how to play chess in a very strange way. I basically had to learn how to lose and not win, in order to avoid the violence of my opponent when they lost. The irony there being they eventually stopped playing and lost interest in the game altogether. I kept on playing and still play. Only been in one tournament though, which was online.

At least now you know why I hate doing philosophy by myself. I never know if I'm cheating or not! Although, I suppose part of the problem as I've written it is also inferring I might never be playing with myself and that a person is more than one personality. That's just basic dialogical self theory though and it only implies that my single personality is the sum of personal constructs.

I'd give a fortune(in knowledge, cuz I'm broke) here to anyone who can guess what it is I really resent the most, based on this short story.

Just don't worry about hurting or offending me. Your silence did that more and it's not a problem now. I worry about hurting others all the time but I know that I personally would prefer to hear an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie.

I am genuinely glad to hear that. I seriously hesitated about talking about the story itself as resentful -- other people's lives, especially here, are none of my business. But you made it clear you wanted feedback. I seriously worried that it would be hurtful for me to say that. — Srap Tasmaner

Honestly, it was a little bit, but that's not your fault at all and when critiquing I feel it is almost unavoidable. Wait until my book comes out, because of the writing style it might as well be my personal diary. I'm an extremely open book with others engaged in philosophy and or psychology. Part of the reason I got involved with both psychology and philosophy was to help me figure out how to manage myself first and foremost. I didn't realise how much I'd grow to love both fields.

Ultimately I try to see, both myself and others as a fascinating object of study while trying not to objectify them but I probably have objectified myself more than others to some extent.

Yes it did. And thanks for reminding me about the chess thing, which I am honor-bound to comment on — Srap Tasmaner

Excellent! I need another critical eye on that. It's messing with my head and I wrote the bloody thing, now regretting doing so haha

it wasn't supposed to be hard to guess.

Well I'm a person you know. I have a family and a job and everything. I can psycho-analyze total strangers all day long. I just don't see any reason to call doing that "philosophy". — Srap Tasmaner

I never called it philosophy or suggested it was. It's just how I interact with people. I hope you know that my feelings that lead to writing this, are not directed at you? I don't need a proxy and I don't think it's fair to use one either. You've never harmed me and nobody with a degree has either.

On the other hand, the story itself could be the kind of fairy tale you might tell to get Real Patriots to take back their country from the effete elite. — Srap Tasmaner

Well I mean... It is shite being Scottish. What can I say? Haha

The resentment in the story itself is palpable to me. — Srap Tasmaner

Now, you're thinking about the psychology behind the philosophy! Yes, I'm resentful. Do I have reason to be? Maybe. Resentful toward an entire class? No, just the members of said class who behave like this. Ultimately I care more about individual behaviour. I have friends who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than myself but I don't resent them personally. One is a socialist, funnily enough.

What would you say of the story if the two individuals and been an older and younger sibling?

What would you say if I told you that the Javelin represents philosophy? Probably pointless questions but since they popped into my head, I'll ask and you answer what you want to answer.

Which way should 21st century philosophy turn?
— magritte

Sorry, I just don't get the point of this question. (See, MSC this kind of thing.) — Srap Tasmaner

That's because you're not imagining the psychological reasons behind asking the question. I know that ultimately this says more about a persons view of philosophy than it does about philosophy. But what does their desire to ask the question say about philosophy? These are things that interest me, but then, my education started in psychology before philosophy, so I would say something like that ;)

Is somebody being asked to decide what 21st century philosophy will be? Not me. — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed, philosophy is going to change, it always has. It now looks almost nothing like it did 100 years ago, nevermind a thousand.

Analytic philosophy is over for the same reason ordinary language philosophy is over: it won. — Srap Tasmaner

Did it win? Or was it playing a game with itself?

Tell your old philosophy tutor some random asshole on the internet thinks very highly of him. I'm sure he'll care haha

Seriously though I hope he wins, but not before the person he may replace gives a big fuck you to the rest of the GOP, before they go into retirement.

