/philosophy/ - Philosophy

The Scientific Revolution was made possible by the preservation of Aristotelian thought throughout the works of the Medieval Scholastics.

Key figures of the Scientific Revolution were Renee Descartes and Francis Bacon, who made their impacts at a time when the Renaissance polymath was still a widely occurring figure and thus their philosophy and their science informed each other.

Enlightenment rationalism was basically people marveling at the accomplishments of the Scientific Revolution to a magnitude at which they injected science into all thought. This was assisted by the development of the Enlightenment religion of deism, stipulating that science was basically the only way to know a supreme being that did not reveal itself to people. So science in fact had to deify itself in a way to continue its conquest of the West.

However, when science began to discredit and provide an alternative to transcendental beings/forces, it curiously did not rip asunder many of the ethical, epistemological and aesthetic doctrines it had spun while serving as deist worship. In fact, science enthusiasts continue to peddle rationalism (the extension of reason beyond the study of the natural sciences). Certainly beginning with Nietzsche, continental philosophy has served to counter science's invasions, demarcate its appropriate borders and even point out the mental assumptions made that make scientific thought possible.

It's quite obvious that op doesn't understand philosophy. Philosophy may not have any effect on the world's happiness, or on any *global* scale, however it may help induviduals, like me.

I'd gone through some dark times and philosophy actually helped me out.

However, philosophy has different purposes for each person.

>>749

> 'its obvious that.. '
> saying something at all about what's obvious

philosophy isn't to your advantage if it keeps you in lighter times

>people make well-thought-out arguments against OP's ignorant anti-philosophy butthurt Philistinian rage
>OP obviously has no idea what philosophy actually is
>OP responds to each post with ebin maymays and makes no argument whatsoever

If nothing else, philosophy gives you the tools to recognize when other people are being fucking retarded dogmatic faggots - like OP.

OP's view is the result of a prevailing pop-scientism in the West that needlessly is trying to push out philosophy, the arts, and the humanities. His view carries the assumption that science is right in all cases and has no issues of its own, because his view does not understand what science actually is.

OP, essentially, is uninformed on all fronts. Saged and contemptuously dismissed.

>>753
I don't see the responses left by the OP, so I'm not sure about their position beyond the OP itself. And I don't see any mention of the arts or the humanities being in conflict with ("western") science, but only philosophy. And that seems to me a somewhat valid stance to take, despite the inflammatory image used.

When approaching the question of knowledge, it is not unreasonable to set a standard for truth. Empiricists and naturalists set that standard on empirical evidence, factual reality. That in itself isn't particularly unreasonable either, since there is no true and false for this idea of reality, because "false" is only manifest in that which does't exist, and as such is not part of the reality examined in the first place. This is of course making the generous assumption that there is an objective reality and that we can dismiss or uncover deception (or at least are all in the wrong in the same way).

There is no real reason, aside from interest, to ask these further questions and thus deviate from the standard set for truthfulness. Even if reality conflates with theories (an interesting phenomenon in its own right) the theories aren't necessarily abandoned but adapted, and even if all of natural science proves "wrong" (whatever that may mean) it still succeeded in creating a frame for coherent understanding of what is taken to be truth.

By contrast, philosophy does not have that fundament or framework, because it has a multitude of them that all, by their very nature, surpass each other only if differently sound in structure. If they are both valid, philosophy can result in multiple but equally correct "theories" or arguments, but lacks a "key" that can finally, if only theoretically, determine the veracity of one over the other. Empirical science promises this.

At least I take that to be the position of those who tend to have an unflattering view on philosophy but a rather glorified one on science.

Sage goes in all fields.

Science and philosophy inform one another. They're meant to go hand in hand.

Philosophy has immense value for myself.
My self goes on to affect the world in various ways.
We all are 'happening' in this world.

Of all the things we can change in this world, our own mind (as may be accomplished with philosophy) I think is one of the most fruitful. I could try and change someone elses mind, but why not start with my own, to whom I am a deeply caring, life-long confidant? If I can convince myself of some change, then perhaps I can convince someone else too.

>>713
This, I guess.

>>713

Not only did Aristotle formalize logic, and not only did many great scientists also do philosophy, but philosophy has no real qualms with science, other than it knowing it's place.

Science is like the son of philosophy, who has grown up and thinks that now he owns the world. He forgets not only his upbringing, but the true king that sits on the throne. In a way, this is the fault of philosophy and those who practice it, much like it is the fault of the parent for their unruly child.

I always look to Camus for the insights into the limits on science. How observable are electrons? We cannot see them with the naked eye. Instead of the reality that scientists would like to believe, there is not the same grounding now, compared to what science once had.

Mathematics is complicated and abstract, rivaling philosophy in abstraction. Mathematics and philosophy beget science, but mathematics and philosophy do not answer to science.

To put it easier, can you conduct an experiment to falsify the conclusion that the scientific method is the best way to gain truth? If not, then truth is not scientific. If yes, then what is the experiment? If the question is unanswerable/other, then truth is also not science.

As long as science stays away from the big boy topics, then no one has any issues.

>>951
you got all that shit backwards but whatever. Avoid b8 m8.

>>1002

so I should avoid you?

>>951
Bit of a biased perspective I'd say, but that may just be the wording you went with.

>He forgets not only his upbringing, but the true king that sits on the throne.
You realise that this, especially relating to the comparison to parents and children, is quite problematic. You cannot deduce a hierarchical relation from a chronological one.

>the big boy topics
What does that even mean? Most scientists are perfectly content in accepting their limits, and knowingly operate within a construed system. They don't find this potential "untruthfulness" problematic, because they either reject any other notion of truth, or because they pragmatically rely on the predictive nature science has demonstrated to have - despite being falsifiable as well.

In contrast, philosophy is the exploration of anything on a much less concrete basis. This makes it superior to science in some ways, but it also makes it inferior to it in others. I fail to see which of the two tackles the "big boy" topics.

>>1002
Philosophy is the offspring of science? If you think that, I'd be highly interested in your definition of philosophy.

>>1061

Why can't you deduce a hierarchical relationship from a chronological one? If one created the other, is not the creator given natural status above the created? Whether this is inherently true or not is of little importance, because it exists in some capacity regardless.

Father to king as son is to prince. It is not that hard to deduce.

It is not the scientists that stay within science that irks me and others, they are actually on our side. It is the ones who devalue philosophy while uplifting science that are the burden. The ones who say that science is truth, that philosophy is just bickering and valueless. It is in the ones who "reject any other notion of truth" face I spit, not the pragmatic lovers of knowledge. Reject it why? Based on morality? It is their inherent hypocrisy that annoys me to no end.

Last, by big boy topics, that was a call back to the father/son relationship. It should have to go without argumentation that philosophy handles the "big boy topics". To explain it is redundant but here we go.

Philosophy handles problems of metaphysics(God, Free Will, Universals, Time, Existence), problems of meaning(Existentialism), and problems of morals, along with many other topics. Science takes definitions as fact and goes from there. Science pretends to give definite answers to practical phenomena while philosophy pretends to give answers to questions that might not have answers. To not see the difference is blind.

