Sometimes Objectivity Is Evil (original) (raw)

Stupidity Poll	[10 Aug 2007\|10:44am]
Ladies & Gentlemen, it is that time again where aidsbonnet requests your help in determining who the most idiotic individuals in LJ philosophy are. The competition is fierce this time, featuring everything from the drug-addled ramblings of 20-somethings to the Nietzschean pretentions of 30-yo heavy metal-listening libertarians!As usual, the winner gets banned from philosophy and (a fortiori now) from real_philosophy. Here are the contestants:jonamo_cat: if it isnt obvious, then i will explain, the brain does its thing, cynapses firing etc. some at the same time and some not, depending on whats going on arround us we build up a more and more detailed picture of the world as we identify more and more phenomona and asign them an "algorithym" for want of a better word, in the brain, an algorythm bassed on previously detected signals or phenomona that occur simultaneously or perhaps at regular intervals after an event. and so the number of connections in our brain increase. Link meus_ovatio: And this is why we have things like astrology, religion, and philosophy ... To give women an answer... any fucking answer to shut them up for two-minutes.. Link edcalamia: Now where does the paranoid tendency in philosophy begin? where does it end? who knows. If we were to trace it to individual thinkers I would place its genesis in the PythagoParamenidPlatonic coupling. Link tosk: Could the 'effects' that practitioners 'see' afterward be more related to the manipulation of their own mind? This seems to fit well with many statements from Alister Crowley, Israel Regardie, Antero Alli, Phil Hine, Peter Carroll and many other people that practice what is commonly called 'magic'. Link igferatu: I'm saying that Canada seemed to do alright without severing ties to a Monarchy. Link zhai: Philosophy is only useful insofar as it can generate better AI. Link danceofmasks: Chimpanzees kill other chimpanzees.Dolphins kill baby dolphins.Lions .. well, I'm not even going to start on lions.Are those species' behaviour patterns genetic or cultural?Is it worth looking into the behaviour of similar species that do not exhibit murderous tendencies, such as the Bonobo? LinkThis time we are featuring a Very Special Bonus Contest between ragnarok20 and vap0rtranz. Since they’re both already banned from both communities for abject, overpowering stupidity, the winner of this one doesn’t receive fortune, but he does receive fame and the title of So Stupid That The Light Of Distant Stars Bends Around Me. Here they are seen participating together in the same idiotic post:ragnarok20: The difference is that not everyone is a doctor simply by virtue of living. We all have philosophies simply because of the act of living. Link vap0rtranz: Actually Lane, Andrew had to (pretend to) not understand what I asked in order to confirm my illiteracy. Instead he used his question to verify that I had conveyed something understandable. Anosognosia used his question to say that I had conveyed nothing understandable. LinkFinally, I would like to take this moment to announce that the aidsbonnet Faculty has decided to bestow a very special honor on a long-time LJ philosophy member. The honored individual is not only an extremely stupid person who actually came close to winning the first Stupidity Context, but with his many years of participation on the communities, he is also the most consistently stupid person any of us has ever encountered in these parts. Taking all this into consideration, we’ve decided to give hollowman the exalted title of Old Growth Stupid, thus making him immune from any future stupidity polls (since cutting down Old Growth Stupid might have unforeseen ecological consequences) and making him our new Community Mascot. Congratulations hollowman! Now vote! Of today's contestants, who do you think is the dumbest? Of these two, who is the greater moron? The results are in! It was a tight race, but edcalamia won the Stupidity Contest. However, after engaging in public self-criticism on philosophy, Big Daddy apperception, Father Of The Community, has allowed him to stay and has banned jonamo_cat, the runner up, instead. vap0rtranz won the second contest, thus making him So Stupid That The Light Of Distant Stars Bends Around Him. Congratulations, vap0rtranz!Thanks to everyone who participated! See you next time!
51 comments\|post comment

[10 Aug 2007|10:44am]

