Forums

Imbesil wrote:

I can use a quote from Schopenhauer to express my attitude towards modesty: "With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy". Your first instinct, perhaps, might be to accuse me of unoriginality, jumping on the back of quotes by those who have proven greatness.

And I can quote one too on what originality means:

Schopenhauer wrote:

"The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgments and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgments spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself."

Satyr wrote:

"As someone of below the average I was expecting more than trivial posturing, imbecilic nothings, and gossipy repetitions of the official social narratives from the intellectual elites.
Expecting miracles, I suppose.
Imagine me expecting the superior of mind to not sound like total idiots in places dedicated to thinking above the everyday.
Imagine that!
But how can I relate to geniuses, who cure cancer, and solve everything and the only thing they can do with their superior intellect is repeat their culture's and time's mythologies as if they were unquestionable facts only the hateful and the ill would dare question."

Get it?

Imbesil wrote:

It seems you have a somewhat unrealistic standard of what qualifies as doing this sufficiently. A genius isn't a fountain of originality, endlessly gushing life-changing revelations, but they have the ability to maybe create something unprecedented once or twice, perhaps even many times.

Even after Satyr said the above, you insert your own projections and betray your IQ and only what genius is supposed to mean to You.

"a fountain of originality, endlessly gushing life-changing revelations" is Your pretentious straw, not Satyr's;

Satyr wrote:

"Uniqueness is another one of those words used to describe what is absent. The fluidity of life proves that all instances are derivatives.
And all derivatives are interpreted as instances due to ignorance and feebleminded horror.

When a phenomenon cannot be traced back far enough it is made into an idol and an idol is shattered by tracing it back to an inheritance. There is nothing more unflattering to a weak soul than its heritage.

"Old ideas" are somehow an insult, 'primitive', and a nausea to the modern mind, when all ideas are old.
To such minds, dressing up communism in a technological garb and calling it The Venus Project makes it fresh and unique and new.
Its minds like these that support morals which are Judeo-Christian, very ancient, but under a new heading: secular humanism, or a bit older Socialist or Marxist, or Liberal.

The modern mind is obsessed with newness.
Ideas must be current.

But Traditinoalism is about returning to the past, and identity is based on discovering the past and consciousness is a looking back.

How can something be overcome when it hasn't been dealt with?
Evading it, banning it away, associating it with evil, trying to shame it into silence, dismissing it with casual declarations, is not dealing with it.

Man's tools are extensions of his nature.
Civilization is a continuation of how particular genetic strands interacted with particular natural environments.
No invention is unique, in the sense that it totally usurps what already exists.
All invention is a product of combining what already exists in a new way.

"Dawn in her plenitude like one that lets fall from her a sewn robe moves, the bride of the Bliss; creating Swar, perfect in her working, perfect in her enjoying, she widens from the extremity of Heaven over the earth.
She is ancient and eternal, the dawn of the Light that was from the beginning, but in her coming she is ever young and fresh to the soul that receives her." [Aurobindo on RV 3.61, Secret of the Veda]

Imbesil wrote:

I just prefer to say what is when it is true, even if it is immodest to do so. I kill two birds with one stone by doing this, my attitude is fresh and outstanding in a world currently bound by a fear of exceeding one's place and being judged as arrogant, and I feel fresh in my willingness to speak more truth than others dare. It's not genius, but it transcends our "culture's and time's mythologies" in just another small but worthwhile way.

You are, in your small and ordinary way, making a positive contribution towards world harmony with your tepid, middle-class reactionary attitudes over at ILP. You've laid the path for other liberal hypocrites to follow, who feel alienated from modernity but are coming to terms with the fact that they're not intellectually unique in any way. It's something you should look back on as you reach the winter of your life (quite close now eh?) with a sense of leaving the world in a better state than you found it. I think you should feel proud of what you have achieved. It won't be celebrated in books or films of course, no international recognition, but what the hell, we all know what a profound effect you've had on our thinking. Unfortunately, I'm suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer's, and already my memories of your daring intellectual escapades are fading. If you could recount some of them here, for old times sake, I'd be enormously grateful.

