Philosophy

As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and religion.

Quote :

The ancient Greeks also practiced philosophy by restricting access. Children and women were not invited to Symposiums, and in the Agora it was not all who participated in debates. They did not tolerate idiots, but only those that exhibited a particular level of acumen. They had no Abrahamic pseudo-values to contradict with their selective and emotionally biased elitism. Their discrimination, in the areas of philosophy, were founded on reasoning, and in the area of genetics, founded on race and education.

There were reasons other than the ones you write above for the exclusion of women in philosophy in Ancient Greece.

The most obvious reason for the exclusion of women in philosophy in that ancient period is that few women were educated in ways that enabled them to practice philosophy, consequently it was seen as a male dominated field but some men, like yourself, also went to great lengths to exclude women.  Nevertheless.....in every philosophical time there have been women associated with philosophy as practiced by men.   In those early times wealthy women were isolated in special quarters in their homes and poor women were heavily burdened by domestic drudgery and as most philosophical interaction occurred in public places, it was almost impossible for a woman to participate.  I can't imagine any of these women afforded the luxury of debate outside of their homes and overall most of us know that in those times women rarely had the rights accorded to men or a voice of their own.

If you care to research, despite the control asserted over women, there are names and philosophical work of a small number of women philosophers in antiquity that has survived, proving that reason does exist in some women's minds.

We'll have to wait for the woman who revolutionizes philosophy, art, or the sciences.
The women you alluded to were the exception to the rule that proves a rule.
At the same time none said anything of any great note.
We've had decades since the 'liberation of women' and still nothing to report.
Most gravitate to male thinkers who display power, or exude it.
They then act as imitators, adding to the art, philosophy, science, as the case may be, but never challenging it.

It is also common for female to be seduced by absolutist thinkers, or nihilistic dogma that promises certainty, as an expression of omniscience and omnipotence.
The hardest cock gets all the attention. They always need an authority, a master, to stand behind....as shield-maidens, offering themselves as means to his end.
I never doubted female contributions in this regard. Behind every great man there is, often but not always, a very formidable woman.

I've gone to no lengths to exclude anyone but idiots and those who come here in bad faith...of either sex.
We've had a few notable females on KT...one was particularly exceptional.

But, I'll give the benefit of doubt and await your contributions to prove otherwise.  

On a side-note...how do you square, in your mind, the symbolism of a pagan figure, the shield-maiden with your admitted Abrahamism?
Is your Protestantism evidence of a rebelliousness, and a free-spirit that wants personal access to the one and only man, with no inferior mediators?
Just curious.

I will never stop fighting for what I believe in, especially against all types of dictatorships and oppression. Your arguments are entirely predictable and follow a common pattern, with you enjoying the role of a public gadfly. Yes, you can be both insulting and witty but neither of those things count in a debate. We are all potential idolaters, (you included) and that idolatry comes in many different forms with the religious being the most recognizable and thus easiest to target.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I will never stop fighting for what I believe in, especially against all types of dictatorships and oppression.

You fight against dictatorship and oppression only to allow your own in a different and more subtle form. You truly have no ability to empathize why dictators dictate and why oppressors "oppress". All that matters is you, you are the heroine, and we are the villains, you win, we lose, the end.

Sounds like a nice story doesn't it?....but a defeat is not good enough for the likes of you, no... a simple death will not suffice, we must be forced to endure your new paradise and watch as we are stripped of everything we hold dear, sacrificed on the altar of equality, freedom, and the almighty, who will inseminate himself in our women and children to prevent any more Pagans from disturbing you.

I don't personally think that meaningful conversation about religion is threatening someone's own differing beliefs, instead it is a step toward creating some balance on this Forum.

I will admit we just can't know the answers to the big questions, at least intellectually.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I will never stop fighting for what I believe in, especially against all types of dictatorships and oppression.  Your arguments are entirely predictable and follow a common pattern, with you enjoying the role of a public gadfly.  Yes, you can be both insulting and witty but neither of those things count in a debate.   We are all potential idolaters, (you included) and that idolatry comes in many different forms with the religious being the most recognizable and thus easiest to target.

