Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


/pss/ing away the days by Polly Segglepudge - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:05:45 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1532556345180.jpg -(37418B / 36.54KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37418
Why is it that the only two modes on /pss/ are:
>>Being blown out the ass by endless streams of tranny and helicopter ride baiting

or

>>Dead fucking silence

Are ennui and schadenfreude of such outsized value in our decadent collapsing imagewest that the only reason we can be arsed to slap our keyboards is if it hurts another miserable inhabitard? feelslikebatmantheanimatedseries
>>
John Webblestone - Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:35:12 EST ID:yG540JtQ No.209419 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1532633712551.jpg -(169747B / 165.77KB, 975x840) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209417 Well, for me its time, again. I don't have the time (most of the time) to write deeply.

Looking at the first page most of the recent threads don't fit the above mold anyway.
>>
Charlotte Demmlehork - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:58:18 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209419
>>don't fit the above mold anyway.
Do you agree with me now that this post is first of only three posts in the past 14 days?
>>
Barnaby Murdbanks - Thu, 06 Sep 2018 05:53:45 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209440 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1536227625646.png -(1050459B / 1.00MB, 716x796) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209428 Okay, well, yeah. For now...

muwhahahaha.
>>
Rebecca Tootfuck - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:20:07 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209417

because the people that were here 7 years ago who were solid for discussions not about someones most favvy recent political bullshittery are gone now and aren't going to come back.

i miss the proper philosophy on this board versus the posturing...
>>
Samuel Fancocke - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:39:11 EST ID:gE6qChct No.209462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is an imageboard for junkies. When people are high, they make some pretty far-fetched and random connections among their everyday thoughts, and probably go on long rants. Problem is, these connections remain even when their high is gone.

If they get high often (they do), then their worldview eventually becomes more and more similar to such far-fetched random connections. Proper students of philosophy don't think that way, they are usually either more analytical, or pull way more things together to form those connections. Neither of them finds any meaningful discussion with junkies who have far-fetched random connections, so eventually they stop posting, or leave the board entirely. We are left with the junkies who have 10+ boards they find themselves more comfortable on than this one. /ph/ gets renamed to /pss/. /ph/ dies.
>>
Augustus Buzzville - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:21:05 EST ID:JyDTI0YA No.209599 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209462
>proper students of philosophy don't get high
nb lel
>>
Ebenezer Brummlechedge - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:23:16 EST ID:iBSGcwPF No.209601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209462
I minored in Philosophy when I went to college 9 years ago. Students of philosophy aren’t analytical, they just memorize and regurgitate historically famous ideas. More often than not they’re hipsters and radicals. Critical thinking and analysis are not taught in academic philosophy; no, instead, you’re taught to see the world exactly how someone like Descartes would see the world.

Truth is, it’s extremely hard to find a person worth philosophizing with. Most people, almost everyone in the world, just doesn’t have what it takes to hold an intellectual conversation. You/they will disagree, but that’s only because you/they are dealing with unknown unknowns; you/they don’t know what you don’t know, but you/they know something, an extremely small amount of information, so you/they are more than willing to have an intellectual conversation that probably only covers like 5% of the facts relevant to a subject, and then you/they feel accomplished and intellectually stimulated when in reality not enough facts were brought to the table to have a real intellectual discussion.

For example, look as Ben Shapiro. He thinks he’s right about everything he talks about simply because he overlooks most of the facts and philosophies surrounding the subject. To a man like him, as long as one or two facts are present, his big, stupid ideas feel totally justified, because he’s but a simple man who is dealing with countless unknown unknowns.

Intellectual conversation and philosophizing, like any real HARD science, like the theory of gravity and etc, requires taking into account so many details and relevant facts, and the truth is that nobody does this, not even the professionals touting their PhDs. The bar for ‘philosophy’ is extremely low, just about as low as ‘sociology’; all SOFT sciences, all extremely flimsy and likely to be wrong due to simply having so many unknown unknowns.
>>
Caroline Chogglehotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:35:06 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209601
But no human knows everything, or all unknowns. So you've set your bar of 'intellectuality' so high that no humans can reach it, so you're essentially saying that philosophy isn't philosophy. But haven't you then done the same thing you're complaining about; taken a limited set of facts, knowing you don't and can't know all the relevant facts, and then generalized that to make a universal claim about many things which you admit you don't know? And don't you feel as accomplished and self-satisfied as your hypothetical opponent, because they didn't bring in the relevant facts to your discussion...but that means you also didn't bring in the relevant facts? They may know the very same things you do, but assume you don't because you don't mention them, and thus 'don't want to go over your head' ? You would look the same to them as they look to you.