Two more things. I'm glad you actually responded instead of a one liner like >>1002. And second, don't ever use the word problematic unironically.

>>1078
>Why can't you deduce a hierarchical relationship from a chronological one?
Because they are different kinds of relation. The first is one of superiority (with whatever justification) and the second is one of causality (not necessarily direct, though). There can be overlap, like when parents 'guide' their children by effectively controlling them, but that does not mean that the two forms of relation are inherently linked. The old generation holds no sway over the young generation JUST because they came first.

>Whether this is inherently true or not is of little importance, because it exists in some capacity regardless.
So you are saying that because the relation exists, it doesn't matter if it inherently follows or not? I don't quite understand.

>It is not that hard to deduce.
It's not hard to create a parallel. But it is a lot harder to infer a similarity of the relation, not so much between father-son and king-prince (because it's basically the same one) but between father-son and ruler-subject.

>It is in the ones who "reject any other notion of truth" face I spit, not the pragmatic lovers of knowledge
Ah, I get you. Yeah, I find that attitude rather dismissive also, but at the same time it isn't exactly easy to counter the system of truthfulness science created for itself with one based in philosophy, precicely because philosophy is a lot less pragmatic and a lot less uniform. So while I find scientists of that description to be unreasonably dismissive, I can very well understand where they are coming from - after all, what notion of 'truth' if not a metaphysical one can philosophy offer them? (Speaking from their viewpoint and not mine, btw.)

Thanks for humouring my qustion pertaining the big boy topics, I was being quite serious and though you seem to think the question itself is redundant I'm glad you didn't just wave it off.
>Science pretends to give definite answers to practical phenomena while philosophy pretends to give answers to questions that might not have answers.
Sure there's this difference, and indeed I can see it. But which of these two are the 'big boy topics'? Being able to construct a coherent system in order to explicate the world we experience is a pretty remarkable achievement (ignoring the notion of truthfulness and only going by functionality), while pretending to have answered a unanswerable question could easily be taken as the less 'mature' side. Ascribing more value to philosophy due to its broader spectrum and heavier questions is what I was referring to when stating that your perspective was a bit biased.
I do get what you're saying though, and probably jumped the gun a bit. You said that science should not dabble in the questions that philosophy dabbles in, or at least not pretend to have any insight on the matter. This I largely agree with. I just don't think a superiority of philosophy over science can be infered from this.

I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not even a positivist or particularly prone to science, but it strikes me as all too easy to behave as dismissively towards science as some of them behave towards philosophy. And it's no better if we do it just because we came 'first'.

>don't ever use the word problematic unironically
I do not live in a country that speaks English (which may be obvious from the way I write), so I'm sorry if the word 'problematic' raises more connotations that I meant it to have. I find it a useful term because it's not outright dismissive, and I don't like using terms that imply absolutes. Maybe it has been overused in this regard and means nothing anymore?

>>1078
>>1088
Why the fuck are you bothering to contest the content of a relationship between two systems of knowledge whose entire premise for validity relies on the strength of the metaphor you compare them by? You can denounce your strawman absolute relativists and imply the existence of your clay model 'scientists' all day long, but at least recognize that these fictions you are creating in no way resemble the truth, and by attempting to pertain to some position of neutrality by virtue of observation you're AS dogmatic and two-dimensional in whatever commentary you make as the shadows within your cave.

Why is someone blind because they can differentiate in the falsities you've conjured from those shadowy nether realms of darkness called your bedrooms. Why the fuck are you supposing 'pretensions' to the innate purpose of a body of knowledge while ignoring its role as an executive function?

>don't ever use the word problematic unironically
Heaven forbid. Then someone might see through your wafer arguments.

>>1113
>these fictions you are creating in no way resemble the truth
What is the truth then? I thought it was fairly accurate to state that scientists endeavour to create a system of explication based on methods of obvervation, while philosophers essentially trying to tackle and solve questions that awaken the impression to be unsolvable (at least not exclusively though one approach).

>>1113
>attempting to pertain to some position of neutrality by virtue of observation you're AS dogmatic and two-dimensional
Observation is dogmatic? What else would you suggest then?

>>1113
>Why is someone blind because they can differentiate in the falsities you've conjured from those shadowy nether realms of darkness called your bedrooms.
Who accused whom of blindness? I mentioned only dismissiveness and pragmatism. In this sense I also did not ignore the "executive function".

Your post is a bit confusing, so please humour me.

>>1114
Accurate in what sense? Accurate in the sense that your understanding of a role labelled 'scientist' and 'philosopher' conforms to a personal expectation, reasoned from the cardboard existential scenery of your own life? By asserting the content of that role which the scientist performs, you're explaining literally nothing about what the role is; if you believe there's a logic to the accuracy of your comment it is one of tautology.

"Observation". As though observation were an unprejudiced act of the god's eye conception removed from the reality of one's relationship to knowledge. The premise of the initial critique in this post is marked by this point: lambasting you for generic constructs that reflect little of experience are caught up in some speculative 'philosophy' you are using that enables you to imply a definitive and yet indeterminate distance between the terms used and the speaker who uses them. The idea that 'observation' as a term is inherently fruitful regardless of its being a sour fruit, and as a concept the only alternative available - along with its semantic baggage - is absolutely absurd.

If you're no more ignorant to the 'executive function' then please feel free to chat away.

>>1113
>>1115

The postmodernist has shown up.

I'll deal with >>1113 first.

Is the metaphor comparing the systems of knowledge that obscure? Do they bring about no judgement in the observer, the reader, the average man? You betray yourself by devaluing "falsities conjured in bedrooms". Are not falsities of one kind equal to another?

Do you have a body of knowledge that doesn't consist of falsities? You love to deconstruct but lack the constitution to build houses. Let us critique your foundations. The postmodernist has none, so I will not hold my breath.

>>1115

Tautoglogy really? That is the term that you go with? The one with immediate connotations of Kant, of worthlessness, and of truth without substance?

That is why it is funny to read the "semantic baggage" comment and only smile. What would your definition of "sour fruit" be? What makes a fruit more or less "sour"? Do you have a certain preference of fruit?

Your double speak and overabundance of jargon leads to confusion and honestly, derision. Both of us here talking could reply to yours, that is the intent of the postmodern, only to confuse and trick into betraying one's own hand. If we are all honest, what is your hand?

Last, do you consider philosophy a system of knowledge? I would laugh at you if you said yes. Just knowledge? Nothing else?

What are you even doing? That is the only question to ask any postmodernist. Are you doing philosophy? I think not.

>>1144
>Tautoglogy really? That is the term that you go with? The one with immediate connotations of Kant, of worthlessness, and of truth without substance?
"Look everybody, I'm going to reread this in a non-contextually appropriate manner to show you I've read a big difficult book!"

>That is why it is funny to read the "semantic baggage" comment and only smile. What would your definition of "sour fruit" be? What makes a fruit more or less "sour"? Do you have a certain preference of fruit?
What wit! You sure have read your Greek Rhetoric.

