Philosohers are Not Perfect!

[syrakusos]

Thus spake Melqart Moloch:

Philosophers claim to be interested in the pursuit of truth, even of ultimate truth. But they all have erred! Yes!! Look at their lives!

Not one philosopher has lived up to their own standards! Epitectus was once rude to a Thracian! Pythagoras was seen eating beans!! (... and we all know about Wittgenstein, eh?... I mean Turing was one of his (ahem) "students" ... well... that might be excusable on RoR or SoloPassion, but I expect that everyone here will be LIVING TRUE OBJECTIVISM or else you must admit that you are wrong!)

So, let me tell you about Newton. He claimed to be an "alchemist" (even while denying it, a clear contradiction) but his Trial of the Pyx was off by many thousand parts per thousand compared to the standard gold plate assayed before his taking over the Mint. So!!! What does that say?!? Well, how come no one who claims to actually use Newton's physics does not admit to his questionable "relationship" with is half step niece once removed on his mother's side!!??!! I demand to know!!!

And while we are on the subject of perfection, let me ask you: Was Ayn Rand perfect? Well, was she!?! See, you dare not answer. Well, I have the answer! She was NOT. Do you hear me? AYN RAND WAS NOT PERFECT BY HER OWN OBJECTIVIST STANDARDS THAT SHE HERSELF DEFINED.

Ayn Rand once explained her philosphy while standing on one foot.

Would John Galt do that?

No.

So, I demand that you all respect me as being greater than Ayn Rand.

Sincerely Yours,

Melqart Moloch

Edited December 22, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[Chris Grieb]

This last post is by an envy ridden whim worshipper.

And his or her mother wears combat boots!

Edited December 22, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Barbara Branden]

I'm shocked, Michael. Shocked, I say! Everyone knows that philosophers owe it to the rest of us to be perfect, and would not dream of letting us down. After all, living well is so simple and the problems life presents us with are so easy to overcome, that there can be no possible excuse for anything less than perfection. I'm perfect, as is well known, so why shouldn't everyone else be perfect?

Barbara

[Selene]

I'm shocked, Michael. Shocked, I say! Everyone knows that philosophers owe it to the rest of us to be perfect, and would not dream of letting us down. After all, living well is so simple and the problems life presents us with are so easy to overcome, that there can be no possible excuse for anything less than perfection. I'm perfect, as is well known, so why shouldn't everyone else be perfect?

Barbara

Yes. Just as shocked as Claude Raines was! When I watched, from the side of the room near the podium, you folks at the large NBI openings each year, I was impressed with the discipline and clarity of the presentations.

Watching the audience of newcomers desparately eager faces, I began to become concerned about what was going to happen when one of you got enmeshed in something that would be spun for each sides immediate advantages.

Therefore, I was able to go through the break without being deflected by all the turmoil.

Having just come back into where the movement is currently, and only on this forum, I am now amazed that this issue is even still being discussed.

As usual, great post.

[Dragonfly]

I'm shocked, Michael. Shocked, I say! Everyone knows that philosophers owe it to the rest of us to be perfect, and would not dream of letting us down.

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant looks so innocent, but did you know that he's responsible for the holocaust? It's all the result of his malevolent plotting to destroy humanity!

[william.scherk]

I'm shocked, Michael. Shocked, I say! Everyone knows that philosophers owe it to the rest of us to be perfect, and would not dream of letting us down.

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant looks so innocent, but did you know that he's responsible for the holocaust? It's all the result of his malevolent plotting to destroy humanity!/quote]

Far worse that even you can imagine. I am not only shocked, but HORRIFIED. Horrified to realize, upon insistent coaching, that the Spawn of Kant have metastasized, have infected every single Philosophy Department in North America, and have forced out Reason entirely.

No science is safe from these hideous minions. I have seen this prophesized, nay, verily.

I am reading again my tattered copy of Return of the Primitive, by the flickering embers of a destroyed civilization, and the prophecies of Fr. Schwartz have come true in every instance!

Women's Lib, Communist Takeover, the last staggering steps of Capitalism . . . and America on her knees, besieged by enemies within and without.

With our Pope under guard in Orange County, in the demon's lair. And so it came to pass . . . soon, we will be forced to choose whether to feed the fire with our campaign contributions to Rudolf the graft-nosed Giuliani, or to perish in the Yawning Abyss.

Hark! Hark! Verily!

[With apologies to the true Prophet Joseph Smith, um, Mitt Romney, um, Diana Hsieh, er, um Mike HUCKABEE . . . er . . .]

Edited December 22, 2007 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant [...].

I've read somewhere -- don't remember where -- that he was considered a desirable dinner-party guest, being affable, urbane, and an interesting conversationalist. If this report is true, makes him still-more diabolical, I suppose, truly Tooheyesque.

E-

___

[BaalChatzaf]

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant [...].

I've read somewhere -- don't remember where -- that he was considered a desirable dinner-party guest, being affable, urbane, and an interesting conversationalist. If this report is true, makes him still-more diabolical, I suppose, truly Tooheyesque.

E-

___

What evil did I.K. do? He nearly had his head handed to him for advocating freedom of conscience and he was a cheerleader for the American Revolution. His worst mistake was the Synthetic A Priori, hardly a capital offense. Newton accepted Space and Time as synthetic a priori judgments as well. He believed in absolute time and space without an empirical support for either. Do we burn Newton at the stake too? There is a better solution: pay more attention to Hobbes and Hume.

The after effects of Aristotle, if anything were worse (like holding up real science for over a thousand years). What was Aristotle's worst offense. He didn't check his conclusions empirically or he didn't check them as thoroughly as he should have. Do we send Aristotle to the stake along with Kant. And recall (as I have shown in another post) that Aristotle anticipated Kant in making consciousness primary.

So I.K. was a sought after post prandial speaker in Koenisberg (now Kalinin). So what?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's worse than you think. Such a quiet (and probably a bit boring) man like Immanuel Kant [...].

I've read somewhere -- don't remember where -- that he was considered a desirable dinner-party guest, being affable, urbane, and an interesting conversationalist. If this report is true, makes him still-more diabolical, I suppose, truly Tooheyesque.

E-

___

What evil did I.K. do? [....]

[....]

So I.K. was a sought after post prandial speaker in Koenisberg (now Kalinin). So what?

Bob, did you take my comment as meant seriously as charging Kant with being Tooheyesque? Did you read the posts prior to mine? I would think the sarcasm in the sequence is obvious.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, did you take my comment as meant seriously as charging Kant with being Tooheyesque? Did you read the posts prior to mine? I would think the sarcasm in the sequence is obvious.

I am literal minded on principle. I always read other folk's stuff as written, unless plainly marked as sarcasm or satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Bob, did you take my comment as meant seriously as charging Kant with being Tooheyesque? Did you read the posts prior to mine? I would think the sarcasm in the sequence is obvious.

I am literal minded on principle. I always read other folk's stuff as written, unless plainly marked as sarcasm or satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Then you don't need a brain. All you need is a computer that can read English and spit out canned replies. But seriously, how can one be creative with such an attitude?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The secret to understanding Bob is to not take him literal minded.

Michael