# My Beloved Philosophy!



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

I haven't been able to go on the philosophy forum for _two days_ or something. Where else am I going to be able to read philosophical arguments where people accuse each other of ad hominems while resorting to ad hominems? It's something I can't live without!

Therefore, from this moment forwards, I call the TC philosophical thread into order. (Until my beloved philosophy forum is back).

*Opening question:*
Why is arguing with a solipsist as productive as arguing with a creationist?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> [...]
> *Opening question:*
> Why is arguing with a solipsist as productive as arguing with a creationist?


1) I don't know what defines 'solipsist'.

2) What is the product?

3) What is it that a creationist is willing to argue about? He says God did it, you say evolution did it, what is left?


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> 1) I don't know what defines 'solipsist'.
> 
> 2) What is the product?
> 
> 3) What is it that a creationist is willing to argue about? He says God did it, you say evolution did it, what is left?


The International Definition of a Solipsist (as defined by Encyclopedia Brittanica [citation needed]): A person who has taken the Cogito way too far (usually first happens at 4 AM after having an epiphany about reality as a result of overdosing on LSD).

The product is a self-absorbed metaphysico-theolo-cosmolo-nigologist.

Creationists are not willing to argue. As a result, what is left is a group of people who are only willing to use circular reasoning and quote their Bible. Why? Well, as the eminent polymath, Dr. Michael Leibniz, eloquently puts it:



> Because [they] are dumb, ignorant hicks who are divorced from reality, who cling to guns and religion and don't want to accept what [their] betters tell [them].


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

How many threads are we going to have for essentially the same thing? Can't we discuss something different? Even though I'm probably being a pain I feel bad that your forum is down.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

TrazomGangflow said:


> I feel bad that your forum is down.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

TrazomGangflow said:


> How many threads are we going to have for essentially the same thing? Can't we discuss something different? Even though I'm probably being a pain I feel bad that your forum is down.


According to the _Polednice_ Protocol, the way to kill a thread is with a series of stupid attempts at humor. I've done my part...

[Oops, I messed up a brilliant post - lost it before hitting the send button. Hmm, maybe there's more than one stupidity that'll kill a thread.]


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


>


Don't feel bad the admins will have it up soon enough.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

TrazomGangflow said:


> Don't feel bad the admins will have it up soon enough.


Thanks for the kind words. And I really hope they do, especially since there's no one left for me to argue with.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> I haven't been able to go on the philosophy forum for _two days_ or something. Where else am I going to be able to read philosophical arguments where people accuse each other of ad hominems while resorting to ad hominems? It's something I can't live without!
> 
> Therefore, from this moment forwards, I call the TC philosophical thread into order. (Until my beloved philosophy forum is back).
> 
> ...


If I were to argue with a solipsist, I would ask "why is it that you need to eat, drink, and breathe?" Any one of those three things proves that there's a world outside your own consciousness, upon which you depend, and over which you do not have complete control.

If the solipsist tried to argue, I would put him or her in a tightly sealed room and start pumping the air out, to prove my point. (I tend to favour the empirical approach over the philosophical one. )


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Thanks for the kind words. And I really hope they do, especially since there's no one left for me to argue with.


Oh, you wouldn't want to get started.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> The International Definition of a Solipsist (as defined by Encyclopedia Brittanica [citation needed]): A person who has taken the Cogito way too far (usually first happens at 4 AM after having an epiphany about reality as a result of overdosing on LSD).
> 
> The product is a self-absorbed metaphysico-theolo-cosmolo-nigologist.
> 
> ...


I can only suggest you stay away from philosophical forums until you learn not to insult your opponents. Resorting to abusiveness only makes your own position look weak.

I've not heard of Dr. Michael Leibniz but on this showing I don't think I will seek to make his acquaintance. 'They won't accept what their betters tell them'! Gordon Bennett! I've seen some arrogant stuff in my time but that takes the biscuit.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

Chris said:


> I can only suggest you stay away from philosophical forums until you learn not to insult your opponents. Resorting to abusiveness only makes your own position look weak.
> 
> I've not heard of Dr. Michael Leibniz but on this showing I don't think I will seek to make his acquaintance. 'They won't accept what their betters tell them'! Gordon Bennett! I've seen some arrogant stuff in my time but that takes the biscuit.


I don't know where he got the Leibniz from, but the quote of his was mine, speaking facetiously in the mock thread I created in response to the latest "why won't creationists listen to reason" thread.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> If I were to argue with a solipsist, I would ask "why is it that you need to eat, drink, and breathe?" Any one of those three things proves that there's a world outside your own consciousness, upon which you depend, and over which you do not have complete control.
> 
> If the solipsist tried to argue, I would put him or her in a tightly sealed room and start pumping the air out, to prove my point. (I tend to favour the empirical approach over the philosophical one. )


I like your empirical approach. I've tried talking to these people; it's hopeless! :lol:


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> I can only suggest you stay away from philosophical forums until you learn not to insult your opponents. Resorting to abusiveness only makes your own position look weak.