>Your double speak and overabundance of jargon leads to confusion and honestly, derision. Both of us here talking could reply to yours, that is the intent of the postmodern, only to confuse and trick into betraying one's own hand. If we are all honest, what is your hand?

This complaint isn't even applicable; replacing instead the phrase "I don't understand what you've written" with a critique that the fault is with what is in front of you.

"The post-modernist has turned up" as though the argument put forth were a dress sense easily discarded - who the fuck are you talking to? Who the fuck are you writing for - do you think there's a circle of your fellow anonymously learned comrades bantering. That you're then thick enough to talk about derision having used conversation markers - again, towards absolutely no one but yourself - that imply exclusion is an irony not lost.

>Is the metaphor comparing the systems of knowledge that obscure?
For you, any critique of its validity is; you're not a 'postmodernist' because you can attack the miserable parallel it erects in the speaker's own idea. That you can't communicate sufficiently between two modes of reason and imply the fault to be on the end not your own really is the underscoring feature of all of this.

The logic of your post doesn't need to be dismantled; you've done it yourself.
"You betray yourself". You are not living in a Shakespearean tragedy.

"Are not falsities of one kind equal to another": 'be your sight blinded by white rage that doth char all vision of the mind'? as you might say. You've lost track of what you're arguing by this point, and, for the better of it all, this is the only actual rebuttal you make, and yet it's obvious you've understood nothing said against your argument. The complaint about the validity of the form of the metaphor made with regards to your parallel between two modes of knowledge does not warrant an investigation into the reality of truthoods, as though they propped up the comment - the critique of the validity is sustained by the supposition that the metaphor reflects absolutely nothing but what insofar the author of the metaphor decides to read into it. This isn't a 'deconstruction' of what you've written, this is a plain explanation by scientific method of the fact that someone's seen through your magic trick of: "Aha, but all along, the form RESTED on a system of truths, so you see - the content was the form all along!" which is insane and needs no comment.

Ironically, my original comment was not actually about truthoods per se - it merely challenged the premise you made from the position of the neuter.

"Do you have a body of knowledge that doesn't consist of falsities". So, rereading this with the above statement will make more sense.

>You love to deconstruct but lack the constitution to build houses. Let us critique your foundations. The postmodernist has none, so I will not hold my breath.
CRINGE FACTOR 50
>Last, do you consider philosophy a system of knowledge? I would laugh at you if you said yes. Just knowledge? Nothing else?
OH FORTUNA! THY CRUEL MISTRESS OF MY OWN; FORSAKEN BE MY FATE?

>>1144
>Let us critique your foundations
Who the fuck is 'us'? Holy shit the third person is antiquated in rhetoric, and to think that you're using it in a multi-modal language form. If you're using rhetoric in the 21st century it's either the fourth person - "One might be so bold" - or to abstain by using the passive.

Even then, it won't hide your delusions of believing you're addressing some Hellenic academy. Have you actually spoken to anyone in this century? Perhaps the last?

"Let us" - this is such a ridiculous cliche. Read it out loud; listen to it from your voice. Anachronistic to the extent that it causes not only embarrassment to the mild tempered socially aware, but evokes pangs of regret and sympathy for having been written.

Just stop.

>>1144
Do you talk to people in 'real life' like this?
How do you actually type when not inventing your own paradigm of the dialectic and exorcising the earthly vestibules of paradise from those darn-tootin' postmodernists?

>>1115
Accurate in the sense that my understanding reflects the understanding of others. If that is not the case, then I expect to be corrected or informed about another understanding, hopefully one that has merit I can recognise (this is what discussion is partly for). It does not help in the slightest that you postulate that any term I use is meaningful only to myself. I explained what I understood the function to be, and you can react to that. Unless you want to go the radical pragmatist way and stop using language the moment a hint of generalisation or abstraction enters the scene.

>As though observation were an unprejudiced act of the god's eye conception removed from the reality of one's relationship to knowledge
I never claimed this. I do think that human beings can abstract form their perspectivity and subjctivity to some extent though - and this is the platform I had thought we are moving on at present.

>that reflect little of experience
So experience is of higher importance to you than obervation? Where exactly is the difference? I'm sure there is one, but I fail to imagine it being significant enough so that one can be scolded and the other valued.

>The idea that 'observation' as a term is inherently fruitful
I'm not talking about the fruitfulness of the term, but the relevance of the thing it describes. But even so, what kind of terms would you ascribe fruitfulness to? Most of them have semantic baggage after all.

>If you're no more ignorant to the 'executive function' then please feel free to chat away.
I stated that I was aware of what I take to be the 'executive function' before you came along, so if you are going to postulate that I am now "no more ignorant" then I'd appreciate if you could quote me explicitly ignoring the pragmatic notion before. A definition of what you mean by 'executive function' might help too, since perhaps we associate more or less with it.

>>1147
By the way, I would respond to this, but I have no idea if you include me in that. I do not think what I've said in this thread merits what you state here so I don't feel addressed by it, but at the same time I'm not entirely convinced you realise you are talking to and initially quoted two different people. Thanks to the IDs being active, I would hope that confusion would be somewhat negated, but I'm not entirely sure in this case.

>>1148
>>1150
Both of these posts are highly irrelevant. You should've included those comments in your initial one at least, but if you thought of more derogative remarks that do nothing to further the discussion (which I understand you see little value in, so I guess there's that) then I doubt they warranted a special mention.

>>1157
>>1158
Ah, and I just noticed that because I'm writing from a different place my ID is different. I'm 6816ce.

>>1157
>Accurate in the sense that my understanding reflects the understanding of others. If that is not the case, then I expect to be corrected or informed about another understanding, hopefully one that has merit I can recognise (this is what discussion is partly for). It does not help in the slightest that you postulate that any term I use is meaningful only to myself. I explained what I understood the function to be, and you can react to that. Unless you want to go the radical pragmatist way and stop using language the moment a hint of generalization or abstraction enters the scene.

All of this is waffle, and a rebuttal made when you haven't actually challenged the premise of what you've said; you've reflected on the content of the argument you believe to be there. "Accurate in the sense that my understanding reflects the understanding of others" - how, how, how. What transcendental method of comparison have you, O learned scholar, attained? The very first point against this - that you're using an understanding of your own to substantiate the belief of others - leaves you utterly ignorant to what it is you want to do; [you need to be 'corrected'? Are you actually fucking joking? This paraphrase reflects the attitude by idiots such as yourself whom believe they're entering into a) an archaic Socratic dialogue (with themselves, in your case) or b) are the bastion of knowledge and yet incapable of correcting themselves! WHICH ART THOU, KNAVE; THOU NAUGHTY KNAVE?] this entire idea is being besieged at its foundation because of an elementary criticism:

That the metaphor used is invalid; not only in terms of its relevance, but its actual applicability. You have structured a comparison on a fictional mode of conjugating two ideals into one, and in doing so have robbed the ideals themselves of substance. The form of your yard stick is entirely derisive to anyone capable of critical thought on how you've constituted - poorly - two 'systems of knowledge'.

