3 ms·
> So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger. > You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idea
by namaria 3y ago
> So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger.
> You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism.
You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics.
I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why I didn't want to go down this road. Thanks for dragging me.
> your viewpoint is well over 200 years old
Hate to break this to you but the ideas I'm talking about are well over 3000 years old. Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.
- zoogeny 3y ago> Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition. Perhaps, yet how would you know if you refuse to engage with it? I'm not sure how to respond when someone insists on remaining ignorant of alternative viewpoints and then suggests that any attempt to point out relevant arguments against their position is victimizing them.
- namaria 3y agoSo refusing to engage with you and your readings is refusing to engage at all with the subject and insisting on ignorance? I saw the self importance a mile away and I said I wanted none of it. Like I said, I dislike German philosophers verbosity and I'm getting to dislike its fans' self importance. edit: you've called my ideas half baked, you've called me ignorant. it's pretty clear to me now you just wanted to play vocabulary ping pong with dead man's ideas to feel smart. I pretty much intuited it, and regretted every engagement with you so far.