schopenhauer1

The Dread Scott case in 1857, whereby ironically, the states rights of the North were infringed if their laws recognized the slaves as free citizens.....

No, you can answer if you'd like, but it was quoting @"Wayfarer" but the way the quoting works, I quoted from a quote he quoted, and so it only refere...

A lot to unpack there.. nice post.. but looking at the quotes there, I see a subtle shift of focus from Wittgenstein's argument which is not about phi...

Ok, I will say, you have been a good sport, and even gracious in this reply, being the title of this thread.... I think you have some valid points.. I...

@"Wayfarer" Monk says here: No, this seems just wrong too. This makes Wittgenstein sound like a neutral figure regarding how to use language, but it i...

Hey I just got to this paper you posted, thanks.. But this seems real ironic..as Tractatus baldly has various "technical terms" that he (doesn't clear...

:up: Here is the thread.. Feel free to comment.. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15218/wittgenstein-and-how-it-elicits-asshole-tendencies

Gotcha, I realized that after, but you also inspired me to write a whole other thread that I think is important in regards to Witt, and I'm sure you'v...

Eh, for some it seems to be solely about the author's perspective. Perhaps this comes from how I approach most philosophy, which is jumping off points...

I'll tell ya.. It bothered/perplexed me that much that I had to point it out.. I saw the Shoutbox as the best option...Why? What does it mean? What th...

Not quite.. But rather this would be a better formulation of the objectionable argumentation: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905765

It is precisely this kind of self-referential back-patting that I am refuting. That his adherents make it frustrating to disagree with doesn't to me, ...

All great points along the lines I was thinking.. I think it actually informs and is informed by my articulation of the (same) problem you are discuss...

:up:

I invite you to the above comment as well... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905765

But this is part my frustration with him/reading him perhaps. If he is providing, not definitive claims but a methodology, one can always claim about ...

How many times can one philosopher have the glory of being saved by Appeal to Misunderstanding? Is that academic philosophy now? Is that this debate f...

@"BitconnectCarlos" I gotta ask, what’s the deal with the Russian little person with dreads as your profile pic?

What happens if it’s just a sugar pill painted red?

See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905680

:lol:

No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. My point is, war itself is a sort of absurdity, because it means death and destru...

Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? Should for example, it have been legitimate to make ...

:lol: The Talmud of Wittgenstein. Damn, I got the title of my new book deal. But your point oddly "shows" Wittgenstein's point that the usage of the l...

Oddly, it's like reading a bunch of reasons for a premise that isn't there. I can make that into whatever I want.. And that is indeed a problem. And I...

Have you read any Schopenhauer? I couldn't think of a better philosopher that presents an exact counter to your claim that existence is inherently goo...

@"jkop" What do you take that to indicate?

But what is this "war"? What is "war"? It is not something that an individual can have... Do you think war is can be legitimate? Tacitly saying that w...

So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they ...

I could be wrong but, I don’t think Schop makes the distinction between Thing in Itself and noumenal. For schop Will is Thing itself is Noumena…howeve...

And thank ye kind sir.

@"180 Proof" Nice quote there! I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion, not to mention Schopenhauer..

Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? The intent is not to kill civilians, but the outcome...

This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between st...

I don’t mind being ignorant. I know nothing. But hate/gate keeping and elitism are often part of the Wittgenstein social landscape, and that’s unaccep...

Edited more there @"Josh"

I had a long response, but after reading over @"Antony Nickles" post again, I can see that he isn't being overly forceful with the fandom (taking the ...

I think he is good-intestioned, not malicious but if my critiques of a philosopher could never get beyond the philosopher in question, I don’t know wh...

Bombing of terrorists you mean. One is a reaction of self-defense, the other is to attack in the first place, causing the defensive reaction.

I see what you did there :smirk:. Why does Nickles post seem exactly like an example of what I’m talking about (like using more Wittgenstein to prove ...

As I stated above:

Right, ok, we agree that the NT isn't the most reliable source. However, I think as you are implying, we can take certain kernels of the historical pe...

It's not the scenario per se.. You also realize the synoptic gospels build off each other.. Matthew and Luke and Thomas have a common Q, for example. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus htt...

Do we have to take the gospel as gospel? See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905403

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions? Clearly go...

Is this according to the NT or deconstructed? You realize the NT is selling a narrative, not history right? That Biblical and early Christian scholars...

I think it wrong on the face of it, as the world can't exist without a knower/known (pace Schopenhauer). If value is imputed by the knower, the knower...

Well, I was being cheeky there.. I was not in favor of the bits and pieces, science thing :smile:.

:up: If you can't be useful to technology and science, best be dogmatic about philosophies that only focus on the bits and pieces, and not the whole I...