Victor Pross

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Victor Pross

  • Rank
    busted for plagiary

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Victor Pross
  • Articles
    Follow the Leader!, Caricature of Lindsay Perigo The Hungry Artist The Hungry Artist - Chapter 1 Lenny Bruce: A First Amendment Hero! Caricature: Exploring the Light Side Caricature: Exploring the Dark Side A Simple, Simple Philosophy of Love and Appreciation The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life Objectivist Romantics, Individualism and Selfish Relationships Humor, Satire and Caricature in Visual Art: It’s a Serious Matter Art and a Sense of Life The Hatred of Objectivism is the Hatred of Objectivity Objectivism amidst the Modern Anti-reason Climate The Age of SO WHAT?

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Brant, Repeat: The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all. The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER. -V-
  3. Victor, You are right about favoritism. I have played favoritism in your favor for far too long. I am not trying to groom you. I tried to give you space to catch your breath from the attacks and learn. Bottom line. It doesn't matter anymore. I want you to stop plagiarizing on my site. Michael Michael, THIS post is not an example. Period. I am talking about the last chapter in OPAR, breaking down to the core what that chapter talks about--and you know that! And whatever my snotty attitude about this merely being a chat-room, I would never--ever--plagiarize when it comes to professionally pub
  4. THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR Michael, Couched with the far reaching twisting of exonerating Dragonfly (when all else fell into silence) your post shifts from hand-slapping to become a critique in writing and formulation as such. (“Victor does not usually use the word ‘virulent’’”) And then you complain about the esthetics. WTF! The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all. The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER. In is a condescend snap-snot of a chapter in OPAR) for discussion.
  5. :bug: Dragonfly: “It is now some 20 years ago I read the complete works by Flaubert, so my memory is a bit vague, but I recall that I found Madame Bovary one of his best works. One of the contributing factors….” [The fly goes on the spew, and then in the next post, loveable Kori asked]: Dragonfly, Where'd you get that information, uh? Born with innate knowledge, were we? To which the reply was: From Souvenirs littéraires by Maxime du Camp. Kori again follows up: Why not credit that source initially? And then….silence. Shhhh, don’t say anything. Hee-hee! You godda love the double standards.
  6. Will, Ah, the school hallway monitor needs to get his two-cents in. I need to figure out that ‘ignore’ feature on this chat-room. Yes, a chat-room it is. (That's not an insult, that's what it is). And for the record, I never claimed that the argument against universal skepticism is mine. It is, to use Danny boy’s words, an “old argument.” I stated it has been argued by many. And even now, in my exchange with Danny, I have used that arguement. Try to pay attention. And if you are up to it, would you do another photoshop ‘caricature’ of me? I loved the first one. :turned: Edit: Plus, I don’t
  7. Tootsie, it takes a certain kind of artist who is willing to expose his naked soul in either art or a memoir, and you can’t really ask this of James. But sure, I would love to see something like this. Speaking of that, I am writing yet another “autobio” installment for Icons and Idols: How I survived Art School. It is rather funny, I think.
  8. In the effort to untangle the webs of your epistemological stance, it comes out sounding convoluted, granted. And when your glaring contradictions come out from the shadows, you engage in witless cracks and 'humor' to distract attention from this. But my argument at the end of the day is only this: you are claiming a positive truth in regards to whatever epistemological position you take—skeptical, religious, innate, contextual…or whatever else. That is all.
  9. I recall you made this remark to Prime, but I would have to search for it. But, meanwhile, what have ye to say here and now? You are a not "100% skeptic"? edit: You said: "....just so we can retire this naiive line of argument once and for all - skepticism is itself not 100% certain! It may, in fact, turn out to be false. Thus we can hold it without falling into logical error." Well, granted, it is worded differently than I recalled it. But I would like to know how you know that skepticism is not 100% certain--and you do say it IS not 100% certain. Ah, the contradictions of it all!
  10. This is not desperation, but a valid point. Anybody who holds a specific and general stance in epistemology (even the skeptic’s) regards that stance as ‘truth’—even if he claims that he may be wrong about that! Seriously though, tell me this, why should you…or Popper, or any thinker—or anybody for that matter—struggle to develop suppositions, ideas, constructs (whatever) in epistemology? I mean, for what? For naught? What is at the end of this path? The absolute certainty that we know nothing? Er, I mean, for the hypothesis that we can know knowing? Why? To what end is this? And what the he
  11. You are plumping for 'never', huh. Humor as a distraction. Very good. ;] But I do get it. Sounds like universal skepticism to me: We can never know. Is that it? BUT then on other posts you claim that you are not a “100% skeptic.” If you make up your mind for this latter one, flip-flop, then it means certain knowledge is possible, eh? :whistle:
  12. Truth claims, obviously, can only be true. <Yes, this is the ever elusive garnish that is being employed to distract that the fallacy of the Stolen Concept is at hand. (Yeah, yeah, to use the Randian term). Alas, it still remains a positive statement in regards to the nature of knowledge. You are claiming a truth! You can't escape this conclusion. Every time a skeptic (depending on the species of skepticism we have at hand) sticks in self-contradicting foot in his mouth, but he wishes to slouch off his positive epistemological principles as—some how, by the grace of magic fairy polemist
  13. Are you positively sure? (Oh, that CLASSIC argument comes around full-circle again!): Are you sure? Get it! Get it! Danny boy: ...."But even if we did have it, we can never finally prove, and thus finally know, that it is the absolute truth. We could NEVER, NEVER...bla, bla, bla. Sounds like a positive statement to me.
  14. Mark, We have all heard the bromides “life is too short” and “this is not a dress rehearsal” and each cliché is meant to underscore the message of how brief and precious life is---and sometimes the extreme is taken where one is exhorted to live everyday “as if it were one’s last”—which could have profound ethical ramifications if carried out to its logical conclusion. Seriously though—life is too short. Life’s relatively epigrammatic span, for some people, renders it meaningless. “What’s the point?” they ask. “It’s all going to come to an end”. This is a state of mind I have never been symp
  15. Victor:>THIS is an orginal counter-argument?? Dan the man: No I said it was an old argument. You don't seem to know the difference between...Bla, bla, bla... Danny boy! Oh, I see. It's an OLD argument. NOT yours? Hmm, I see. The argument against universal skepticism is, as I have said, "classic" and has been argued by many people. Why not? The argument is sound. And by the way, you know very little of the history of skepticism---that much is clear. They are making a positive claim, not a 'hypothtical' claim. Give me break, and argue against what it is actually about, son of Hume. :turne