That you actually regard the Earth to be populated by 'philosophers' and 'scientists', that you believe there to be a category of existence and mode of being entirely dependent on the fictions you construct (and will most likely say "actually exist" - assuming titular role of the universal to actually stand above the particular) just makes this all the worse.

>I never claimed this.
Openly; the entire discourse you are using relies on the premise of some fantasy in-between land.
>So experience is of higher importance to you than obervation?
Neither - stop implying that I myself am privileging either. My use has been to highlight your own inconsistencies that occur within the terms themselves ("BUT I FAIL TO IMAGINE" - what a poor imagination you have; don't worry, there's still philosophy!) so when, quoth I, thou righteous rage dost marshal sinews 'gainst argument made, it be THYSELF pained!

>Both of these posts are highly irrelevant. You should've included those comments in your initial one at least, but if you thought of more derogative remarks that do nothing to further the discussion (which I understand you see little value in, so I guess there's that) then I doubt they warranted a special mention.

No, they are not, and we know well why. They're meant to be derivative for that entire purpose; you are living in the twenty first century and are, privately, socialized into your own linguistic currents. There is absolutely no point in adopting a syntactical style so dated it restraints both the quality and quantity of the content. It's not fucking surprising that you're struggling to grasp a hold on the critique against you when you're attempting to actually interject the sentence form into your thought and produce responses that amount to a reflection of this entire misapprehension.

>>1157
>I stated that I was aware of what I take to be the 'executive function' before you came along, so if you are going to postulate that I am now "no more ignorant" then I'd appreciate if you could quote me explicitly ignoring the pragmatic notion before. A definition of what you mean by 'executive function' might help too, since perhaps we associate more or less with it.

http://bit.ly/1F9fKof
http://bit.ly/1F9fPZ5

All of the above qualms descend like the terrors of night onto this final quote of yours; there can be no possibility of a discussion to any extent informed, when the basis for that discussion is in itself flawed: that the boundaries for 'knowledge' or information relevant to inclusion are so broad that less-than-nothing is stated. Unpacking this issue means emphasizing this fact and showing you why your own method of discussion - those detracted impersonal pronouns - lead more to an obfuscation of whatever it is you want to achieve. Because you're using such a style you have no choice in the awareness of the fact that you deride any attempt to ascertain any validity of the discussions 'truth' by the use of such rhetoric - irrespective of its naturalization into your style. Even if you've escaped the peculiarities of "let us" and other textual-positioning nonsense, it's grown roots into the very manner of your practice and makes any discussion ridiculous.

I imagine any referencing or citations in such a form would be made impossible by the generalities used; something this board desperately needs.

>>1163
You can't be serious. Check the damn IPs. I'm not the one who initially came up with the metaphor, I'm not the one you aimed to insult with your two addendums (though I am the one who called them irrelevant), and it's not the "critique against me" I don't grasp, it's the critique against someone else that I called irrelevant. Whether or not I grasp it is but a further unrelated matter.

>you haven't actually challenged the premise of what you've said
Why should I challenge my premise? What even IS my premise? Have I stated it? All I was doing was enganging in a discourse about two distinct ways to approach the notion of 'truth'. You can claim all you want that those notions are simplified or generalised, but do not assume that I have actually posited anything more than that.

>you've reflected on the content of the argument you believe to be there
What argument? I was expressing an understanding of two different approaches. There's no 'argument' there, we haven't passed that point yet. Perhaps this is your problem?

>you're using an understanding of your own to substantiate the belief of others
That is not what I said. Communication is in large parts reliant on consensus, and the easiest way to attain that is through clarification of ones terms. Accurate then means being as much in agreement on a understanding as possible and then moving on. Nothing transcendental here.

>an archaic Socratic dialogue (with themselves, in your case)
Why with myself? You seem to miss the point that a dialogue needs another person in order to be a dialogue. And indeed I am (and was) conversing with someone else. They could 'correct' me if I misrepresent their understanding or have one they do not wish to follow. I'd expect substantiation, naturally, but that's how it works.

>are the bastion of knowledge and yet incapable of correcting themselves
What ARE you reading into what I say? I never claimed knowledge of any kind, which is why I'm being as precice as I can to explicate what I mean. This is to serve communication as well as understanding, since it allows others to agree or disagree with any aspect of the notion I described. I am also flexible, since I make no claim to knowledge. If I were, I would have presented actual arguments that convince.

>conjugating two ideals into one
How did I imply two ideals are one? Again, be sure to check the IPs and focus on what I actually said, not what someone else may have alluded to.

>That you actually regard the Earth to be populated by 'philosophers' and 'scientists'
Did I say this? Did I state, anywhere, that the abstracted notions of two attempts at 'truthfulness' (the scientific one and the philosophic one) conveniently personified into the role of scientist and philsopher (which I'm sorry you feel the need to take literally) exist the exact way I simplify them?

>a category of existence and mode of being entirely dependent on the fictions you construct
The 'fictions' are generalisations of things that do exist. They don't come from nothing. I don't postulate something born entirely of myself and then expect it to reflect actuality. How high up your horse do you have to be to muddle up my words in this way, and be ABSOLUTEY CONVINCED that you have understood what I meant?

>relies on the premise of some fantasy in-between land
What land is this? You and I clearly have some differences in what we consider to be knowledge (though I haven't actually said anything about my position on this matter at all - this discussion was about ways to attain knowledge ot 'truth' that appear to be prominent in the world), but I never once stated that truth is "an unprejudiced act of the god's eye conception" as you claim I do, and openly too. Point me to it, then. I can assure you that you misunderstood and might have asked before assuming.

>stop implying that I myself am privileging either.
The gall. You yourself are doing little more than implying. You have confused the positions and arguments of two different people, if I take you by your words, and you posture yourself as having supreme insight in the position those hold who you converse with, even putting words into my mouth because you're oh so sure of yourself.
I don't even know what you mean by 'privileging'. We were talking about the utility of 'observation' as a term. You don't think it allows for pure objectivity, that much seems clear to me, but I never said that I thought it did. As a matter of fact, I don't. It's still used as a method to create a system of truthfulness, though. Call it a fantasy all you want, but that wasn't actually the centerpoint of this discussion, at least not to me.

>>1163
>and we know well why
No, 'we' don't. I would not have called them irrelevant had I known why they weren't. Unless your 'we' is supposed to be poetic. Since you don't distinguish between posts, I remind you that I'm not a native English speaker and that any subtleties of implications you may be trying to evoke are destined to fall flat.

>>1164
>when the basis for that discussion is in itself flawed
Now we seem to be getting somewehere. You could've started your involvement in this thread with this, it would've been much easier.

>you deride any attempt to ascertain any validity of the discussions 'truth'
Truth is not at all what I'm hoping to achieve. The discussion ends with agreement or disagreement, and I can be persuaded by arguments or persuade another. That does not make either position more truthful than the other, unless you want to consider truthfulness attainable through argumentation. I never said I thought this. You might want to dismiss the discussion as even more fruitless then, but I do not consider it so, since I am more interested in the structure of an argument than the conclusion that follows therefrom.