This insight is right on target. It is not the case that analytic philosophy is vacuous or useless or fruitless. Rather, the charge should be that it is finished as it is constructed. It is done. The real questions are What is next? Which way should 21st century philosophy turn? — magritte

Critical Contextualism. We've built and tested many different tools. Time to start using them and experimenting with them.

Ultimately philosophy is at a cross roads where it needs to decide if it still wants to only discuss problems or if it wants to try its hand at actually solving them.

There are roadblocks to this however. Indecision, lack of leadership and fears of making mistakes with real world consequences. Which means another road block is ethical consensus. Lack of ethical consensus breeds enormous amounts of mistrust. It makes collaboration difficult and contributes to philosophies lack of power to apply thought into societal action. We can only talk so much, without the attention and trust of the general population, we might never get the chance to find or provide evidence to back up what we claim. Which is what we need right now in order to get the attention amd trust of the general population.

Basically, Philosophy has finished school but no one wants to give it a job until it can show it has enough experience to do the job. It certainly doesn't help that the social sciences are vilified in popular media and by the hard sciences.

My way of confronting this is to try and convince philosophers to enter into politics, not just political philosophy I mean seriously try to get into politics. The right polemic method, support, the right kind of charisma and the ability to simplify complex ideas, could potentially take on the political elite who normally enter into politics. Above all, what will be required is a realistic vision for our species that is both attractive and possible.

@JerseyFlight You'll probably enjoy the moral of this short story. :)

Hahaha! Are we really? Or is it the same conversation? Just different venues?

You're getting plenty of engagement, MSC, much more than most who've been here only one week. If someone in particular doesn't reply to you, I suggest you get over it. I've been ignored by the old goat Banno too many times to mention — jamalrob

Well this makes me feel a little bit better. Thank you. I guess being here only a week gives me little comparison with which to feel unfairly treated by. Sorry, I'll just suck it up. Not worth getting myself worked up over.

I got you.

Thing is, I wish I had never engaged with the guy. It was a mistake. I do that. Now and then I let my frustration get the better of me.

Discussions about this or that school of philosophy are really of no interest to me. I responded to himself because he kept disrupting conversations and I wanted him to stop doing that. I tried a couple different ways of doing that -- well, they seemed different to me -- but I don't know why. It's really clear this is just an ideological thing for him, and I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked in.

Anyway, that's why I didn't have anything to say about your causal analysis. While himself may have attacking something he puts a name on, I wasn't ever trying to mount a defense of that, since I'm not sure it's a thing and if it is I doubt he knows what it is. At most I was mounting a modest defense of those being swept up in his accusations. What you're writing about -- I just don't have anything to say. — Srap Tasmaner

That's all pretty fair. I do understand why he is viewed as abrasive by some, maybe I'd find him that way too if our beliefs, experiences and emotions shared less overlap. He is 13 years older than me though, so I don't know if I should be putting so much focus on helping him.

It might seem like an ideological thing. I think it is a psychological thing though. He feels wronged by people whom he views as similar to you, you are his proxy. If you respond in the way his original harmer or harmers did, he's just going to see it as evidence of why you are a good proxy. My advice there would be to speak less as your philosophical identity and speak to his humanity and ask about his experiences, instead of his views. It might be that in the same or similar circumstances you'd be doing the same thing. It might be that although you ideologically match his harmer in one way, you don't match it in another.

It might seem like a cry for attention, because that is partly what it is, in my experience though people seek out what their life has been lacking. Seeking attention for the right reasons, and in the right way is okay. Do I feel his reasons are right? Probably. Do I feel his methods for getting it are the right way? Probably not. Do people sometimes ignore what they want from others because they aren't getting it from someone else? Absolutely.

Be that as it may, it's your choice to engage or not engage, with him and with me. What I'd like you to consider is that there may be a right and wrong way to even not engage someone. That might seem counter intuitive but it's something to think about.

No hard feelings between me and you. I won't turn down a reasonable explanation, when it is given.

