Corrupt philosophy.

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #26
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I might not survive this particular game. But I'll make sure that every one here knows exactly what they themselves are party to. You're murdering this philosophy-forum. Not by your presence; but by your attitude. You are 'defensively corrupt' in the surest-sense of the term. You are a good politician. But you're not a good philosopher.
But guess what? If this was my forums, I would not seek to have you silenced. I would want the readers to decide if your philosophy was valid. I would demean the value of my own philosophy, by silencing all others. Hand on heart: I would not do to you what you have done to me.
Even when your whole philosophy was an absurdity and a corrupt vision on reality (which implies us to believe that no such reality exists in the first place), I never accused you of anything, but went deep down into the challenge that you put me and others on here.

That your thread was locked, is not my fault, you can only blame that on the person who did that, or on yourself, who wrote the thread.

You can only accuse me of discussing the absurdity of your philosophical claims, and providing a good set of arguments against it. Or is discussing your philosophy a crime in itself?

THOSE WO DO NOT ACCEPT THE WORDS OF LIFEGAZER, ARE DOOMED FOR ALL OF ETERNITY...

Yeah!
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Lifegazer
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then I guess there must actually be three kinds in order to account for those who insist not only their philosophy is correct, but also that there is rational proof of same…
'Belief' and 'reason'. They aren't brothers. And if they are, then one is Cain and one is Abel. 'Belief' kills 'reason'. That's so important that I'm going to say it again: belief kills reason.
 
  • #28
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
'Belief' and 'reason'. They aren't brothers. And if they are, then one is Cain and one is Abel. 'Belief' kills 'reason'. That's so important that I'm going to say it again: belief kills reason.
Yeah. Now we just have to define which is which.
 
  • #29
BoulderHead
Belief in the infallibility of one's ability to reason kills reason too.
 
  • #30
1,944
0
I'd rather be a man of paradox than a man of prejudice.

Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU, Émile ou De l'éducation, livre II
 
  • #31
FZ+
1,561
3
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like I said, an offending philosophy yields no power, other than in the strength of its own argument. An individual challenge to establishment-values has practically zero power to influence the outcome of that challenge by physical means. All the power resides with the establishment.

That's an interesting comment. But I have found that there are two kinds of believers: those that admit that their beliefs are held by faith; and those that insist that their philosophy is correct, even though there is no rational proof for that philosophy. So, not everyone is being genuine to himself. He's being genuine to a static philosophy.

What do you call a locked thread? Even little things such as this are part of a greater picture. The challenger is silenced eventually, if he goes too far.

But then he would have power and would be yielding it. Hence his argument is offensively (as opposed to defensively) corrupt. Such situations usually lead to wars. Is war the only way to win an argument?

*laff*. Philosophy is the search for the loftiest truths. Not a practise (ideally) where individuals who challenge the status-quo are treated with disdain. You're talking about politics here. Politicians are expected to ignore a challenge and talk about what they want you to hear, in relation to their own ideals. But if this is how philosophy is being practised, then it's definitely corrupt!
Oh... awfully defensive aren't we? One might even say... corruptly so...
I guess the word of Lifegazer has again defined who has the power, and who has not. I guess the word of Lifegazer did not realise that a philosophy of debelief in God, or rather more correctly a belief in the lack of proof for God is not in fact, the establishment, but a challenge with which we gain nothing. The fact is, it seems abundantly clear that you have defended your our beliefs with all ruthless force. Indeed, the starting of this thread is representative of that. We have even allowed you to sprout this paranoic belief of yours.

I don't suppose you noticed WHY your post was locked. It was because we weren't getting anywhere. It was because of failure of you to acknowledge any uncertainty, and you stubbornness to keep to your own faith. In some ways, that is a virtue, but that in no ways allow a discussion. In many ways, that discussion was descending into a farce, with you using the accusation of materialism as an argument. Might I remind you that it was unlocked in the hope that you can inject some sort of rationality into it, but the failure was what caused the locking. No, you self belief and stubbornness in defending your own idea, and force that onto other people is what caused it to be locked. And it is why you do not realise your error, because you are too busy accusing someone else.

Do you not realise how your own belief are skewing your view? Do you not realise the bare faced arrogance in saying that the reason other do not agree is fear? Do you not realise that the world is not, in fact, centred around you, and that anybody else can have the same irrational opinion that you are making these arguments out of a desperation to justify irrational faith with reason, and that your opposition to materialism is always born of irrational bias. Nobody has ever attacked spiritualism. Nobody has ever prevented you from giving your opinion, or dismissed them without consideration. These enemies of yours are made entirely of your imagination. We have always tolerated you. It is you who has created this "picture" of pieces of your own bias.

You have made a war of words the only way to win an argument. It is you who has closed down the options, who has rejected the idea that you may be wrong. It is you who has power whether to argue rationally or irrationally. It is you who has chosen. When you propose an argument, it is the arguer who has the power. Did Galileo not eventually win? Then trust in your argument, not make such accusations of those you argue against. You are trying to make this a war of personalities, not philosophies.

And the loftiest truth is one that is unacheivable. You have said so yourself, when arguing about the subjective nature of experience, remember? The search is important, and there is no good or evil theory. The faith of philosophy is that philosophies win the day. But you have ignored challenge. You have but pose behind substance. You have ignored the fact that we all seek the truth, and that there is nothing to gain from it. The existence of power, the existence of motivation, the existence of dominant theories, a test for new theories is one that is inevitable. Philosophy, if judged in that way, in inherently corrupt.

Enough of this. The challenger is unimportant, only the philosophy itself. You should not be making such petty complaints, but instead working on a new, more successful philosophy.
 
  • #32
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
14
this thread is seeming to get ugly...
 

Related Threads on Corrupt philosophy.

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
679
Replies
36
Views
8K
Top