Sweetie, calling me 'predictable' when I've already told you order is just that, is a feeble attempt to display your superiority as 'unpredictable', when you are not.
I worship Apollo...
Debate is about reason, which is about order and predictability, or it is feminine, about making an impression, a social impact, which would attempt to charm, to seduce, to be witty with words, to 'surprise' the other, releasing his/her repressed passions, his accumulated stress, making him feel relieved, as if something useful and profound had been accomplished.
Your confusion with idolatry is evident. Spirituality is not the same as religion...religion is a kind of spirituality, that adopts absolutes....is nihilistic to its core, and seeks converts, proselytes, because it is meaningless without believers.
Spirituality, on the other hand, requires no conversions, no believers....it is a relationship of subject, individual, and object, world.
It has no central indubitable sacred texts, no mediating priesthood, no Church, no chosen people, no promise of an afterlife, a reward for belief, no invisible idols, no internal/external dissonance.....and on and on...

No 'shieldmaiden' are you....more a lady in waiting, a wannabe priestess, a Dionysian Maenad, serving the only deity a woman can.
Jesus is the Christian equivalent, an attempt to replace: passion of Christ, blood and wine...etc.  

As always instead of showing us this 'feminine genius' you prefer to discuss me - ad hom...then being amazed by how you could 'predict' that I would reciprocate.
Maybe to achieve a different result you must change your approach.
I never claimed to be 'superior' but only a nobody - Outis. I just happen to be dressed as a half-man/half-goat creature, for symbolic reasons and because it is the face I am most known as.
I am nobody's idea(l), nobody's overman, nobody's 'genius', leader, idol, mentor, teacher, or guru - nor do I want to be.
My issue is with idiocy, in all its forms...male, female, manimal, god. Idiocy is like dust on my furniture. I just cannot ignore it....I must wipe it away.
I have my OCD passions.

Anything else about me you want to get off your chest?

If they wouldn't have made up a story about something gay like dancing around a golden calf but instead something like a golden lion I'd have instinctively known from the start that those anti-idolators are just zombie zealots.

Some guy on ILP explained why women were kept out politics, perhaps similar reasons apply to philosophy.

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

Also I'd add that with regards to philosophy, it might be best not to teach it in academia at all beyond the basics about logic and argumentation/reasoning. Most philosophy that is taught now is at best useless trash, at worst lies harmful both to society and the individual. It's just another way for parasites to extract money, not productive at all. It should be something people pursue as a hobby in their free time.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Jesus is the Christian equivalent, an attempt to replace: passion of Christ, blood and wine...etc.

Still drinking blood with the Jesuit Michael Jones, I see.

AutSider wrote:

Quote :

Some guy on ILP explained why women were kept out politics, perhaps similar reasons apply to philosophy.

I agree with most of what he wrote.  By the way, he has a great sense of humour to boot.

Sam Hyde provides us with a detailed account of what occurs when most women are permitted into Philosophy or any Intellectual Circle...

Sam wrote:

She's...gonna carry on your dynasty.

Now thats funny.

Satyr wrote:

We'll have to wait for the woman who revolutionizes philosophy, art, or the sciences.
Just curious.

There is. Lauren Faust.

Quote :

On a side-note...how do you square, in your mind, the symbolism of a pagan figure, the shield-maiden with your admitted Abrahamism?

Well, in medieval times, Catholicism was a big thing.

OnWithTheirHead wrote:

Satyr wrote:

We'll have to wait for the woman who revolutionizes philosophy, art, or the sciences.
Just curious.

There is. Lauren Faust.

Looking forward to you expanding Lauren Faust's ground breaking philosophies.

