4 ms·

>I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Your ad-hominem has been noted. >Then why talk? Wh

• friendlybus 7y ago
  >Your ad-hominem has been noted. You brought your character in as a substantive point to argue. I was not avoiding anything. If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. >Why not? If you wish to talk to an empty wall do so, but I am free in my rights to challenge the use and social value of communicating with a closed book. >So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Less than half of the purpose of communicating here can be described and it is too lengthy and mundane to be bothered with. The other half of the purpose of communicating here is yet to be discovered. How does the purpose of the argument assist the conversation with someone who does not wish to share arguments? >Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. So what have we been doing then? I mean really? I misspoke on the metaphysical assertion, what I mean is a problem of belief. There is more to a self than philosophy can describe. You can have a philosophical position that all philosophies become equifinal, presumably, I do not really care but limiting your analysis of the idea of the 'self' to just what a philosophy, logic and categories, ect can argue is a limited perspective. When Christianity left as the guiding belief structure, the modern 'self' has been left as a ground-up built belief that an internal describable entity exists. Modern psychotherapy and individualistic work very perilously hangs on that entity as a healing or generative function and it can be argued very easily that it is not recursion or logic or a category. It remains elusive and it is possible to break people's internal representation of their 'self', their belief it exists or their belief in it's structure. It was not a lie that 'you will not change your mind', there was no intent to deceive. That is the most information I had at the time with which to make a judgement. This is the second time you have made a dishonest interpretation of my text, it's disappointing to see. >But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? Who can say that I am or not? Are you me, am I you? For you to perceive the text that I write there is some representation of my actions and self inside your perceptions and self. The difference between internal and external is a fundamental sociological problem, I seek not to answer it. >I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. So you take no responsibility for spamming this thread with your proselytizing? The simple act of posting your opinion is proselytizing because you cannot control (in your view particularly) another's mind, for that word to have any meaning at all in this context. I seek the opportunity to make the arguments I believe are interesting and valid, someone who is closed off to that is a door I cannot open and explore. Also stop editing I've been trying to finish this for a while. >Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots. Big if.
  • ukj 7y ago
    >If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. I was not aware I was under attack, so I felt no need to defend myself. If you are attacking - let me know. > How does the purpose of the argument assist the conversation with someone who does not wish to share arguments? If you tell me what it is that you are trying to achieve by arguing it helps me help you get what you want. There may be a better way for you to get what you want. A way that doesn't require arguing. If all you want to do is argue - then I am not interested. >When Christianity left as the guiding belief structure, the modern 'self' has been left as a ground-up built belief that an internal describable entity exists. It remains elusive and it is possible to break people's internal representation of their 'self', their belief it exists or their belief in it's structure. If that is true and the "self" does not exist, then why do you keep using this meaningless word "I" ? > Who can say that I am or not? You can! >So you take no responsibility for spamming this thread with your proselytizing? I take responsibility for expressing myself using my words. I take no responsibility for changing your mind - that responsibility is yours entirely. If my words haven't changed your mind then I am not proselytizing. So...Do you think am I proselytizing or not?
    • friendlybus 7y ago
      >So...Do you think am I proselytizing or not? I think you're using the word poorly as a way to describe behaviour you don't like. >If that is true and the "self" does not exist, then why do you keep using this meaningless word "I" ? 'I' existed before the modern conception of self. >There may be a better way for you to get what you want. A way that doesn't require arguing. Argument In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements, called the premises or premisses, intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion. I'm going to stop. This isn't going anywhere. The meat of your content is to just ask back at me what I'm giving you. I don't want to spend time on that marginal value anymore, 6-8 comments is enough.
      • ukj 7y ago
        >The meat of your content is to just ask back at me what I'm giving you. You keep misunderstanding. Intentionally, I imagine (par for the Philosophical course). The meat of my content it: What do you want?