philosophy

[Enai de a lukal]

it seems like you are trying to defend your own personal decisions and education as opposed to philosophy in general.

Um... What?

stop trying to undercut people personally when the right thing to do is to avoid ad hominem.

Seriously?

It is never correct to engage in the trading of barbs.

"Correct" according to what rules? Given the standard etiquette of internet message boards, as well as the fact that the level of discourse on this particular forum isn't especially high (or serious, much of the time) I'd say that the trading of bards is entirely appropriate when someone makes a silly comment like Mr. Trout has made. (hell, people trade barbs in academic journals)

And I'm really not hoping to accomplish anything more than amusing myself (mission accomplished), and if my participation in this exchange has the side-effect of making Mr. Trout, or anyone else, think for a moment before they post such foolish remarks in the future, then all the better.

I can and do understand the mindset where being wrong tastes like poison, but that doesn't mean you can't walk away. Some dominance contests aren't worth engaging in, let alone winning.

What is it with these arm-chair psychologists? Or are you perhaps clairvoyant? Good gravy...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As well as flings arguments (do you know what these are?)- arguments which, apparently, cannot be answered in kind, but can only be avoided. Such as by trying to change the subject, like this-

Rhetoric, verbosity, and pedantry do not magically transform a string of opinions and subjective assertions into meaningful arguments. We have differing opinions on the value and necessity of the study of philosophy. You can present your opinion in as many ways as you want utilizing whatever semantic gymnastics you want, but you are still doing the same thing I am - presenting a subjective opinion. If you want to call them arguments, that's fine - I don't find your arguments, opinions, rhetoric, or intellectual dishonesty particularly compelling.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Philosophy is not superfluous.

Actually, I said extraneous. Anyway, it was an overly vague statement which could be construed to be an absolute judgment. It was meant to be a comment to possibly spur thought or discussion on the subject, and not a comprehensive and complete analysis of all aspects of philosophy. Regardless, the study of philosophy has its uses and also has its pitfalls. At the end of the day, it isn't necessary, or necessarily helpful, for all intellects, nor for all intellectual styles or pursuits.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Rhetoric, verbosity, and pedantry...You can present ...semantic gymnastics you want

Hiding behind accusations of mere "semantic gymnastics" is the perennial plea of the intellectually stunted. Any argument, no matter how compelling or sound, can be construed as "semantic gymnastics" by someone who can't present any cogent rebuttal. Similarly with this-

you are ...presenting a subjective opinion.

"Yeah well that's just your opinion" is not an argument, since, it may be a correct opinion nevertheless. Not all opinions are created equal.

If you want to call them arguments, that's fine

Since that's what they're generally referred to as in English, I do.

I don't find your arguments, opinions, rhetoric, or intellectual dishonesty particularly compelling.

Your empty accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" notwithstanding, this is no surprise- although this evaluation preceded rather than resulted from our exchange. (in other words, your mind was already made up and wasn't going to change, no matter what)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

(in other words, your mind was already made up and wasn't going to change, no matter what)

Likewise. Hence, why I do not get drawn into meaningless, pedantic bickering with people whose ego attachment to their ideas doesn't allow them to be open to anything which they perceive as opposing their sacred and involable opinions.

 

[Slapstick]

Likewise. Hence, why I do not get drawn into meaningless, pedantic bickering with people whose ego attachment to their ideas doesn't allow them to be open to anything which they perceive as opposing their sacred and involable opinions.

Since I'm fairly open minded I guess I don't have to worry about close minded people.

hmm... or do I.

Sounds like another question for philosophy to answer!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sounds like another question for philosophy to answer!

Indeed- if one is to avoid doing any philosophy, one has to be very careful; its extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, to have "a questing intellect", or to engage in any sort of critical reflection, without ending up engaging in something remarkably close to doing philosophy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sounds like another question for philosophy to answer!

Or common sense.