>makes any discussion ridiculous
Ignoring the fact that I'm not the one who used the "let us" phrase you hamper on about, if you consider any discussion ridiculous and thus don't properly engage in it, what is it you are trying to do?

>something this board desperately needs
What does it need? Generalities? Is this sarcasm or are you serious? I can't tell.

As for your very witty links, I obviously meant how you mean it in relation to what you accuse me for failing to consider. That is why I asked for a definition of "what you mean", not for a definition itself. Nice to know you think definitions are useful without explication, though.

>>1172
>Now we seem to be getting somewehere.
"We".

What the fuck is this; 'getting somewhere' - as though there's a vague direction of truth to which you are the fucking helmsman. 'Getting somewhere' - as though alone with another you possessed the final end point of conversation. Talk to a mirror if you're that desperate for a conversation that isn't deprived of 'direction'. I'm sure, readily, you have a trajectory of your response from this - which will sideline the entire distinction in favor of misreading such a 'trivial' critique as yet more 'worthless' mouth-breathing.

Don't mistake an implicit agreement towards a particular goal as the explicit value by which one reconciles the weight of what they have said - please, lecture on the merits of a 'civil attitude' as the ideal to which you might discredit this, or some other paraphernalia you've unearthed in your archeology of Greek prose.

It's a fucking tragedy that I can link this with an entire paragraph of absolute nonsense you've written thereafter:

Truth is not at all what I'm hoping to achieve. The discussion ends with agreement or disagreement, and I can be persuaded by arguments or persuade another. That does not make either position more truthful than the other, unless you want to consider truthfulness attainable through argumentation. I never said I thought this. You might want to dismiss the discussion as even more fruitless then, but I do not consider it so, since I am more interested in the structure of an argument than the conclusion that follows therefrom.

As though emphasizing your role as the general condition for the determination for the end point of the conversation WERE the goal! At least you've started using the first-person: congratulations, we're making 'progress'.

>Ignoring the fact that I'm not the one who used the "let us" phrase you hamper on about, if you consider any discussion ridiculous and thus don't properly engage in it, what is it you are trying to do?

You're complaining about hampering the discussion, and yet you not earlier complained about 'excessive verbiage'! Which is it friend! As though it were my choice to hamper the discussion - that was merely a side comment! You blame me for the action you 'commit' (for you betray yourself no doubt - but come, let us construct foundations of reason and build with it a mansion to your envy). "What is it you're trying to do" - show you the absurdity of your own style and allow you to make your passage back to the contemporary century.

You can't even pick out the details of a basic clause! That it needs a referencing system - clearly detailed as the object of that clause.

That you've asked for definitions, ask no more, suppose you have asked more, and use this as some petty ego bashing is fucking pathetic.

Overall, the joke of the matter is that you have every option to ignore the content you disagree with - and can choose to tackle the actual rebuttal; none of which you've done so, and the reason for which you'll blame on me assailing your own retardation. Stop talking shit, cunt.

>>1171
Can you please stop being a fucking twat and actually read between the lines of your own text. That you're confused at someone writing about what you're saying on the underlying premises behind whatever posts you make (not 'arguments': the contextual generality of that terms use confuses you, for which I humbly apologize) and then you say to them: "But I never wrote that" is a bit like painting writing the word green in blue ink and asking someone what colour it is.

"What are you reading into what I say" - the general structure of whatever content that seems to be coming from your posts. Or did you not know such things existed?

>Did I say this? Did I state, anywhere, that the abstracted notions of two attempts at 'truthfulness' (the scientific one and the philosophic one) conveniently personified into the role of scientist and philsopher (which I'm sorry you feel the need to take literally) exist the exact way I simplify them?

Your use of the terms implies that position - and advances it inherently. That you then claim to be 'making discussion' (perhaps in private would be best) without accepting this premise is baffling! As though you had to explicitly state each underlying premise before it could exist in your mind! Every second must be a moment of discover for you.

>The 'fictions' are generalisations of things that do exist.

Ah, right; yes you're starting to make sense. See, what you've done, is implied that the premise doesn't need to be explicitly stated, complained at someone else for recognizing it within your use of the term (even if it was not yourself who 'used it') because you never 'said it', and have then gone on to recognize that it was there all along.

I know you're not incapable of reconstructing the building blocks of a proposition, and, from hereon, you believe that I am actually 'misreading' the content of your words to the extent that I believe I can read your mind. For want of telepathy, however, I've substituted the capacity to draw the further premise from the use of the structure your own words to which you are oblivious for some reason. That you then, previously (and you never know, it could be our other friend Aristotle Jr) complain that the accuracy of the content was determined as a reflection of your understanding - maybe this is a point only our Greek friend could make, as it truly is batshit insane all in all in all - would not be another irony lost.

You are as caught up in the atmosphere of the 'discussion' (cheeky) and draw the same air in your use of the terms - irrespective of whether you were the one to 'invent them'.

>The gall.
Blasted rapscallion that I am!
>Confused positions
I'm confused that you think you can separate it into camps and positions by virtue of an unrecognized 'stance' * and then use the terminology of the 'enemy'. All given on the solid ground that when a Korean calls the white man a dog, he has to bark to do so.

I am sure of myself; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be pointing out your own inconsistencies.

I came in to show you why even if you believe you're claiming "It's still used as a method to create a system of truthfulness" and that you acknowledge an inertia within a confine of 'objectivity' your language IMPLIES something completely different.

>>1171
*What the fuck is with this mode of discussion (naughty) that implies ONESELF waves a banner high above their head announcing a formal role - as though some taciturn agreement of age old battlefield formalities pervaded on a sense of comradely behavior.

It makes as much sense as two armies lining up in fields waiting for a whistle to shoot at each other.

YES I DECLARE MYSELF A REDCOAT AND YOU, SIR, SHALL PLAY THE ROLE OF OPPOSITION. Suddenly, when all descends into chaos some cry is made as part of a reconciliation recognized as a legitimate point in response to the content - sidestepping it completely - thus having solved the riddle of your own inconsistencies and pointing out the blaring mistakes of your 'opponent'.

>>1147
>>1148
>>1150

I see your references and signifiers, but like with all postmodernists, where is the substance? Let us go through it and see if we can find any arguments at all, anything more than patronizing sarcasm.

Yes, Kant is difficult, accepting difficulty as part of reality. Tautology is a term that doesn't show up beyond philosophy, if you didn't understand the Kant/worthlessness jab, then that's on you. No, no, no, I just name dropped Kant because I need to prove superiority.

I have read Greek Rhetoric, but again it's just more sarcasm from you. The word "wit" doesn't fit Greek contexts anyway, it would be more applicable with Voltaire or Oscar Wilde(who I have admittedly not read in-depth). But you see, again, you have lost early on just by your style and lack of arguments. Again I ask you, what are you even doing? I do not think you are doing philosophy.

I understand what you write, your terms are not "in-themselves" hard, nothing you write is hard, or if we're on that subject, even interesting. The problem came about that your critique was vague enough to apply to two separate texts, with no specific information about either of them, until there were direct quotations(which was only followed by sarcasm). This "vagueness" was caused by postmodernist double-speak and jargon. How about instead of being vague, you just come out and address people directly like you are doing now? You instead waited to let the other make the move first. My "complaint" was a critique of strategy if anything.