Satyr wrote:

No, dear boy, I am banned because I expose your kind's duplicity; the banality of an average mind stating he is MENSA, or has an IQ of 160; the stupidity of a mind who claims value precedes judgment, as consciousness precedes life;

Imbesil is also one of those experientialists;

Imbesil wrote:

"There is no nothing with which to divide existence, therefore it is continuous. The "subject" is only ever conceivable as the object of conception, and therefore contradicts itself as a concept, and thus its relative opposite "the object" simultaneously loses its relative meaning. Thus in order to impose (as a "subject") an understanding of existence in discrete terms is fundamentally illogical, and one must draw upon other values with which to construct a reality. From this basis, it is then possible to evaluate these different value sets and all the truths that may subsequently emerge.
I propose "experience" as the fundamental substance of existence: the concrete complement to the abstract term. Thus I have titled it "Experientialism" - a play on the synthesis of Existentialism and Essentialism, from which it draws in equal measure.

The primary stage, the establishment of the foundation of continuous experience is not process philosophy. Herein lies the connection with Essentialism. The secondary stage is indeed related to process philosophy. Though process philosophy requires a base in order to stand up by itself, and that is what I have provided for it - along with a specific position from which to begin its process.
Not so much intelligence nor design, but consciousness yes. If you are familiar with him, George Berkeley has been a significant influence in opposition to the traditionally materialistic worldview. I believe that the human understanding of existence precludes the human ability to refer to and conceive of existence.
Experience as "one" but also "zero" (because if the whole is "1", there are no relative comparisons from which to grant intellectual meaning - there "just is"). Continuous experience has no boundaries until they are imposed, and it is literally the simplest thing to realise. And from then, by all means impose!"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What are the chances he is not already on Humanarchy?

Imbesil wrote:

You're both entirely right. Thanks for showing me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anytime.

Imbesil wrote:

What are the chances I didn't make the very first post on Humanarchy, I wonder? Yes, I am an Experientialist.

Nyghl.

It explains a lot.

The self-title imbecile declares he has a high IQ and other qualities in-between making inept conclusions, including the conclusion that he must do that to avoid modesty.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is what a retards thinks like...

Retard wrote:

Well, it will matter to some more than to others. The point is this: that in a world without God there is no transcending point of view that allows us [as mere mortals] to establish an objective moral agenda. Indeed, that is at the heart and the soul of this: In the absense of God all things are permitted.

See?
No God, no absolute, means a free-for-all.

Do you smell the Jew-Christian now?
Do you see why objectivity is, for this turd, a matter of morality?
It's as if the world does not exist, without a god, and that nature has no control mechanisms...objective mechanisms because they have no teleos, and are unconscious products of trial and error - evolution.

No, it doesn't mean "a free for all". It simply suggests that when confronted with conflicting value judgments, folks have the option to either work out a functional [pragmatic] understanding between them or one side will have the power to enforce their own political agenda on the other.

Indeed, choose a particular moral conflict we are all familiar with and we can explore it here.

Define it. If that's not the calling card of an autodidactic pedant, you'll be hard pressed to find a better one. No, instead, I prefer that the definitions be taken down off the skyhooks [intellectual contraptions], and situated out in the world existentially -- in the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions that come into conflict.

You choose the issue.

Well, I had to at least try to see if you would might willing to bring your abstractions down to earth. This is about what I expected though.

camus666 wrote:

No, it doesn't mean "a free for all". It simply suggests that when confronted with conflicting value judgments, folks have the option to either work out a functional [pragmatic] understanding between them

Why have you assumed that "conflicts" should be done away with?

The one preaching against Objectivity is the one calling for a homogenous levelling in a compromise that does away with diversity and conflicting plural values... irony or ignorance?

camus666 wrote:

Well, I had to at least try to see if you would might willing to bring your abstractions down to earth. This is about what I expected though.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Read that.

He can only think in absolutes. Either absolutely objective or absolutely subjective.

Either there is a God or I am a God.

Ha!!!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] can tolerate paedophiles, but not Satyrs.
They have no problem socializing with these vermin, do they?

Only_Humean's ire is only aroused when Satyr reminds him of how pathetic he is....but a paedophile posting pics prepubescent kids does not bother him.
Months ago threats did not bother him either.

His mind is governed by very specific (re)actions.

Oh, Carleas...what a den of dimwits you have there.
Popular, no?

Satyr wrote:

Know why these "humble ones" are so arrogant?
Why the weakling and coward proposes, and promotes, himself as the strong and courageous one?
Why they cannot help but brag about their happiness, their stuff, their exploits, their sexual adventures, their intellectual prowess, their stuff, their I.Q., their athleticism, their money, their strength, their independence, their unappreciated greatness?