All that besides, genuine intellectual discourse does occur, even if you haven't experienced it. You just need the two people involved to have the same level of expertise in the same field. If you would say that even that isn't truly intellectual, then I would submit that under your definition there are no intellectuals at all.
>>
Graham Wondletotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:45:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209601
>no, instead, you’re taught to see the world exactly how someone like Descartes would see the world.

What kind of shit minors did you follow if you just got formed into a Descartes 2.0?
>>
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:02:00 EST ID:EAaZgnMX No.209606 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209602
You make a decent point, and I absolutely take into account what you are saying, but your point really doesn't contradict my point, as I was talking about everyone debating, not just professionals/masters on the subjects being debated. And you know why I'm more interested in everyone and not just the professionals? Because everyone has power, everyone has a vote in things like Democracy, everyone matters, not just the most genius.

>Because no one knows everything, clearly no one can have an intellectual debate.
No, but they can at the very least pull together most of what humanity knows on a subject, in terms of scientific data or historical data, before espousing their strong opinions. As an example, let's say something has occured hundreds of times in history with varying outcomes, yet someone pulls one or two examples of a time a certain outcome occurred, and then they make a broad sweeping statement, like 'this always leads to that! Look at my real examples! This is fact and logic!'

>Genuine intellectual discourse does occur!
Yeah, it does, at the very highest level, like two CERN scientists having a discussion. But the common man? The arm-chair intellectual, aka like 99% of people arguing on the internet? Zero intellectual conversations in their entire lifetime of making opinionated posts, probably.

See, this is one of the very examples I was talking about; you have one take on the idea, and you've got this whole big opinion based on it. You did everything in your power to make a point, but that point is based on very few intellectual points; the idea that intellectual discourse happens somewhere, and the idea that there are possibly infinite unknown unknowns. But did you stop and think about anything I just said? If you did, your answer sure doesn't show it. Like, right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse, you're just trying to disprove my statement, and you found 2 tiny ideas you decided to hurl in that direction.
>>
Albert Dandlehood - Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:35:26 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209606
>>but your point really doesn't contradict my point
I wasn't necessarily trying to contradict you, as I mostly agree, but see you are near the edge of going too far, so wanted to provide a counterpoint. Likewise, a couple things to think about:

>>No, but they can at the very least pull together most of what humanity knows on a subject
Two reasons why that is happening to a less and less degree in modern society. One, most obviously, is specialization has reached a very intense inflection point. Specialization has been increasing since the dawn of civilization, but it has now been hundreds of years since the 'average' good education encompassed a breadth of the whole human intellectual sphere, and the world leader in the sciences could potentially be a master in almost all its spheres. The intellectual volume of civilization has so far surpassed the potential maximum and average volumes of the human mind that an increasingly narrow view, and the social consequences that come with it, might be seen as an inevitable consequence of growing complexity. The only outs to this are simplifying society (lowering the bar of what intellectual means so it can encompass more people) or enhancing human cognitive capacity (lifting the average to be able to encompass more of the full definition.)

The other thing is most people who talk about facts and logic are interested in neither. You're assuming most argumentation is in good faith, when in fact for most people it is a kind of social performance, not about investigating the truth. I just try to tell the difference and tune that shit out, myself.

>>Like, right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse
Wow, you got increasingly salty in that last paragraph, makes me want to reconsider my opening. Have you thought that you yourself provided nothing intellectual in your post about intellectuality, and so all I did was hold a mirror up to you in my previous post? You then projected it back at me, so here's another mirror for you, lets see if mr. intellectual can think his way out of this one.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.