But you see, your own critiques apply to yourself! That is the great downfall of postmodernism. "That you can't communicate sufficiently between two modes of reason and imply the fault to be on the end not your own". "The logic of your post doesn't need to be dismantled; you've done it yourself". Do you not see the ultimate irony in this? The ironic truth? Apply your words to your words!

The author decides or the reader decides? When did I mention that something rested on anything? You are parsing my words, do not do that. There are no magic tricks, at least I'm not the one doing the hexes. You did not mention the validity of the metaphor in a sufficient way. King is to philosophy as Prince is to science. Tell me again why the metaphor fails. But this time, directly.

Again, and again, and again, I will ask you, what are you even doing? You do not have a body of knowledge, you do not make arguments, only critiques of arguments, you have no foundations(maybe because they make you cringe). I am still not holding my breath for you to start, to be an author, to originate a "text". Because you will actually be doing something then.

>>1148

Let us just stop hiding our delusions of Hellenistic academies, using multi-modal language forms, multi person modern tenses.

But seriously this is funny, keep going, I love it when people critique my style. The one fucking thing postmodernists are good at.

>>1150
I hate greentext but

>Do you talk to people in 'real life' like this?

Which part of this do you want me to go off on? The second sentence has as many hooks, but the word real is just too much. You knew it didn't you? You knew that little post would attract me like a black woman attracts my dick.

>>1176
>"We".
You said 'we' as well, you know. It's hard to make a point if you're hypocritical about it.

>What the fuck is this; 'getting somewhere'
It means we are actually talking. It means you actually said something relevant that I could latch on to and vice versa. It means that, instead of just talking past each other we both agree to begin at the same fundament which, in this scenario, is the question of the relation between science and philosophy.
No 'truth' here. No 'final end point'. But movement, yes. If you don't want a discussion with any movement, then by all means be the first to stop writing.

>archaology of Greek prose.
I'm flattered, but I'm sure you are confusing me with another person again. It strikes me as interesting, by the way, that someone like you doesn't spell the word as "archaeology".

>As though emphasizing your role as the general condition for the determination for the end point of the conversation WERE the goal!
It would be nice if you stopped implying and actually responded, if at all, to what I wrote.
And I've been using the first person constantly. Pay attention if you are so desperate to feel in charge of the conversation.

>you not earlier complained about 'excessive verbiage'
Not earlier indeed. You seem capable only to make points by mangling up different viewpoints which I had thought would be of higher import to you.

>That it needs a referencing system
The most efficient referencing system when it comes to understanding is explication. You don't seem to want understanding though, but rather 'truth' or the apparent lack thereof.

>That you've asked for definitions, ask no more, suppose you have asked more, and use this as some petty ego bashing is fucking pathetic.
What are you saying? I do not understand the syntax of this sentence. If you actually want to continue and respond to this, it would be much appreciated if you could rephrase this statement.

>you have every option to ignore the content you disagree with
I'm aware. I'm not much fond of letting false accusations and assumptions about my position fly though. As for the "actual rebuttal", there is none, because any claim I supposedly made and that you seem to have rebuked is one that you put into my mouth. Hence why we are still at the "disagree" part.

>>1178
>actually read between the lines of your own text.
>the underlying premises behind whatever posts you make
So essentially stuff that isn't there. I do not have to read between the lines in anticipation of what someone else might see. Restrict yourself to what I actually said, and if that's too boring, then tell me what you think I said. But please be precice in doing so, there really is nothing to be gained through the stilted way you converse. That you have resorted to rather blunt insults as opposed to what I assume was supposed to be sophisticated ridicule indicates that you are tired of this. If you think you were clear so far, then you might have to accept the fact that, to me, you were anything but, and either cease or explicate again. If you think you weren't clear, then I'm not the one talking the shit.

>>1178
>that seems to be coming from your posts
>seems
Well, quite. I "corrected" your reading though, so you insisting on having understood me correctly based on what 'seemed' only demonstrates how little value you seem to put into actual conversation.

>Your use of the terms implies that position
Generalisation does not imply the existence of the generalisation itself. An average does not imply the point of average has any form of existence aside from being the center point of a scale. There is also no 'premise' here to be accepted. Unless you mean that "words always come with a claim to existence" or something of that kind.

>>1178
>you had to explicitly state each underlying premise before it could exist in your mind!
How so? I'm talking about external, intersubjective discussion here, not of my mind. It is only reasonable to be transparent about underlying premises as far as is doable. You don't have to agree with this stance.

>See, what you've done, is implied that the premise doesn't need to be explicitly stated, complained at someone else for recognizing it within your use of the term (even if it was not yourself who 'used it') because you never 'said it', and have then gone on to recognize that it was there all along.
This is nice and direct. Thank you for that. Though I did not recognise something later that I hadn't before. 'Recognise it was there' and 'doesn't have to be explicitly stated' are not exclusive positions, though I had hoped that my inital explications made the presence of any hidden premise sufficiently known.

>from hereon, you believe that I am actually 'misreading' the content of your words to the extent that I believe I can read your mind
From hereon? You have been implying the living daylight out of my words from the getgo, and won't accept any explication because, after all, what you infer "is actually there". That is either posing certainty that you can't reasonably have or a complete dismissal of my own understanding of my own expressions. I'm sure you are leaning towards the latter, so this must be like talking to a deaf person to you. I hope you gain some enjoyment, then.

>complain that the accuracy of the content was determined as a reflection of your understanding
A reflection would be one thing, though it appears more like an assumption. Also it seems you do realise there's another wheel to this discussion, so why the constant confusions?

>and draw the same air in your use of the terms
How so? My initial posts were explications of my understanding, not adherence to whatever may have been implied by the person who initially posited them.

>you think you can separate it into camps and positions by virtue of an unrecognized 'stance'
I don't. But you cannot direct a concern raised by one person at another, unless you take their positions to be the exact same. Which would be another implication taken too far.

>>1178
>use the terminology of the 'enemy'
Another implication-laden notion from the blank space between the lines, I take?

>your language IMPLIES something completely different.
I'm sure it implies many things to people like you. But since you seem to understand what I actually MEANT, please enlighten me as to the language I should have used in order to have meaning and 'implication' match as closely as possible. This is a serious request, by the way, and not a rhetorical one.

>>1179
It speaks volumes that you liken conversation with war. I prefer to view it as a peace treaty, though that is a metaphor I would have to explicate. Feel free to infer though, as long as you realise that it can bring you no certainty of my position.

>>1200
Why the fuck are you having a tirade against a form of continental philosophy you don't actually understand and isn't applicable to anything I've said; no it isn't - like that absolutely insane metaphor you drew between two modes of knowledge (that should probably be utilizing the 'philosophy' of those of you criticize) there is no 'substance'; but come, let us see if we cannot find in your folly some sense - deplorable may it be, but not for want of not try - and discern how the fool thou be rides backwards his mare: hoofed in stupidity and at a gallop, 'tis no wonder thou glare at brilliance and find stupidity when the world's around on his ass: the excellence of your idiocy! as you might say.