What of the oppsite ones of the same coin? The moderns/nihilists who disparage one self , claim no success , admit failure, admit/accept lower quality of mind when finally faced with reality, the failure to perform , their weakness and who recongnizes their imposed (by other/being defeated) failure?

Can such a person ever be something else? Ever redeem himself - even if the act is final? Which one is worse off, the braggart or the gloomy kind?

Satyr wrote:

Read the judgment of a retard [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The tender words of a feminine spirit....talking to a loved one

geentic feces wrote:

No doubt about it: you're still the most fascinating dude here.

Such absolute declarations, from a subjectivist.
But I forget, both share the value judgment that value judgments are bad.
When it comes to race, sex, homos, you know the usual Secular Humanist issues the judgment holds.

Shit-Stain declared Tupac a genius!
That was before he declared value judgments evil.

So, you see here the level of mind we are dealing with.
In this case words are not a source of skepticism for the genetic feces.
He declares, unequivocally, his value judgment....unable to realize how this will expose him and his valued object, to ridicule.

It's gangsta intelligence.

I was suspicious that this piece of genetic feces was shit-Stain using another moniker, to congratulate himself and to insinuate the image he wishes others to believe about him.
He is an attention whore, after all.
Him and his coke-bottle-sized cock.
A form of self-cultivation.
But my paranoia notwithstanding this shit is funny.

Read the reply...

shit-Stain wrote:

Thanks man, but you don't have to point it out. People can tell on their own.

Indeed, he is thinking of the likes of Acturus Descending... and such gullible knaves.

I, personally, think shit-Stain is such a loser that he had to go to a place where he suspected, was full of inexperienced, sexually frustrated nerds - of the female sort - and where his gangsta, whigger, caricature will have its greatest effect.
His bragging is his bait.
For the nerd girls.
He failed to consider the possibility of a Satyr, and now his bolstering bravado was diminished to a whimper.

Why would anyone go to a philosophy forum a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, to share life experiences, fake or made up, and brag, and posture?
Not a social forum, but a philosophy forum.
Not a dating site, but a philosophy site!!!   

Remember the days when he dismissed Kant and Nietzsche and when pushed came to shove claimed no interest in going into such mundane subjects in detail?
Too busy with drug infused pussy methinks.

It inspired me to write my own life experiences down....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Man, retards are entertaining.
As usual, the effect the retard wishes to have results in its opposite effect.
Shit-Stain is so clueless that he thought declaring an IQ of 160 and that he cavorted with philosophy professors would result in an outcome that proved to be the opposite of what did, in fact, happen: he exposed how stupid he truly is.
He exposed what a hypocrite and a desperate liar he truly is.
Not an IQ of 160 but now it is questionable if his IQ is above average.

In this last incident the genetic feces declaring shit-Stain the "most fascinating person there" on ILP that is, only accentuated how dull shit-Stain truly is.
It also exposed the genetic feces to the judgment that he is not all there.
His judgment is lacking, or is corrupted by ulterior motives, or is easily impressed - impressionable, infantile.
All it takes is a trip and the promise of pussy, it would seem.
This at 30+ years of age.
Who would care what such a mind says on any subject?
It's why he is so desperate to moralize judgment and to equate them all as equally inferior.

He runs and then shouts from behind the protective walls:

genetic feces wrote:

Yeah, that's true. But this thread confirms it beyond all doubt.

Admittedly, when you started it, I was a skeptic. But all these months later I have had to be brutally honest with myself: You are the man I want to be.


So, if you are reading this Satyr, "FUCK YOU!"

Yes, popularity is a good qualifier.
It erases all doubt.
An objective truth is found after all!!!

Majority wins.
Let's vote gravity out.
Lets hold a referendum on mortality.

Did you see the judgment on display?
I underlined it.
Here, based no what he judges my motives as being, he attempts to insult and hurt me.
Did you see?
It's fantastic!!!
Can't get enough of this shit.  

It's why I luv real life specimens.  

Why?
Because retards are clueless.  

I don't think it even occurred to him that I was just being ironic. On the other hand, as with most objectivists, irony is almost entirely absent from their frame of mind. But at least he has some semblance of a sense of humor

Unlike, say, you.

Of course, the Ayn Randroids had contempt for humor too:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]