Ladies & Gentlemen, it is that time again where

aidsbonnet requests your help in determining who the most idiotic individuals in LJ philosophy are. The competition is fierce this time, featuring everything from the drug-addled ramblings of 20-somethings to the Nietzschean pretentions of 30-yo heavy metal-listening libertarians!As usual, the winner gets banned from

philosophy and (a fortiori now) from

real_philosophy. Here are the contestants:

jonamo_cat: if it isnt obvious, then i will explain, the brain does its thing, cynapses firing etc. some at the same time and some not, depending on whats going on arround us we build up a more and more detailed picture of the world as we identify more and more phenomona and asign them an "algorithym" for want of a better word, in the brain, an algorythm bassed on previously detected signals or phenomona that occur simultaneously or perhaps at regular intervals after an event. and so the number of connections in our brain increase. Link

meus_ovatio: And this is why we have things like astrology, religion, and philosophy ... To give women an answer... any fucking answer to shut them up for two-minutes.. Link

edcalamia: Now where does the paranoid tendency in philosophy begin? where does it end? who knows. If we were to trace it to individual thinkers I would place its genesis in the PythagoParamenidPlatonic coupling. Link

tosk: Could the 'effects' that practitioners 'see' afterward be more related to the manipulation of their own mind? This seems to fit well with many statements from Alister Crowley, Israel Regardie, Antero Alli, Phil Hine, Peter Carroll and many other people that practice what is commonly called 'magic'. Link

igferatu: I'm saying that Canada seemed to do alright without severing ties to a Monarchy. Link

zhai: Philosophy is only useful insofar as it can generate better AI. Link

danceofmasks: Chimpanzees kill other chimpanzees.Dolphins kill baby dolphins.Lions .. well, I'm not even going to start on lions.Are those species' behaviour patterns genetic or cultural?Is it worth looking into the behaviour of similar species that do not exhibit murderous tendencies, such as the Bonobo? Link

This time we are featuring a Very Special Bonus Contest between

ragnarok20 and

vap0rtranz. Since they’re both already banned from both communities for abject, overpowering stupidity, the winner of this one doesn’t receive fortune, but he does receive fame and the title of So Stupid That The Light Of Distant Stars Bends Around Me. Here they are seen participating together in the same idiotic post:

ragnarok20: The difference is that not everyone is a doctor simply by virtue of living. We all have philosophies simply because of the act of living. Link

vap0rtranz: Actually Lane, Andrew had to (pretend to) not understand what I asked in order to confirm my illiteracy. Instead he used his question to verify that I had conveyed something understandable. Anosognosia used his question to say that I had conveyed nothing understandable. Link

Finally, I would like to take this moment to announce that the

aidsbonnet Faculty has decided to bestow a very special honor on a long-time LJ philosophy member. The honored individual is not only an extremely stupid person who actually came close to winning the first Stupidity Context, but with his many years of participation on the communities, he is also the most consistently stupid person any of us has ever encountered in these parts. Taking all this into consideration, we’ve decided to give

hollowman the exalted title of Old Growth Stupid, thus making him immune from any future stupidity polls (since cutting down Old Growth Stupid might have unforeseen ecological consequences) and making him our new Community Mascot. Congratulations

hollowman!

Now vote! Of today's contestants, who do you think is the dumbest? Of these two, who is the greater moron? The results are in! It was a tight race, but

edcalamia won the Stupidity Contest. However, after engaging in public self-criticism on

philosophy, Big Daddy

apperception, Father Of The Community, has allowed him to stay and has banned

jonamo_cat, the runner up, instead.

vap0rtranz won the second contest, thus making him So Stupid That The Light Of Distant Stars Bends Around Him. Congratulations,

vap0rtranz!Thanks to everyone who participated! See you next time!

