Yet philosophers have done this sort of thing and become respectable. — jellyfish

Weren't they already respectable when doing it, or did they become respectable later? Perhaps they were already respectable when they said it, but some folk did not believe that that was so. For those folks, perhaps after reading such a person's claims and position, they realized that the person was a respectable thinker after-all.

:wink:

Just jesting with you...

To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect. — Mark Dennis

This dubiously presupposes that all objections(being assailed) are on equal footing. I mean, lots of folk throughout history had broken new ground, but were assailed beyond most people's comprehension during the rest of their lives...

Turns out these people were right... and assailed!

:wink:

I like your sense of humor. — jellyfish

:razz: :fire:

Weren't they already respectable when doing it, or did they become respectable later? — creativesoul

I think of Russell and Wittgenstein. If you seduce the right somebody, you don't stay a nobody for long. Now I love me some Wittgenstein, but homeboy was a troll sometimes?

Just jesting with you... — creativesoul

I do not object to a jest, either finite or infinite.

I think of Russell and Wittgenstein. If you seduce the right somebody, you don't stay a nobody for long. Now I love me some Wittgenstein, but homeboy was a troll sometimes? — jellyfish

Troll?

I suppose that would all depend upon what counts as a troll to the person calling him one...

Both Russell and Witt are in my group of favorites. Russell has much more of my respect. Witt has much more of my sympathy, although Russell has that as well.

Have you ever read Witt's letters to Cambridge? Quite interesting. Poor guy.

Respectable does not equal well-known...

Does it?

:brow:

Troll? — creativesoul

Wittgenstein was invited to a meeting of the Vienna circle: “When he finally came, instead of answering their questions about his book, he sat facing away from them reading Tagore, the Indian poet, for over an hour and then got up and silently left the room. Afterward Carnap remarked to Schlick, “I guess he is not one of us.”

That's the story I had in mind.

And then the form of the TLP is something a crank would dream up. Don't get me wrong. I love it. I got quasi-mystical kicks out of it and still think it's brilliant.It's just that I can imagine all the other Wittgensteins who didn't have the same luck in academia and left cursing it for its shallowness.

I do not wish to judge how far my efforts coincide with those of other philosophers. Indeed, what I have written here makes no claim to novelty in detail, and the reason why I give no sources is that it is a matter of indifference to me whether the thoughts that I have had have been anticipated by someone else. — W

I love it, but I doubt I could away with something like that. It's not 'respectable.'

The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the
problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been
unable to say what constituted that sense?)


6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.
— W

Wittgenstein, the mystical troll! Hardly the final truth, but surely this wasn't the way things were usually done. He was an intellectual rock star, an eccentric who had the charisma ad connections (and exciting ideas, of course) to get away with it.

As we discussed before, I think the only way to avoid becoming a dominating evangelist is to prioritize an ideal, symmetric relationship. — jellyfish

Which is what Bakhtin's notion of dialogism does. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of monologists lurking about.

Respectable does not equal well-known...

Does it? — creativesoul

Well that's a deep question. If I tell you about nobody from nowhere (some articulate prole without institutional backing or connections to fame), does this prole sound respectable to you? What is it to respected? 'admired and approved of by many people' https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/respected

To be sure, I can personally respect this articulate prole. I know that he's really a genius, and that he had his reasons not to bother courting the respect of strangers. That's part of the reason I respect him. I admire his scorn for such trifles. (To be clear, I'm playing. The articulate prole sprung into existence to help me make my point. Or made the point?)

Which is what Bakhtin's notion of dialogism does. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of monologists lurking about. — uncanni

Is it strictly unfortunate though? Doesn't the advocate of diologism need a foil? It's like the crystal palace of Dostoevsky's underground man. In the rational kingdom to come, we might slip into a coma from boredom and/or welcome the return of the king monological trolls. They'll serve as our 'golden pins.'

Now I genuinely like dialogism and other related insights. I still think that this principle itself runs the risk of becoming monological. It's as if every ideal or principle casts a shadow. It offers us a welcome refuge from the abyssal complexity within. Can any community exist without some foundational blindspot? I don't know. I guess I'm suspicious of any ideology, including my own anti-ideology, claiming a Final Triumph and mistakenly believing it has exiled its own madness.

I get what you mean, however is being right the same as being perfect?

Also, I’d agree that one does not need to be known to be respectable.

Let’s take Albert Schweitzer for example, he had headlines written about him describing him as such things like “the greatest man alive” “best person” and such. Now, if you read Schweitzer’s ethical vision it does all sound pretty egalitarian and progressive for the times he was around, however by today’s standards although he would still be considered progressive, he would still be described as a bit of a positive racist with his paternalism over non-white races. Sure he saw other races as brothers and sisters, but he saw himself as the elder sibling. So in some ways he’s respectable, I’ve not come across many others that are aware of him too and while you could argue he was progressive and maybe one of the best people around at the time, he wasn’t perfect.