On a side-note...how do you square, in your mind, the symbolism of a pagan figure, the shield-maiden with your admitted Abrahamism?

OnWithTheirHead wrote

Quote :

Well, in medieval times, Catholicism was a big thing.

There has been a few Heathen/Asatrù pages and forums that have been discussing Shield maidens and the roles of Women in the Viking age, and here us an excerpt from a well written piece on the subject, Women in Viking-age Scandinavia......

Shieldmaiden and Madonna - two contrasting ideals?
Whatever - reality and/or literary influences - lies behind the descriptions of the female warriors in old Norse literature, we will return to the wide-spread view that they express a pagan ideal of active and martial women, replaced by a Christian ideal of the passive and submissive 'madonna'. This view, which has greatly inluenced modern women studies, is, however, highly questionable since it lacks support in other sources. Furthermore, the very concepts 'shieldmaiden' and 'madonna' create problems since they are not univocal (entydiga?) but are used by different scholars to denote different things. Sometimes the word 'shieldmaiden' is used only about female warriors, sometimes in a figurative sense about all strong-willed and independent women. Further, the Church favoured not only one but two contrasting ideals, partly the Virgin, a Christian parallell to the strong, steadfast, and man-like woman ('virago'), partly the Wife/Mother, the submissive and self-effacing woman, who subordinated herself to her husband and devoted her life to her children and family. Of these two the Virgin ideal was most highly valued; in ecclesiastical literature it is the chaste woman - apart from the virgin, also the widow - who is honoured, but in profane literature the valuation is quite different.

We simply do not know what pre-Christian woman-ideal the Church replaced, but it is not very likely that the shieldmaiden was ever an ideal in pagan Scandinavia; drawing their strength from chastity these female warriors were independent of men and thus uncontrollable, thereby constituting a threat to social order.

reasonvemotion wrote:

We simply do not know what pre-Christian woman-ideal the Church replaced, but it is not very likely that the shieldmaiden was ever an ideal in pagan Scandinavia; drawing their strength from chastity these female warriors were independent of men and thus uncontrollable, thereby constituting a threat to social order.

Independent huh? Thats a funny way of saying, "hiding behind daddy and family".

Nobody takes abrasive hypermasculine women seriously, its all shallow posturing, revealing a decline in the genetic stock of a family line, and the fathers/families that capitulate and cater to these women have and will continue to suffer the consequences of doing so.

I don't think you are incapable of abstract thinking. Maybe you need a little bit more of motivation.

Anyway, good luck (I promise philosophy is not that bad).

Philosophy is about the truth and its approach.
If any other motive replaces the truth then it is no longer philosophy, but politics, marketing, hedonism, religion etc.
One can use any means in pursuit of pleasure, happiness, or power, because it often involves manipulating, exploiting, seducing others. To be 'liked', admired, desired, worshiped, respected means one has to impress and have an psychological effect on other conscious minds with their own weaknesses and needs and desires. You must feed into these desires and promise to satiate their needs.

Philosophy cannot lie because this contradicts its main intent, its main love of wisdom: to approach, as close as possible, to the divine, the 'truth', the real, and find there a means towards power, happiness and pleasure, without being assured of it.
This, often, involves displeasure and the risk of becoming unpleasing to others, because the 'truth' cares not for human ideals and motives and happiness.
Truth is a word referring to a perspective that is closest to the real....like a mental map that, most accurately, refers to the geography.
The absence of absolutes and the fluidity, including order and chaos, all using words properly defined, implies that no perfect mental map can ever be constructed, so when we speak of 'truth' we are not speaking of omnipotent, omniscience, immutable, indivisible, eternal whole, complete 'truth', imaginary nihilistic 'truth', but we are speaking about a higher, better, superior, more complete, perfect, more probable perspective...a map offering a more accurate approximation of geography, of the real.

