No. As I already mentioned, my commentary had nothing to do with you personally. You brought yourself into the discussion by offering a sad emoji.

And if you got bored by the sarcasm and irony, then you've missed the whole point of my initial post.

I literally have no idea how we got here.

Thumbs up as in you recognize that I'm arguing in good faith, and that we're talking past one another, right?

:up:

Wow, you're right. I'm a vain son of a bitch who's asking you questions in bad faith. I don't give a shit about this. Indeed, I'm only pretending to engage with the discussion; all because I want to be seen as right. I've totally missed how I'm wrong; that's because I'm a vain son of a bitch. And no, it's not about being right, but rather, about being seen as being right, which makes no sense.

Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to call you out as a Witty worshiper; I posted my commentary (of those quotes from a newbie) with no other reference whatsoever.

Ah, so this is about @Posty McPostface and his love of Witty. You might have noticed that this entire exchange began with my commentary on the Witty quotes (made by someone else, a newbie), and then Posty's sad face emoji. The two of us began that exchange in good faith together after the sad face emoji; @Posty McPostface and myself immediately understood that there was some agreement and some disagreement between us; correct me if I'm wrong, Posty.

So why did you barge in? Again, what's your goal? I clearly described my goal to you, at the death of my clever Witty jokes. At least clearly demarcate your position in this discussion, jokes or no, so we understand ourselves better. By the way, I actually don't give a shit about this semantic battle. I'm just continuing it because I'm a vain son of a bitch who wants to be right. But please prove me wrong. Just let me know, clearly and concisely, just exactly what your stake is in this verbal battle.

Because a claim was made and I wanted to see if it can be shown to hold any water. — Πετροκότσυφας

So you've never met a Witty fan who was a bit worshipful, right? The concept doesn't even remotely suggest a meme to you, right?

I guess it can be the inverse, as your saying. Namely, some set of entrenched beliefs get challenged or questioned which I associate with myself, and then get challenged in the appropriate settings of sorts. — Posty McPostface

Entrenched beliefs being challenged are always good things to have happen to oneself (weird grammar). This happens every day on the forum for anyone who argues honesty.

Yeah, I do like Harry Frankfurt. Have you read his, 'On Bullshitting'? — Posty McPostface

No, but it sounds great.

So why are you a part of this discussion?

Can you, instead, provide examples of how Witty's trite quotes are examples of profound wisdom?

Are you my ex? What are we arguing about? Will I ever be right? What point do you want to make? Make a philosophical point, my dude.

That's a little hard for me to imagine as I never formally studied philosophy in College; the crisis of formulating my own philosophy came after I left Christianity, which I suppose could be an analogy to graduating with a degree in philosophy, in it's own metaphorical way.

So, then what? What's next is clearing away the bullshit.

I don't get the grammar. If what is true is supposedly the process of academic philosophy, yet believing in what is true is associating "what is true" with one's self, then...what?

But that being said, I can work on expressing it better, which I'm happy to do. But a fully formalized concept would work against the concept itself.

If I formalize it, I'll express it less well than I've expressed it above.

A'ight brah, I'll spell it out since you have no imagination. I thought you did, since you have good taste in music, but you're apparently a robot: My commentary on the Witty quotes were written in a (pretty bad) Witty voice. That's it. That was the joke. Surprise!

That sounds religious, metaphorically, and also fundamentally: A set of values that are internalized and are set against a narrative which describes the world. I mean "religious" in a neutral sense; the word for me has no positive or negative meaning, but I use it knowing that it ignites negativity. This is an idea I've tried to argue here ever since I joined.

*sifts through all the brilliant new emoji's and can't find an "embarrassed" emoji*

Wine and philosophy work well together!

As I said, I'm not interested in W's pretentiousness or yours. If by any chance what you refer to as an example of others using W. to veil their own pretentiousness is that the quotes by W. were provided by another, then I'd be interested to see how you can conclude that they were pretentious. — Πετροκότσυφας

Where did you say you're not interested in Witty's pretentiousness, and where did you say you're not interested in my pretentiousness?

And no, I didn't mean that someone else providing those quotes is an example of that person's pretentiousness. God dude, what point are you making here? Do I nee to just spell my point out to you in kindergarden terms? Here it is: "Witty was great, but not that great. People worship Witty sometimes, and that's dumb."

I'd be interested to see how you can conclude that they were pretentious. — Πετροκότσυφας

I concluded so with my commentary, and the admonishment that

That's been ND's deranged screed of the week, thanks! — Noble Dust

Jesus, lighten up man!

Beginning carte blanche from the other thread..."not associating oneself with philosophy" seems very wise. It's the stance of prizing ideas over persons, or, more realistically, ideas over stances themselves. People in academia take stances, and their stances become their identity; they become statues with stances. They don't move. They're dead.

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life?

It needs to contain them because I asked for actual examples of others doing that and you said that your initial post contains them. — Πετροκότσυφας

Ah, you're right. Your rational faculties are sharper than mine; my imagination gets caught up, and I jump ahead.

But yes, my initial post does in fact contain examples of that pretentiousness. I invite you to use your imagination to ascertain them. They are there.