It's as if every ideal or principle casts a shadow. It offers us a welcome refuge from the abyssal complexity within. Can any community exist without some foundational blindspot? I don't know. I guess I'm suspicious of any ideology, including my own anti-ideology, claiming a Final Triumph and mistakenly believing it has exiled its own madness. — jellyfish

You're a deconstructionist in the finest sense of the word. Knowing that madness can never be permanently banished is a step in the right direction. My madness is my old friend.

When troll really makes it, no one calls him or her a troll anymore. Calling all the philosophy that came before a bunch of confusion, for instance, seems trollish. Yet philosophers have done this sort of thing and become respectable.

It reminds me of that H.L. Mencken quote:

“The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe—that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”

Does anyone else feel like a fair number of individuals on this site could do with some humility?

Are you constantly feeling angry when someone proves you wrong? Then watch this you cognitively dissonant masses you haha — Mark Dennis

The call for humility often seems to come from those who lack it, you don't like the taste of your own medicine I think or you just don't understand what you're asking for. There is no good humility that embraces being called part of the "cognitively dissonant masses" and honestly I can't think of a less humble word than "masses" being used to describe others.

While we may have differing views, cultures and backgrounds, let’s not forget we are here to increase our awareness, collaborate and seek knowledge. — Mark Dennis

To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect — Mark Dennis

Philosophy is not necessarily about being right or wrong, it is not necessarily about knowledge either. When I look through the discussions on the forum, I'd say very few of them have anything to do with truth or knowledge but are very subjective. People disagreeing with you doesn't show flaws in your ideas any more than it shows flaws in theirs, quite a fallacious statement.

You said "prove wrong" at the start of your OP, I don't know what that's in reference to but did you actually "prove" someone wrong? Or you're just convinced you were right and you're in fact angry that they didn't acknowledge it. That's what your post sounds like, a hypocritical tirade against self-assuredness.

If we here treat each other as ends and not means to ends then we can all benefit. — Mark Dennis

What would your arrogant rant be without some preaching to others on how they should be like. Don't get me wrong though, I don't have a problem with your overt arrogance, only the hypocrisy and duplicitousness.

Unless you're planning on making friends here on this forum, the members are means to an end. Kind sounding platitudes don't pass for wisdom, an anonymous forum board is not the place for people to treat others as "ends in themselves". Better figure out why you're here and if it's to get into stupid arguments with strangers and then make disgruntled threads about them after you had an argument, perhaps find a better use of your time?

I could do without people being humble as long as they're honest. I think people often respond in ways that aren't very honest here. At least I hope that's the case, because the other alternatives would be even more disheartening.

Can you elaborate / give examples?

Can you elaborate / give examples? — Pfhorrest

Sure. The most recent example: I don't think that Isaac honestly believes that there are no properties in the world/that the world is just a heterogeneous mass of vague/undifferentiated things that his mind imposes order on.

I know and love that quote. Nice!

I see. Reminds me of the pragmatist critique of Cartesian doubt, that it is feigned and hyperbolic beyond reason, and that we should instead start from our ordinary view of the world and then only doubt that when we find reason to do so, instead of insisting that everything that can possibly be doubted be rejected.

You're a deconstructionist in the finest sense of the word. Knowing that madness can never be permanently banished is a step in the right direction. My madness is my old friend. — uncanni

Thanks! Hello darkness madness, my old friend. :starstruck: :grimace: :cool:

Evidently I’m one of the few people that took the sites rules about respect seriously.

I’m really done with you trolls for today and I’m not taking your bait. Anyone can go back and clearly read through my interactions with people and the only opinions here I care about are the people that treat me with the same respect I give them and don’t give off this monologic bs trying to defend others for having crappy behaviour. You’re here trying to pick fights, not me. Bye now. :)

...is being right the same as being perfect? — Mark Dennis

Of course not. One can be right about something and wrong about other things. However, perfect knowledge would be had by a perfect person. Perfect knowledge is right. So, if one can be right and assailed, then it is not true that if one is being assailed one is not right(perfect).

That was the context...

Also, I’d agree that one does not need to be known to be respectable. — Mark Dennis

Of course they don't. If being respectable required only a large number of different people's respect and approval, then there are all sorts of historical mass murderers who would qualify.

Respectability is subject to individual particulars...

Perfect knowledge is right. So, if one can be right and assailed, then it is not true that if one is being assailed one is not right(perfect).

That was the context...

While I’d say this is true of precision based sciences, in our line of work we have to craft and form long and nuanced arguments, descriptions, analysis etc and while facts stated singularly may be examples of perfect knowledge, opinions on the implications and meanings of facts are more of a grey area.

If however we say that a fact is perfect knowledge, while a person may be saying something that is perfect in that moment, that does not imply the next thing he says will be of the same quality. So it may be that every now and again a person is speaking perfect knowledge/truth. Does this make the person themselves perfect?

This gives me an idea for a new discussion. I’ll open it up tomorrow.

I’d be very happy to hear your response and look forward to reading it tomorrow. Goodnight!

You're more than welcome.

Don't get me wrong here. There is no such thing as a perfect human who holds nothing but well-grounded true belief...