The concept of ‘truth’ refers to a perspective that claims to be closest to the real. Nihilists must use it in their absolutist contexts as referring to an absolute, certain, perspective. They also confuse it with ‘facts’ that indicate relationships that are more and/or less accurate, based on precedent and potentials.
Language is art, so the words it uses can be applied like a painter applies colour on canvas – whimsically, to produce an effect, to create an optical illusion, to express personal reactions towards world, to confuse and seduce, to trick and lie, to sell, to be noticed and approved. It can be used to express personal convictions, certainty, exaggerated  to express how highly it is esteemed.
It is used in multiple ways, confusing the concept of truth by replacing other words with it.
like the word 'god', or 'mother' an be used artistically, to imply metaphorically a nuance about a difference concept, such as 'war'....'mother of all battles' for example.
The metaphorical, allegorical, use of language corresponds to the creative use of shade, shape, colour, form, in art, to either produce an effect that expresses one's personal reaction, relationship with the perceived, or to represent the perceived, as accurately as possible, using technique, for instance, to imitate fluidity, movement, in a static form, to transfer a phenomenon into another medium, such as transferring human flesh and blood, into stone or marble.
This confusion between realism and artistry, creative license, is about intent.
Who does the artist intend to promote, to expose, or what does he attempt to reveal?
Himself, or the world? This is a matter only psychology can explore.

Taking the word 'truth' on its own, it refers to a perspective, an intent that has to do with the real, independent from the mind's interests, desires, wants.
Only in this context does the lie reveal itself as a corruption of intent.
A shared world stands as the standard to evaluate intent and truth, because it is possible that the mind is convinced of what is not true, or that it lies to itself, but has intentionally forgotten to make the lie more effective.
We can judge the artist's intent, and his talent, his genius, through his art, by comparing it to the real. He faces the judgment derived from juxtaposing of his representation with the represented.

Philosophy is.......

Bullshit.  

Definition - Nonsense or a person who communicates nonsense on a given subject may be referred to as a "bullshit artist".

Is it fair to say then quite comfortably that philosophy is bullshit.

Hume has proven rationally and mathematically that most of the questions asked by philosophers from the very beginning cannot be answered.  For example, what is the meaning of life? or where did we come from, or what is reality. These questions simply cannot be answered satisfactorily, which leaves us to accept that we prove damn all from reason alone.

Answeres to these questions rely heavily not on self-evident truths, as they are fundamentally unprovable, but on personal opinion.

So I conclude that philosophy is mostly talking out of your ass/arse.

Amazing....