I know how you feel. But people have different styles, and some simply won't respond if they don't find what you have said interesting or relevant enough to bother, no matter how polite and non-contentious you are being. It's happened to me plenty of times, but I wouldn't take it personally, just realize that some people are pompous asses at times, and sometimes it really is because what I've said is uninteresting or irrelevant. We can't be geniuses all the time. :wink:

At another time, on another subject, you might find you are able to engage with them. No one on here is under any obligation to respond; you have to deal with others as you find them. — Janus

I'll keep this in mind. I don't believe I am a genius, even some of the time, but then I have a definition of genius with a high bar for deserving that label. I can solve problems, I can't stop new problems from occuring. Doing that, takes and makes, a true genius. However, maybe philosophy is the wrong field for that definition of genius to be applicable. At least I'm not the "strong and stable genius" running things where I am. ;)

Honestly, I'm surprised anybody cares what I think. — Srap Tasmaner

Fair enough. I do actually care though. I care what a lot of people think. I don't like not knowing what people think.

I can't tell you if I should care, I don't know that. Doesn't change the fact that I do, care. If someone has something useful to say then I care. Even if they have something useless to say, that helps me figure out what is useful for me to say to them.

I'm not motivated the same way most people are. I'm self aware and observant enough to figure that out. I am still motivated though.

worthy of his attention, — praxis

Haha... Wow, speaks absolute volumes.

Banno responds well to blatant flattery, so if you’re willing sell your dignity you could try that. Say that his writing is pretty or something. — praxis

Yeah, if he wants me to lie to him he can keep dreaming. He doesn't write anywhere near enough for me to say anything positive or negative about the substance of his writing. It's just... Incomplete.

Why are you worried about the behavior of individuals? Aren't you here to do some philosophy, to learn? The people you refer to can likely teach you something if you stop focusing on their behavior and pay attention to what they are saying. Of course if you're not interested in what they are saying, that's fine to; but if that were the case then why would you bother engaging them in the first place? Surely not to castigate them for their allegedly bad behavior? — Janus

Believe me, I've payed plenty of attention to the individuals I am talking about. What isn't happening is reciprocity. I'm here, I'm very interested in what people have to say. If they have something to say to me then say it instead of ignoring me and excluding me from the conversation.

Do you really need to ask why the behaviour of individuals worries me? Am I not supposed to call out anti-social behaviour when I can see it clear as day?

I also made a lot of effort to engage without bringing behaviour into the discussion at all. How patient do people reasonably expect me to be before I start noticing that they aren't returning any of the respect I have made every effort to give them? If this was happening in a school, other students actively ignoring everything I say in a moderated debate we are being graded in, do they really think their silence would get them a good grade? Please. I'm not stupid or ignorant enough to believe that. So don't you act like you are and don't act like you wouldn't feel just as insulted.

@Srap Tasmaner

You were tagged because you have been extremely relevant to the discussion and as Jerseys most recent interlocutor at the time, I figured what I had to say may be valuable to you or that you would have some useful criticisms for me. I don't know if my logic is correct. I need feedback, just like everyone else. Otherwise I may as well just write a monologue and never share it.

Well, if the shoe fits. If it encourages outright bullying, discrimination and exclusion then it does have a negative social value.

I did provide an argument in defense of the analytical method, but the behaviour being displayed by some of the individuals here, also defending it, is utterly shocking to me. It utterly shocks me because these people are clearly aware of what they are doing yet still holding high opinions of themselves while trying to make others feel inferior. So I don't even know what to make of my own argument.

Maybe Belief in X is the cause of Z if this displayed behaviour is supposed to be evidence of it.

Nevermind, I'm not going to change my thoughts. Some people just aren't aware of their privilege and sense of entitlement I guess.

I guess. It just pisses me off that some people can believe their thoughts are untouchable even though they focus only on the people they think are inferior to them.

What is that supposed to mean exactly?

feel it is extremely poor form however, and well out of order, to try to ban somebody because your personal philosophy cannot reasonably stand up to theirs. That would be school yard bullying, in my opinion, not philosophy. — Pop

Question for you both, is it also extremely poor form to ignore and exclude people from conversations for the same reasons? If it weren't for individuals like you both, I think I'd just leave this place and not waste my time with pig ignorant bullies who are too stupid to realise their envy of you is the reason they don't like you. If they took but one second pull their heads from their ass, they might see that you are equal to them and that their mental midget superiority complexes do more harm to themselves than they do to you.