Sorry if it offended you, but I thought it was clear that I wasn't being serious. Maybe you should stop giving such serious responses to otherwise frivolous threads.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I don't know where he got the Leibniz from, but the quote of his was mine, speaking facetiously in the mock thread I created in response to the latest "why won't creationists listen to reason" thread.


I got it from Leibniz! _Your_ favorite philosopher!

Anyway, the forum is back. Thanks for participating, folks!


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I wish my Internet hadn't been down for the last 20 hours, or I would've participated in this!


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> I got it from Leibniz! _Your_ favorite philosopher!
> 
> Anyway, the forum is back. Thanks for participating, folks!


I didn't know I had a favorite philosopher. I must admit I don't read much philosophy. Rather boring, if you ask me.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I didn't know I had a favorite philosopher. I must admit I don't read much philosophy. Rather boring, if you ask me.


Well, he was also a mathematician. I bet you like mathematics at least, don't you?


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> I wish my Internet hadn't been down for the last 20 hours, or I would've participated in this!


We _could_ keep this thread going if you wanted to. Just answer the opening question and we'll see where it takes us. 
Or ask another equally remarkable question (though I doubt that's possible).


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, he was also a mathematician. I bet you like mathematics at least, don't you?


I use mathematics, and was even quite good at math - but I am no mathematician. And I think reading mathematical treatises would be even more mind-numbing than reading philosophy.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I use mathematics, and was even quite good at math - but I am no mathematician. And I think reading mathematical treatises would be even more mind-numbing than reading philosophy.


I see what you're trying to do. It's not working though.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> I see what you're trying to do. It's not working though.


I wasn't aware I was trying to do anything.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I wasn't aware I was trying to do anything.


Of course you weren't. Why would someone directly tell me that philosophy (something that I love) is mind-numbing and boring? I wonder.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

I thought it was clear that, to me, it was mind-numbingly boring - and it was in response to your having quoted me and associating me with the philosopher Leibniz.

Anyways, I have no interest in philosophy - I was here mainly to tell Chris the origin of that quote of mine.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Anyways, I have no interest in philosophy - I was here mainly to tell Chris the origin of that quote of mine.


Then why did you open the thread in the first place?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> Then why did you open the thread in the first place?


Leave him alone, please. He didn't ask for this--you did. My advice to you is to let this thread end here.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2011)

I scan through new threads to see what they are about. I thought this thread was going to concern itself with some particular philosophy of yours.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> My advice to you is to let this thread end here.


I can't. I think Kopachris is still contemplating his brilliant question.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I scan through new threads to see what they are about. I thought this thread was going to concern itself with some particular philosophy of yours.


Well, then, I am very sorry.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> I can't. I think Kopachris is still contemplating his brilliant question.


Oh, you were waiting for me?  Here's an answer to the question in the OP: because they're both human.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Here's an answer to the question in the OP: because they're both human.


Brilliant as always. :clap:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

popular philosophy is extremely weak, and most argumentation is useless


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> popular philosophy is extremely weak, and most argumentation is useless


Well, Mr. Planck, could you enlighten us a little bit about the arcane philosophy you're acquainted with?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, Mr. Planck, could you enlighten us a little bit about the arcane philosophy you're acquainted with?


by popular philosophy i just mean general opinion and brainstorming


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

There's one other way for sure - put up a thread about ballet   

And I'm sorry that your thread is in the caboose.  Try to be philosophical about it.  Sorry I missed Alkan's birthday, yesterday. Did you listen to him all day long?



Hilltroll72 said:


> According to the _Polednice_ Protocol, the way to kill a thread is with a series of stupid attempts at humor. I've done my part...
> 
> [Oops, I messed up a brilliant post - lost it before hitting the send button. Hmm, maybe there's more than one stupidity that'll kill a thread.]


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Sorry if it offended you, but I thought it was clear that I wasn't being serious. Maybe you should stop giving such serious responses to otherwise frivolous threads.


I happily withdraw my comments on #11 if your own remarks were not intended seriously. I will take it on faith that the thread is humorous. I would like to think Mr. Leibniz was also speaking tongue in cheek, but that is probably hoping for too much.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> Sorry I missed Alkan's birthday, yesterday. Did you listen to him all day long?


Yes, and I finally learned how to play Alkan etude.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> I happily withdraw my comments on #11 if your own remarks were not intended seriously. I will take it on faith that the thread is humorous. I would like to think Mr. Leibniz was also speaking tongue in cheek, but that is probably hoping for too much.