Your initial post contains quotes by W., your comments on them and a remark of being tired by W. worship. Then Posty joined, he said something about people using W. profundity and intenseness as a veil for their own pretentiousness to which, if I understood right, you agreed. — Πετροκότσυφας

Good so far.

Your initial post contains no examples of others doing that. — Πετροκότσυφας

Correct. Why does it need to in order for me to agree with Posty's assertion that Witty worshipers can be pretentious?

I'm not in any mindset to start any new threads for a good while; I only do that when I really have an un-scratchable itch. That's just me because I'm very much an autodidact; I know you like to start threads, so go for it if you feel inspired.

As to the topic of any potential thread...it's really not that far off from any other recent threads that deal with fundamentals. For me personally, it's an issue of intuition, which I've gotten into a lot of hot water for in the past. That's how I would personally approach it.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but what you're asking for is there. That's all I mean.

Read my initial post. What you're looking for is there. I'm guessing you just don't have the ironic sense to get it.

I did with the prose of my initial post above. Having to spell it out kills the joke...

Profoundly difficult indeed.

To foolhardily hazard an answer, I see the paradox of "not associating the self/ego with philosophy", vs. "treating philosophy as a way of living" as being unified in an "intuitive" approach. I interpret "not associating the self/ego with philosophy" as an essentially mystical approach; an immanent experience that is pre-rational. The experience of "being" which is best accessed via meditation, art, and other pre-rational techniques. Then, "treating philosophy as a way of living" is the rational approach in which rational arguments are used (after intuition is used) in order to organize philosophical and ethical problems, etc. Just some thoughts.

No, you're onto something with people using his profundity and intenseness as a veil of pretentiousness, I think. — Posty McPostface

That's the gist of my post; in both content, and, more importantly, in form.

Not feeling very philosophical today anyway so I don't have much to say. — Posty McPostface

Always willing to hear your thoughts, over here.

Sorry you're sad, posty. Do you have any rebuttals? I'm happy to be put in my place if my ideas are terrible. It's possible that they are.

[MOD NOTE: The following comments have been moved from the TPF quote cabinet discussion as they are off-topic there @Noble Dust @Πετροκότσυφας @Posty McPostface]



I'm tired of all this Witty worship.

The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves. — I'm no longer 'here'

If life after death exists, it doesn't necessarily solve any problem; the problem is that there are no problems to be solved; the problem is beginning with the assumption that there are problems to be solved. Life after death says nothing of problems that need solving. Is that trite enough for a Witty worshiper?

The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have known since long. — I'm no longer 'here'

Good on ya Witty! No complaints.

Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery. — I'm no longer 'here'

No; existence is no mystery; existence is the beginning. Begin with existence (i.e. "the world") and then move out from there. What do you see in front of you? A computer screen which you're gawking at, mouth half open. Begin there.

If you and I are to live religious lives, it mustn't be that we talk a lot about religion, but that our manner of life is different. It is my belief that only if you try to be helpful to other people will you in the end find your way to God. — I'm no longer 'here'

Life is religious. Atheism is religious. We talk about life: we talk about religion. Talk isn't the issue. Manner of life is essentially talk. What matters is what isn't expressed; the thing that manner doesn't express. That is universal religion.

If you use your helpfulness to others as a bridge to God, then you're not wise, not helpful, and not any closer to God.

If anyone is unwilling to descend into himself, because this is too painful, he will remain superficial in his writing. . . If I perform to myself, then it’s this that the style expresses. And then the style cannot be my own. If you are unwilling to know what you are, your writing is a form of deceit. — I'm no longer 'here'

Possibly my favorite Witty quote.

The philosopher is not a citizen of any community of ideas, that is what makes him a philosopher. — I'm no longer 'here'

If this is true, then there are virtually no philosophers on this philosophy forum.

That's been ND's deranged screed of the week, thanks!

You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of your body
love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.

-Wild Geese, Mary Oliver

yes.

What brings you to the conclusion that the suicidal person is looking for the easier way out?

Right. I don't know. If we don't know what exists, if anything, "on the other side", is it wise for us to encourage suicidal people, positively or negatively, to make one choice or the other, considering we lack certainty about what exists "on the other side"? Is it wise to hint that suicide is courageous, or to admonish that it's cowardly? Is either statement wise, or helpful?

In to what?

Care to elaborate, here or via PM? No worries either way. Your idea reminded me of this Rilke poem, which, as a quote, is, I guess, apropos to the thread. The translation from German is always clunky, but it came to mind:

Imaginary Career

At first a childhood, limitless and free
of any goals. Ah sweet unconsciousness.
Then sudden terror, schoolrooms, slavery,
the plunge into temptation and deep loss.

Defiance. The child bent becomes the bender,
inflicts on others what he once went through.
Loved, feared, rescuer, wrestler, victor,
he takes his vengeance, blow by blow.

And now in vast, cold, empty space, alone.
Yet hidden deep within the grown-up heart,
a longing for the first world, the ancient one...

Then, from His place of ambush, God leapt out.

Are you speaking from experience?