"Let us do philosophy" - what utter banter; that you believe philosophy is something practiced all points beyond yourself, that you must tuck yourself into bed before philosophy can begin. I bet you don't even sleep with your hands above the bed when you're doing philosophy, you naughty boy.

"The one thing postmodernists are good at"; I don't think you actually understand this term. The term is an ivory tower bogey man used by lecturers and professional academics who refused to adapt to the influence of the field of sociology - among other "fields" to which the term 'postmodernist' can be stamped - and its role in investigating by critical thought areas of knowledge. It's insane to suppose the term a pejorative - you may as well be saying that you reject all modern scientific discourse; but, thou knavery blinds fair sight to such weighted words. Around the term revolves the entire wound of 'philosophy' between two 'schools' of influence adapting to the political conditions of the twenty first century. There's no way you can believe yourself to be free 'of' or 'from' 'postmodernism' by recognizing the terms antithetical legitimacy - and by this same fucking sword swing all meaning or significance in whatever 'counterargument' (tut tut) you put forward.

>You knew that little post would attract me like a black woman attracts my dick.
Why bother making a pretension to insincerity?
>I hate greentext but
Is this your personal blog? Does anyone care? That it's taken you this long to come up with a story about how your Kantian banter was a misinterpretation of a 'joke'. I didn't fucking ask you about Oscar Wilde. No one has - as though you were playing some facade of name dropping to prove that 'twas a ruse all along see!'

>>1206
>We
"Let's ignore deliberate intent"
>Talking
What a 'loaded term'; 'taking past each other' - what absolute horse shit, that you think there are two phases - friend and foe to discussion - and not alternatives to the movement of discussion. 'Direction'. What a loaded fucking metaphor for something you can't actually describe; 'this conversation has no direction' / 'this conversation has (all? some? lots?) of direction'. "Be the first to stop writing" - nah, we're going to hit the bump limit, if there is one. It's a long way down!

>It would be nice if you stopped implying and actually responded, if at all, to what I wrote.
The mental gymnastics in this post are a summary of the 'difference in direction' we have. You're under-extended my use of the term 'imply' and pose it as the 'final issue' to 'discussion'.
>And I've been using the first person constantly. Pay attention if you are so desperate to feel in charge of the conversation.
What is the purpose of this? "So desperate to feel in charge of the conversation". There is no 'in charge' and it sounds like you're more desperate than I am with this.

>The most efficient referencing system when it comes to understanding is explication. You don't seem to want understanding though, but rather 'truth' or the apparent lack thereof.

Why should the object referred to in the second clause - made apparent in the first in its seat of the object within the sentence - be made clear for you? It's probably the most clear thing in that sentence. This really goes together with your misappropriation of the term 'imply', from my use of it, into your own shape - pointing to it as some fucking stamp of incoherency when all along it's you whose 'failed to understand' by understanding the use detracted from its usage. This also surmises the issue of the term 'implying' itself; I'm not supposing what is not there to be there - I'm looking at the relations of the content within your argument by the usage of your terminology and extrapolating from that the issues that are inherent or within its scope; this is the purpose for using the term 'structure'.
"Tell me what I think" - no, show you what you clearly don't fucking see. If I had to wait hand on heart in permission until you actually stumbled across the numerous fucking flaws in whatever you say there would be no 'direction' - you'd be a ritualistic totem mindlessly qualifying the truth behind speech without actual apprehension to it. Why the fuck are you surprised that one of the corner stones of conversation is to read into the content? To construct links between the relations of 'thought' - not 'what you think, as you think it' - and emphasize specific features that occur. More 'scientific' than mind-reading and, astonishingly, it has some weight behind it.

>Generalisation does not imply the existence of the generalization itself.
Which is, essentially, what the entire few last posts have revolved around; this the premise between the points of coming around to emphasis this, and the thing discussed.

>I'm flattered, but I'm sure you are confusing me with another person again. It strikes me as interesting, by the way, that someone like you doesn't spell the word as "archaeology".
Run out of things to say? There's always spelling to criticize!

>>1217

I "bother" because I am sexually attracted to black women. Are you not? What a racist you are!

I am having a tirade against you, not postmodernism itself, whatever that even could be. I am having a tirade against postmodernists, people like yourself, who see the world swallowed up by the great abyss that is the dissolution of truth. Please keep explaining postmodernism to me you postmodernist, I am sure you understand it more than I do. Please define it for me.

You disregard my simple questions, and will not humour me. This is boring me, you have become uninteresting the more and more I speak with you. Do you have nothing else to say? You continue to call philosophy a system of knowledge. What is existentialism then? What is endurantism/perdurantism then? What is the entirety of metaphysics? What is everything but epistemology?

You are very good at coming up with things I think, and telling me what I think, without having read or understood anything. This is why the bitchiness that postmodernists have is unparalleled in their critiques, which is why it is the one thing they are good at.

Rejecting scientific discourse is equivalent to rejecting the self-defeating postmodernists? I keep repeating myself, but it would be boring and redundant to have to dissect that pathetic sentiment.

Still haven't looked at Kant yet have we? It's even funnier knowing that you are out of your depth. Kant is worthless if you have training in the history of philosophy because he is historical in nature. It makes me laugh at you that you know that you don't know what you're talking about. Lol

I will not respond.

>>1227
*tips*

>>1219
Okay, this is going nowhere. The modes of discussions and thought we share are miniscule, and your insistence to be able to "show" through the use of words (that, naturally, "tell") is clearly not working on me. Doubtless this is in large part my fault, and I find it a shame that despite my attempts at making you rephrase your points in a fashion I can understand - something that seems to be undesirable or perhaps impossible for you - I'm probably only halfway at comprehending what you are saying [which, as you well know, does not mean that I think you are even close to what I actually said or did.] I clarified my words and intentions multiple times and all I get in return is an extreme fixation on individual words. And you're right, most words are inherintly problematc, and if your goal was to lead discussions though the medium of language ad absurdum then the impossibility for us to even stand on even grounds after so many posts is proof of your success. I think you could make such a point differently and much more directly, but who am I to judge your intentions and/or seriousness of engangement.

>loaded term
Any term is loaded according to you. You are right to an extent. But don't then tell me what it's loaded with and fling it back at me like it was my hidden understanding, as if you could arive at my intentions from nothing but assumption. Two phases of discussion? No, I think that there are basic ways to effectively converse, an aspect being consideration of what the others SAY not what you think they IMPLY. If someone insists on the latter, then there is no foundation for exchange. This has nothing to do with 'friend and foe' but with inside or outside an actually functioning discussion.

>You're under-extended my use of the term 'imply' and pose it as the 'final issue' to 'discussion'.
Under-extended? And no, your reliance on implication and notions that you merely infer and derive from between the lines, while at the same time ignoring my attempts at explications (though you also occasionally isolate a word and 'analyse' them) is what I consider to be the issue. You may think this is none, but in that case you just demonstrate that you have no intention of 'lecturing' me effectively. Which leaves nothing but ridicule, and for that alone I'm not inclined to waste my time.