Philosophy deals with what we dont know and/or cant know, science deals with what we can know, measure, demonstrate objectively and is strictly objective and doesn't concern itself with the human within the picture and his place in the world(my understanding). I think obviously from the medival times toward the 21st century the science has taken over and dominated picture because of  the favourable circumstances for its development but the absence of philosophy is not due to its lack of utility within modern settings but rather the degradation of human being and human dignity in present times and if you recall prior to ww1 there was an explosion in philosophizing that soon died out(since nobody serious can take the post-modern. movement to be genuine philosophy AS A WHOLE).
~~~
edit: regarding hume...i dont know about hume much i only red Leibniz from that time period but i know that philosophy requires a strong constitution, humblness and maturity...as demonstrated by plenty of imbecyles floating around claiming to have discovered everything, to have measured and systemized everything...either young over-confident, sexually posturing men or old, burnt out farts looking for attention and appreciation from lost persons...you claim you have proven philosophy mathematically...when you cant even express this thought(since you dont see its absurdity)in english language properly...

reasonvemotion wrote:

Philosophy is.......

Bullshit.

I suspected that you have a weak mind, unfit for Philosophy and nobility.

Thank you for admitting it publicly.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Philosophy is.......

Bullshit.  

Definition - Nonsense or a person who communicates nonsense on a given subject may be referred to as a "bullshit artist".

Is it fair to say then quite comfortably that philosophy is bullshit.

Hume has proven rationally and mathematically that most of the questions asked by philosophers from the very beginning cannot be answered.  For example, what is the meaning of life? or where did we come from, or what is reality. These questions simply cannot be answered satisfactorily, which leaves us to accept that we prove damn all from reason alone.

Answeres to these questions rely heavily not on self-evident truths, as they are fundamentally unprovable, but on personal opinion.

So I conclude that philosophy is mostly talking out of your ass/arse.

Weak minds long for solutions, answers and ends. When they don't get them, they resort to defiant narrow-minded conclusions to avenge their inability to understand what they cannot understand.

An ugly boy gets rebuffed by pretty girls regularly, and after failed attempt after failed attempt to make himself more desirable to them, he concludes that females are collectively hateful towards him and that it is their fault.

Hence, it is the method of philosophy that is to blame, and not an irascible weak-minded naif lacking subtle cognitive abilities and mental dexterity, and hating herself for it.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Philosophy is.......

Bullshit.

And yet you remain, looking for fulfillment despite everything being "settled" for you.

Some of these questions can be answered, at least to some extent, such as "what is the meaning of life" and "where do we come from" - both at least partially answered by evolution theory.

People oftentimes reject real answers because it means they can't substitute them anymore with their preferred false answers.

And sometimes the answer is that there isn't (or can't be) an answer, which at least spares you from further wasting your time.

One of the dumbest "philosophical" questions I've come across is "how can you trust your senses?" or "how do we know other people possess a mind too", talk about hypocrisy, constantly using your senses to navigate the environment and relying on the other person to possess the mind and senses to receive and understand these very questions you're communicating to them. It assumes that there must be some absolute way of "trusting" or "knowing" something, when in the first case we trust our senses because we don't have an alternative and second, we may not know absolutely but we make judgments based on perceived patterns. Those who are stuck asking such basic questions for decades either have issues or dishonest motives.

I agree that a lot of what is called "philosophy" is nonsense, but that's a problem of retards, liars, shills, etc. calling the bullshit they write "philosophy", it's not a problem with philosophy itself other than that it can ruin its reputation through false association in the same way pseudo-scientists peddling all kinds of bullshit as science ruins the reputation of real science.

When a degenerate says "Philosophy is bullshit!" what they mean is their own philosophy is bullshit. They are a con-artist, a scammer, a liar, and cannot produce themselves. It's like a low intelligence giving-up on pursuing an intellectual field. The stupid person, eventually gives up on being smart. And so what does the stupid person do?

S/He claims that intelligence is not worth a damn to begin with. "Who wants to be a dorky nerd anyway?!"


For example, have any of you, anybody here, EVER ONCE read a post from reasonvemotion that was worthwhile? Semi-interesting? Semi-intelligent?

I can't remember a single god-damned thing. Maybe my memory is bad. Maybe somebody else here can help me, search through reasonvemotion's entire posting history, for her entire lifetime? Find JUST ONE fucking relevant or interesting idea?

One ounce of Philosophy, would do.


Why, the fuck, is she here???

If it is not to Produce (...obviously), then it must be to Consume. Philosophy is "Bullshit" to her, because she is incapable, and so she must latch onto another, to do her thinking and reasoning for her.