51 comments|post comment

The Continental LJ Philosophe Hall of Shame	[11 Aug 2006\|01:53pm]
Folks, I consider myself a philosopher in the Continental tradition, and so I'll defend it against the usual charges of vagueness and pretentiousness, but some people are such fabulous tossers that even I have to draw the line. To wit:thesleepyvegan: 1, 2He pretends to know a few things about Hegel, but then he recommend's Walter Kaufmann's (he misspells his name) book on Hegel. Wild idiocy. Then there's the implicit agreement with remarks about Hegel that are 100% incorrect. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of Hegel; Hegel is really tough; but you have to be a moron to continue to posture around someone who actually does know what he's talking about. becoming_wolf: 1, 2 indirectlyyes: 1Unfortunately he deleted that journal, but the part where he says that all his arguments with Kant are "love letters" earns him an eternal position of honor within the Hall.hotel_noir: 1, 2, 3There are a few gems in here, but my favorite is without doubt, "Strong situatedness, would be unrealisable if we were simply 'situated' in a location, but we’re not in a fixed situation, quite the opposite, we’re dancing." That's the gayest thing I've ever heard, and I listen to both Erasure and Alphaville.semioughticon: 1, 2. Just put the history of philosophy down and back away slowly.noetickerf: 1, 2I'm still not sure what a "transcendental kernel" is. Maybe I should ask Orville Redenbacher.sodapopinski51: 1
post comment

The Continental LJ Philosophe Hall of Shame

[11 Aug 2006|01:53pm]

Folks, I consider myself a philosopher in the Continental tradition, and so I'll defend it against the usual charges of vagueness and pretentiousness, but some people are such fabulous tossers that even I have to draw the line. To wit:

thesleepyvegan: 1, 2He pretends to know a few things about Hegel, but then he recommend's Walter Kaufmann's (he misspells his name) book on Hegel. Wild idiocy. Then there's the implicit agreement with remarks about Hegel that are 100% incorrect. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of Hegel; Hegel is really tough; but you have to be a moron to continue to posture around someone who actually does know what he's talking about.

becoming_wolf: 1, 2

indirectlyyes: 1Unfortunately he deleted that journal, but the part where he says that all his arguments with Kant are "love letters" earns him an eternal position of honor within the Hall.

hotel_noir: 1, 2, 3There are a few gems in here, but my favorite is without doubt, "Strong situatedness, would be unrealisable if we were simply 'situated' in a location, but we’re not in a fixed situation, quite the opposite, we’re dancing." That's the gayest thing I've ever heard, and I listen to both Erasure and Alphaville.

semioughticon: 1, 2. Just put the history of philosophy down and back away slowly.

noetickerf: 1, 2I'm still not sure what a "transcendental kernel" is. Maybe I should ask Orville Redenbacher.

sodapopinski51: 1

post comment

memories	[03 May 2006\|08:55pm]
So I've been trying to catch up on all this crap that happened on the fringe communities. A lot of it was pretty fucking funny, and I think the recent meltdowns indicate that LJ-philosophy has the capacity to become quantitatively more entertaining as time goes on. That being said, I found this thread particularly amusing, though not for obvious reasons.You know, I remember a nanikore who didn’t used to have such a jaded view of philosophy. You know how nanikore tries to talk with a kind of affected internet drawl? You know, “howdy folks, ya gotta be practical!”, that sort of thing? He didn’t always write that way. Yes, back in the day, nanikore would use any jargon he could get his hands on, he would invent words of his own, and he didn’t sound like he was trying to imitate the President.Not only that, but he took philosophy very seriously. He would post to the philosophy communities constantly to promote his writings. He even had his own website where you could read about the various “isms” he’d invented, and he seemed to devote a considerable amount of time writing these things, and even more time trying to get people on livejournal to read them. He made all kinds of visual diagrams and everything. He spent a lot of time on it. He quoted Heidegger, Hegel, the works, and seemed to think as though he had stumbled on something very original. And not only did he think so, he wanted everyone else to think so, too.The problem was that no one did. His philosophical writings were poorly constructed and were full of generalizations and assumptions that he was never willing to defend. His use of language itself wasn’t very good either, though probably by no fault of his own. In any case, while a lot of people liked his creativity, no one really saw what was so great about nanikore’s home-made philosophy. In fact, people would trash it pretty often, or ignore it altogether.What happened to that nanikore? Isn’t it weird how nanikore stopped promoting his own philosophical views around the same time that he decided that philosophy was a “joke”? Just a coincidence? Let’s consider the possibilities:a.) nanikore had a revelation, possibly Christ-inspired, that philosophy was useless, even though that never presented a problem for him in the past.orb.) nanikore was tired of seeing his half-baked ideas and silly websites trashed, and decided to take it out on philosophy itself.What’s more likely? See, nanikore is a person who’s come to the conclusion that if his personal philosophy doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, then no philosophy deserves to be taken seriously. His entire “be practical” schtick is just a rhetorical band-aid for his internet boo-boo. Poor guy.
16 comments\|post comment