>understanding the use detracted from its usage
You realise that "usage" is not a universal, right? I have mentioned twice already that I am not a native speaker, so even if you insist that my understanding should not merely be explicated, but also inheretly linked to consensual "usage", perhaps I am not familiar with the one you are. ("then don't converse in English" you might retort? I'm not sure.)

>>1219
>I'm looking at the relations of the content within your argument by the usage of your terminology and extrapolating from that the issues that are inherent or within its scope
And this would be interesting if you could be precice in explicating first your understanding of my argument (at this point I'm not even sure which one you meant, since my initial posts were explicative not necessarily argumentative) and then precice in your elaboration of its inherent flaws. You may have attempted to do so, but it didn't work. So either I'm too dumb for you or you might be inclined to try another approach. Again, I assume you lean to the prior, so this is nothing more than mockery at this point, and that I need not indulge in.

>Why the fuck are you surprised that one of the corner stones of conversation is to read into the content?
Oh, by all means do so. But tell me what you read and be open to what I say in response, especally if you a prone to read either too much, with too much certainty or too ideologically laden.

>>1219
>Which is, essentially, what the entire few last posts have revolved around
What? That 'realisation' I never required, because I never stated its opposite and, indeed, never thought it?

>>1219
>Run out of things to say? There's always spelling to criticize!
It was a highly peripheral observation since I'm a lot more accustomed to the spelling you did not use. It was not a criticism (though you probably think I "showed" you that it was between the lines) but a sidenote. I also clearly did not run out of things to say, you merely chose to stop considering the rest of my two posts for whatever reason I might be required to infer from what you say.

I unfortunately see no merit in this (oh, and I don't mind 'fruitless' debate if grounded on a shared fundament of argumentation, transparecy and consideration. this here lacks that ground and from there it gains the lack of merit I percieve).
If, for some reason, you want to continue though, then I will gladly reconsider provided you can give me a direct as possible reply to one of the questions in my last post;

>>1207
>since you seem to understand what I actually MEANT, please enlighten me as to the language I should have used in order to have meaning and 'implication' match as closely as possible.

If not, I'm sure we'll meet again in other threads.

>>1232
>Any term is loaded according to you. You are right to an extent. But don't then tell me what it's loaded with and fling it back at me like it was my hidden understanding, as if you could arive at my intentions from nothing but assumption. Two phases of discussion? No, I think that there are basic ways to effectively converse, an aspect being consideration of what the others SAY not what you think they IMPLY. If someone insists on the latter, then there is no foundation for exchange. This has nothing to do with 'friend and foe' but with inside or outside an actually functioning discussion.

Any term is loaded with the semantic baggage brought from the person who uses it; but my use was meant to suggest a 'loaded' term within the context as a site of contestation for the boundaries of definitions in language use - necessitated on part by 'talking' and the implications which attend it. There's no understanding that can be drawn between 'saying' and 'implying' - the first is an act, the second an action: the basis upon which one 'says' something relies on the premise that one implies from this conditions within the scope of what is said. To converse, to exchange ideas, implies within it a boarder of mutual ground of the relationship dependent upon the system of exchange - to expect conversation without an attachment to implication for reasoned understanding diminishes the capacity to 'investigate'. A functioning discussion is a discussion - prefixing 'functioning' to the phrase is equal to flinging 'it' back as though it were a hidden understanding while simultaneously recognizing the necessity of the implication for the process of understanding itself. To ask one to differentiate between 'saying' and 'implying', as though the two were distinct modes is absurd: I can only ever think of what you say by what is implied - make of that what you will.

>Under-extended? And no, your reliance on implication and notions that you merely infer and derive from between the lines, while at the same time ignoring my attempts at explications (though you also occasionally isolate a word and 'analyse' them) is what I consider to be the issue. You may think this is none, but in that case you just demonstrate that you have no intention of 'lecturing' me effectively. Which leaves nothing but ridicule, and for that alone I'm not inclined to waste my time.

Hence, I'm not in so far ignoring your 'attempts' to 'explicate' what you 'think'. I don't want to lecture - in fact, it's the opposite. Look at your conversations above: they look drab, colourless, and poisoned by an ink of 'reasoned discussion' where one merely 'builds' on what another is saying - nobody takes the time to investigate the premise behind what is 'said', and it becomes a sustained lecture in itself where one is responding only to degrees of oneself, and never to what is actually 'said' - to what is 'implied' - and thereby to the argument conditions themselves. Critical thought is never used to expand itself beyond the boundaries in which it finds itself, a primary fucking detail to the exchange of ideas - the identification of its own basis for 'existence', however the idea comes into its own - and the movement from a discussion that aims AT the idea of reflecting to reality, to a discussion which 'IS' reality. To interpret reality by changing it within the discussion. The perspective given on the discussion above is that at all points concepts are expected to conform to a principle reality assumed tacitly; because this is never challenged, the hypocrisy of the thing becomes that the expectation of conformity is a reflection of its distance from.

>>1233
The distinction between 'imply' and 'say' becomes more and more vital in recognizing that they are distinct in so far as their mutual exclusion is based upon the premise of their distinction from the perspective; yet arguing that one forgoes perspective by 'recognizing' (as though there were truth-in-itself) what is 'said' destroys the entire possibility of any conversation convalescing. Under this, it's then unreasonable to suggest that explanation can escape into some 'in-between' realm of clarity - where ideas and concepts are sacrosanct.

>Why the fuck are you surprised that one of the corner stones of conversation is to read into the content?
>Oh, by all means do so. But tell me what you read and be open to what I say in response, especially if you a prone to read either too much, with too much certainty or too ideologically laden.

The tragic irony folds into place - what has been said cannot 'escape' into the precise, because the precise is supposed as an ideal held within the boundary of what has been said, and yet supposed distinct from it. 'In reality', all we're doing - once we move from initial antagonism of low-temperature high-light heat in discussion - is a reading into our own ideological-tainted lens by supposing the relationships we observe to exist between the structures of our use in language to be 'there' already - to be in existence without 'us' - and building upon these without challenging any underlying detail upon which we recognize 'their', the relationship's, existence. Being sarcastic really is useless: we're only ever moving towards our own more complex straw-men for understanding and never relinquishing the basic details. The purpose of all task for this conversation, the response form we prefer, and any other condition which bears weight implicitly over our action of thought in our response. The idea of the distinction I wanted to draw between 'imply' and 'say' is to recognize this: there was an unspoken agreement in the content of the metaphor established above, and no movement towards the questioning of the premise that established and enabled the metaphor to 'exist' in agreement; the metaphor between two modes of knowledge is supposed 'beyond' whomever so discusses it, and it becomes a process of intellectual deification.


Watching 'conversation' establish the rites of 'intellectual supremacy' - not that you or any other is 'smarter', but the conventions for conversation considered at its acme for the 'pursuit of truth' - that disables discussion by blinding it to the premise of the object for which it is established is entirely disheartening for a board aiming for the opposite.