I was just making the point that it does not follow from the fact that one is being assailed(criticized/challenged/denied) that one is mistaken. That's all I was getting at. That was a flaw in the bit I originally remarked on.

:smile:

“To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect.” did I say that if one is being assailed that one is being mistaken? No I said, not perfect.

A non perfect person giving a right answer can still be assailed by others. A perfect answer given by a perfect person wouldn’t be assailed because everyone would know it was a perfect answer.

Of course, since none of us has true knowledge of a perfect being it would be quite difficult to prove this haha you could also maybe make an argument that the perfect person can only be recognised as such by other perfect beings.

It’s worth listening to people who use more venom in their speech. Judaka can be direct and doesn’t veer from offending in order to make a point.

We all get carried away sometimes. Consider the words in cool calm manner and then move forward. If you’re not taking ‘the bait’ then why respond? Maybe it isn’t actually bait, just a subjective observation of your attitude in this thread that may at least be worth considering (or maybe not?).

I try to practice not responding to remarks. It isn’t a sign of weakness. It is polite to let someone know they’ll be wasting their time speaking to you on x matter though. I used to think a private message saying so would help protect egos, but it was used as ammunition about my apparent ‘harassment’ so I’d lean toward making it public and civil - always leave the door open for future consideration too and try to judge the posts as posts not as posts by such and such (of course this has limitations in application).

Can you be harsh to your friends and kind to adversaries? If I agree with someone I go for the throat - not to ‘win’. I mean I actively look for a means of conflict.

If there’s a rabid beast at your door don’t kick it. If there is a docile beast at your door kick it into life. I have a feeling it is these kind of approaches that get mixed up that bothers you? Insisting on humility does more to kick a rabid beast than placate it. Walk away and don’t be tempted to put the boot in on leaving.

GL

I didn’t take the bait for the same reason I got frustrated with the other venomous comments. They all made the assumption that I put the intellectual honesty post up to make a point to certain individuals instead of being more direct. The post is for everyone and I don’t really have time for people calling me arrogant when they genuinely thought the post was meant for them specifically.

I also put it up because I have been just as guilty of being venomous, monologic and arrogant as these individuals in the past and the Adam Ruins everything video genuinely helped free me from the burden of thinking in a way that was contributing to that.

Yet did anyone watch the video? I don’t even know, no one talked about it. I could have had a lot of people’s comments removed for being completely off topic but I let it go along because I got justifiably defensive that so many people made assumptions about my motivations that I had to act. Add to that another commenter going into detail on the mentality of trolls and me seeing it in a lot of the troll behaviour I just didn’t see what I could do or say to them that would do any good to dissuade them from their assumptions. Then I remembered that I don’t care about wrong assumptions and that I’m not even here to talk about myself anyway.

Would it really have been that hard for them to talk to me about this as diplomatically as you have?

I don’t have high expectations in standards of behaviour in individuals. I swear like a sailor and have no concept of taboo and if you have a problem you can talk my ear off about it.

People have been assuming things about me my whole life, literally. Doctors assumed I’d die within hours of being born as I was 12 days overdue and I had to be given cpr (which broke one of my ribs and it grew at an odd angle because the person had never done cpr on a baby and didn’t know you’re to use your fingers for heart compressions not your palm) and put into an incubator before being housed in a contaminated ward that hadn’t been cleaned down yet and I got a chest infection which had me in and out of hospital for over a year with many predictions made about my death and it’s never really stopped. Assumption after assumption, being called a bad kid, being in trouble all the time and my anger at being accused of lying all the time made it easy for the kids at school to absolutely terrorise me and get me into all sorts of trouble. I didn’t even get diagnosed with Aspergers until I was 23 years old.

Me and my Psychiatrist spoke at length to common misunderstandings of motivation in people on the spectrum. Some of our behaviour comes off as arrogant but it’s motivationally different to narcissism because it’s usually motivated by access to uncompartmentalised memory and low latent inhibition as opposed to a grandiose sense of self.

This leads to high levels of detail orientation and nuance in my writing.

Here is why to me it doesn’t make logical sense for people to come onto this and call me arrogant; How can a person be arrogant, posting asking people to not be arrogant, which is motivated out of recognition that I personally have been arrogantly wrong in my life as has every other person I’ve met? It just doesn’t really make sense to me and I’ve reached a point in my life now where if I can’t correct an incorrect assumption about me within one or two messages then the person wants to believe it of me and I can’t be bothered with them online anymore at all. I have to make allowances in my personal life but don’t see why I should have to here. Plenty of people here have disagreed with me about things here whom I haven’t had heated arguments with because they didn’t make assumptions about me, they asked me.

When people make assumptions about me I make them right back, because to me that’s them signifying that’s how they want to be treated.

A perfect answer given by a perfect person wouldn’t be assailed because everyone would know it was a perfect answer. — Mark Dennis

Only if everyone knew the perfect answer. If the perfect answer was against common wisdom, the answer would be assailed...

you could also maybe make an argument that the perfect person can only be recognised as such by other perfect beings.

that was kind of implied by this, only perfect beings can recognise perfect answers or other perfect beings.