memories

[03 May 2006|08:55pm]

So I've been trying to catch up on all this crap that happened on the fringe communities. A lot of it was pretty fucking funny, and I think the recent meltdowns indicate that LJ-philosophy has the capacity to become quantitatively more entertaining as time goes on. That being said, I found this thread particularly amusing, though not for obvious reasons.You know, I remember a

nanikore who didn’t used to have such a jaded view of philosophy. You know how nanikore tries to talk with a kind of affected internet drawl? You know, “howdy folks, ya gotta be practical!”, that sort of thing? He didn’t always write that way. Yes, back in the day,

nanikore would use any jargon he could get his hands on, he would invent words of his own, and he didn’t sound like he was trying to imitate the President.Not only that, but he took philosophy very seriously. He would post to the philosophy communities constantly to promote his writings. He even had his own website where you could read about the various “isms” he’d invented, and he seemed to devote a considerable amount of time writing these things, and even more time trying to get people on livejournal to read them. He made all kinds of visual diagrams and everything. He spent a lot of time on it. He quoted Heidegger, Hegel, the works, and seemed to think as though he had stumbled on something very original. And not only did he think so, he wanted everyone else to think so, too.The problem was that no one did. His philosophical writings were poorly constructed and were full of generalizations and assumptions that he was never willing to defend. His use of language itself wasn’t very good either, though probably by no fault of his own. In any case, while a lot of people liked his creativity, no one really saw what was so great about

nanikore’s home-made philosophy. In fact, people would trash it pretty often, or ignore it altogether.What happened to that

nanikore? Isn’t it weird how

nanikore stopped promoting his own philosophical views around the same time that he decided that philosophy was a “joke”? Just a coincidence? Let’s consider the possibilities:a.)

nanikore had a revelation, possibly Christ-inspired, that philosophy was useless, even though that never presented a problem for him in the past.orb.)

nanikore was tired of seeing his half-baked ideas and silly websites trashed, and decided to take it out on philosophy itself.What’s more likely? See,

nanikore is a person who’s come to the conclusion that if his personal philosophy doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, then no philosophy deserves to be taken seriously. His entire “be practical” schtick is just a rhetorical band-aid for his internet boo-boo. Poor guy.