I'm certain that, on her inner-level, she must feel some sort of Shame and self-disgust for this.


I suppose there is some Consolation in knowing that Philosophy, and most other intellectual fields, require a lot of work and effort. The few that are, Philosophers, don't just "be a philosopher" over-night. But rather, over years of thought, reasoning, arguing, and many sacrifices.

How many people give up on their ideas and thoughts readily, and immediately "let others" do the thinking for them?

I've been humble. Never claiming to be her lover, but only a loyal friend to her; one among many.
I never claimed to walk ahead, nor did I ever fall too far behind; steady and consistent, I've remained.  
My relationship to her has been honest.
And though some have tried to sweep her off her feet, or to trip her up, when they failed, I've only walked along watching each friend contributing and taking what he may.
She built an entourage and, along the way, adorned herself with finery...but underneath it all she remained the same.
Only romantic lovers want to be her one and only true lover, the one she could never forget and the one nobody could ever replace in her eyes.
Jilter lovers wanted to kill her so that none could have her, if it was not them.
But I've seen it in her smile, and knowing gaze, that all begin where the one before left-off, adding his own jewel, or subtle stitching to her flowing dress.
She laughs and swings he hips, dancing when the mood strikes her, then settling down to a slow funeral march when the road grows hard.
Many are left behind....but I've carried on, 'till now.

I've diligently followed behind, not wanting to get in her way, an unnamed trusted friend; one among many.
And I would have it no other way, my dearest Sophia.

A slow ascent, it's been.
Every thinker contributing his small part; inspired by ones preceding them, and inspiring the ones the will come.
Uniqueness is a myth desperate degenerates like to believe about themselves. Living in absolutes gives them that grandeur of insanity.

But nobody has ever invented anything from nothing. Each contribution has been an addition to something else.
Even the modern icon Nietzsche really offered nothing new epistemologically, or ontologically.
Like all great thinkers he was a product of his time, and his contributions were of his time: a diagnosis in a post Abrahamic era.
Psychological insights delivered in beautiful prose, to impress the emasculated man-child throughout the ages, making its feminine spirit flutter with delight, beneath all the hyper-masculine bravado.
Little delights, borrowed from before Socrates, and from the east - testing the resolve of minds, that were waking-up to a feverish sickness.

Each thinker adds his own piece, or polishes the ones already there.
Each thinker contributed from his time and place, adapting what has been said to his own age, and passing it on for another to add his own.

Like having children.
Each child is a copy of its parents, but not an exact clone.
Each one is slightly different, mutated by the environment of the particular time and place it was born in.
Like the parents but a bit more, or a bit less.
Nietzsche adapted his brain-child to his age - he took the pre-Socratics, and the Hindus, and he updated them, contributing his psychoanalysis of the Christian....just as others will psychoanalyse the post-modern, or the psychotics of the coming age.

Bottom<>Up reasoning begins with the aesthetic, with the empirical - the earth, the real, the tangible, is its grounding.
An non-arbitrary grounding that precedes the emergence of life and of man.

From this point of ignorance, it builds upwards, towards absolute gnosis, aware that it will never attain omniscience.
In the process of ascending it accumulates knowledge, and understanding of this knowledge (data), gradually building-up precedent - past.
In the present past is determined,

Precedent is what increases certainty - reducing possibilities by the uncovering of probabilities in the possibilities. and determined by it.
Accumulating precedent establishes what is more probable, distinguishing it from what is least probable.
A hierarchy built on knowledge - second-hand data - and experiences - first-hand data, and their constant affirmation (validation) through the process of application and the appreciation of cost/benefit in relation to intent.
No absolute is ever accepted as a presumption, but recognized as a mental construct - an abstraction fabricated by the mind through a process of simplification/generalization - entailing a noetic 'cutting-away' of spatial-dimensions (possibilities that cannot be integrated into mental models).


The present is never discarded on the false premise that future data will contradict it - this is already a projection attempting to nullify the observable; nor is the idea pre-emtively projected as a 'given', when and if it has no aesthetic, empirical grounding.
The projected idea(l) must be grounded in the earthly, the real, the experienced; in what has been applied, adjusted, and affirmed through multiple applications, and that refers to a shared world.

One/Nil are noetic construct with no aesthetic validation.
abstractions that refer to everything, anything, and nothing in particular: abstractions that only exist ni the brain, as simplifications/generalizations.
Useful tools of approximation, but not to be believe in literally.

Man has managed to use his binary codes to reach approximations so precise as to fall within millimetre spatial distances.
He does this by refining his absolutist binary code, using fractions; representing fluctuating reality (fluidity, Flux) as fragmentation, and infinite regress.