Dr. Leibniz doesn't exist actually.  The quote was from a thread that the member Dr. Mike sarcastically posted some time ago, and I decided to quote it and call him Dr. Michael Leibniz (Leibniz being the 17th century philosopher who came up with some type of theodicy, which is why I sort of connected him with Dr. Mike).
And rest assured, this whole thread is made up of frivolous nonsense.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Actually, Leibniz was a major figure in the history of scientific thought, but he lost out to Isaac Newton and the Three Laws of Motion. Leibniz's ideas on the relative nature of space certainly contributed to Einstein's thoughts--the Theory of Relativity wouldn't be with us today if it had no historical antecedents. In short, Leibniz was cool, and ahead of his time.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Dr. Leibniz doesn't exist actually.  The quote was from a thread that the member Dr. Mike sarcastically posted some time ago, and I decided to quote it and call him Dr. Michael Leibniz (Leibniz being the 17th century philosopher who came up with some type of theodicy, which is why I sort of connected him with Dr. Mike).
> And rest assured, this whole thread is made up of frivolous nonsense.


And is going to confuse, alarm and annoy several of our members, who have difficulty with that sort of thing. I have decided to begin any of my posts that wander into frivolity, whimsy, or any sort of humor with the warning signal Bzz Bzz, so that the upright, serious-minded members (and guests) can avoid harm.

Starting next time.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Actually, Leibniz was a major figure in the history of scientific thought, but he lost out to Isaac Newton and the Three Laws of Motion. Leibniz's ideas on the relative nature of space certainly contributed to Einstein's thoughts--the Theory of Relativity wouldn't be with us today if it had no historical antecedents. In short, Leibniz was cool, and ahead of his time.


I know. I never said anything bad about Leibniz (other than my rather disrespectful way of addresing his theodicy [something Voltaire hilaiously played around with]).


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> And is going to confuse, alarm and annoy several of our members, who have difficulty with that sort of thing. I have decided to begin any of my posts that wander into frivolity, whimsy, or any sort of humor with the warning signal Bzz Bzz, so that the upright, serious-minded members (and guests) can avoid harm.
> 
> Starting next time.


Beginning every single one of your posts with Bzz Bzz must be a daunting task.

I salute your courage.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Beginning every single one of your posts with Bzz Bzz must be a daunting task.
> 
> I salute your courage.


That would be the _easy_ way. I must examine each post before hitting the 'post' button, to determine its essential character.

[I have determined that this post is deadly serious.]

(edit - I have found that my posts are influenced by what I have been reading. Just finished a story involving the characters _Serge_ and _Coleman_. This may increase the need for the warning Bzz Bzz for awhile.)

[The post is still deadly serious.]


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That would be the _easy_ way. I must examine each post before hitting the 'post' button, to determine its essential character.
> 
> [I have determined that this post is deadly serious.]
> 
> ...


Ah, too many obscure references. I liked it better when you made these kinda posts.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Dr. Leibniz doesn't exist actually.  The quote was from a thread that the member Dr. Mike sarcastically posted some time ago, and I decided to quote it and call him Dr. Michael Leibniz (Leibniz being the 17th century philosopher who came up with some type of theodicy, which is why I sort of connected him with Dr. Mike).
> And rest assured, this whole thread is made up of frivolous nonsense.


Thankyou for this explanation. I should have smelt a rat when I saw the name Leibniz. Gottfried Leibniz is notorious with British mathematicians for stealing the laurels from Isaac Newton on the discovery of calculus. The two men discovered calculus independently but Leibniz took the credit by publishing his findings. Publishing his findings! How low can you get? Another foreign villain is Roald Amundsen who took the glory for being the first to reach the South Pole when he beat our Captain Scott by a few weeks. There is a widespread suspicion that this rotter _practised_ using his sledges before his expedition.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> If I were to argue with a solipsist, I would ask "why is it that you need to eat, drink, and breathe?" Any one of those three things proves that there's a world outside your own consciousness, upon which you depend, and over which you do not have complete control.
> 
> If the solipsist tried to argue, I would put him or her in a tightly sealed room and start pumping the air out, to prove my point. (I tend to favour the empirical approach over the philosophical one. )


I'm sorry, brosky, but that just doesn't cut it in the world of existentialism. While I happen to take the field seriously, I guess we can be coy as well, though, and pump the air out.

I'd posit counterfactuals as a confirmation the existence of others, the basic appearance that I didn't originate everything from my mind because I am not that creative (and a lot of things are beyond me), and lastly I would ask how it's possible that I've fabricated everything if I continuously wish things to be otherwise.


----------