16 comments|post comment

Latest Rankings	[25 Mar 2005\|10:58pm]
apperception Objective Rankings of LJ "Philosophers" "Most analytic, Anglo-American, positivist, analytic philosophers believe that I have AIDS." Clearheads: Incompetent in anything other than analytic philosophy. Anything older than 60 years is "too difficult to read." Common tactics: Either run from attack or argue from authority. Everything is an S or a P. Ways to defeat them: Keep the heat on for one or two responses, and they won't reply again. If you're lucky, you can force them to leave the community that way. Examples: cabrutus, philosophyjeff1, drsmax "Grasping something through the intellect is a strange concept for me."2 Meatheads: Thick-skulled, knuckle-dragging oafs, can't understand simple points, unread in philosophy but like to talk a lot anyway. Common tactics: Insist terms mean what they don't, stare blankly, have no clear methodology, use red herring arguments (but not systematically), "durrrr!" Ways to defeat them: If you have the patience, cracks under persistent pressure. Examples: i_am_lane, xiota, thisisnotsteve, bvihvhkjbkfdmek, yeasty_baggins, dangerzooey Bad command or file name.C:\> Cylons: Can't learn, repeat themselves, can't argue rationally, can't be defeated. Robots. Common tactics: Stare straight ahead, defend nothing, always attack. Ways to defeat them: None known. Only solution is to toss them out the airlock. Examples: nanikore, alienus1, zdover "Darkness fallsacross the landThe midnight houris close at hand" Forces of Darkness: Evil obscurantists, exist to harm, thrive on pain. Common tactics: Obfuscation, trolling, taunting, indecency, mudslinging, sadism. Ways to defeat them: Prayer and good works, exorcism, recitation. Examples: apperception, mendaciloquent, zentiger, dialogic "Father, the Sleeper has Awakened!" Space Cadets: Astral beings, lost in reverie for Cosmic Consciousness, communicate from the Ether. Common tactics: Appeal to mysticism and Theosophy, divination and channeling, voodoo, human sacrifice, "If that is the case, then how do you explain the insights of the Vedas?" Ways to defeat them: Garlic, world peace. Examples: jeffrock, mostconducive, vulpina 1. Defeated by the Forces of Darkness 2. Actual i_am_lane quote
54 comments\|post comment

Latest Rankings

[25 Mar 2005|10:58pm]

apperception Objective Rankings of LJ "Philosophers"

"Most analytic, Anglo-American, positivist, analytic philosophers believe that I have AIDS." Clearheads: Incompetent in anything other than analytic philosophy. Anything older than 60 years is "too difficult to read." Common tactics: Either run from attack or argue from authority. Everything is an S or a P. Ways to defeat them: Keep the heat on for one or two responses, and they won't reply again. If you're lucky, you can force them to leave the community that way. Examples:

cabrutus,

philosophyjeff1,

drsmax

"Grasping something through the intellect is a strange concept for me."2 Meatheads: Thick-skulled, knuckle-dragging oafs, can't understand simple points, unread in philosophy but like to talk a lot anyway. Common tactics: Insist terms mean what they don't, stare blankly, have no clear methodology, use red herring arguments (but not systematically), "durrrr!" Ways to defeat them: If you have the patience, cracks under persistent pressure. Examples:

i_am_lane,

xiota,

thisisnotsteve,

bvihvhkjbkfdmek,

yeasty_baggins,

dangerzooey

Bad command or file name.C:\> Cylons: Can't learn, repeat themselves, can't argue rationally, can't be defeated. Robots. Common tactics: Stare straight ahead, defend nothing, always attack. Ways to defeat them: None known. Only solution is to toss them out the airlock. Examples:

nanikore,

alienus1,

zdover

"Darkness fallsacross the landThe midnight houris close at hand" Forces of Darkness: Evil obscurantists, exist to harm, thrive on pain. Common tactics: Obfuscation, trolling, taunting, indecency, mudslinging, sadism. Ways to defeat them: Prayer and good works, exorcism, recitation. Examples:

apperception,

mendaciloquent,

zentiger,

dialogic

"Father, the Sleeper has Awakened!" Space Cadets: Astral beings, lost in reverie for Cosmic Consciousness, communicate from the Ether. Common tactics: Appeal to mysticism and Theosophy, divination and channeling, voodoo, human sacrifice, "If that is the case, then how do you explain the insights of the Vedas?" Ways to defeat them: Garlic, world peace. Examples:

jeffrock,

mostconducive,

vulpina 1. Defeated by the Forces of Darkness 2. Actual

i_am_lane quote

54 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing \| most recent entries ]