Dude. You really think this block o’ text has an effect?
I write posts on the internet for my own amusement - I actually enjoyed organizing my thoughts and laying them out this way. I especially enjoyed the realization that the philosophical position that people should flee from their own senses is untenable (or at least extremely selfish) because it’s impossible for a person to do so without creating another conscious entity that doesn’t - so it’s impossible for all people to have done it. I like things that are absurd yet coherent.
If Machinaforce reads my post and states he gained something from it, then great! I like inceptioning ideas into people, it’s fun. If they instead rebut with a coherent counterargument, then neat! I like counterarguments. If he dismisses or ignores my post, then no big deal. If couldn’t have survived on the internet this long if I had to change minds and hearts with every post.
So as large and verbose as my post is, I feel no regret no matter what response it gets (if any). The writing of it was its own reward.
(Also, if your problem with the post is specifically that it’s a “block o’ text” with too many words for your taste, that would make your username rather ironic.)
If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy.
FWIW, I admired and enjoyed your post. (And agreed with it, too.)
Like superhero movies! 
We understand you perfectly well, based on the many identical threads you’ve started. In all the time here you’ve shown no sign of learning from these discussions, or even being willing to fully engage. It always falls back to “It’s all pointless” and frankly, shows you have no understanding of skepticism or any branch of philosophy.
You’re not going to get any significantly different responses until you actually demonstrate some interest in learning from these threads. IMHO, QuickSilver has summed up all of your threads pretty accurately. Your complaint is duly noted and dismissed.
No, you don’t understand the problem of skepticism. You say the Phyronnists have a belief about skepticism, that radical skepticism will allow you to avoid suffering. Why aren’t you skeptical of this belief?
When you imagine trying to implement their plan, as you understand it, you can’t avoid wondering if it will cause you suffering, rather than allow you to avoid suffering.
And you’re right about that, because no philosophical school will allow you to avoid the suffering you’re undergoing, because your obsessive mind is what causes your suffering, not the object of your obsession. I guess you’re lucky it’s philosophy, it could have been germs, or the Jews.
It’s totally your right on this, an anonymous messageboard. You keep spouting paragraphs and he’ll keep posting links. You and Machinaforce deserve each other.
I would argue that there’s more value in challenging Machinaforce his circular obsessiveness rather than feeding it. Not that he’ll ever hear that. But you don’t care about that anyway, so knock yourself out.
Dude, my username is "Word"Man not "Words"Man - I respect economy of thought and communication. You clearly don’t.
If you’d actually bothered to read my post rather than just whining about how scarily large it was, you would know that I was taking the idea of Pyrrhonic skepticism and ripping holes in it. This is called “engaging the discussion” - and attacking the source of the obsession is the exact opposite of feeding it.
On the other hand sitting around telling the OP that his threads are circular and pointless and that he’s a doodyhead is called “threadshitting” and does nothing to break any cycles he’s in.
I respect using enough words to communicate ideas with - even complicated ideas that require dozens of them. And all you’ve communicated to me is that any problems you had with my post are your damage, not mine.
This is the reply in regards to the honey bit:
Those who say that the Sceptics reject what is apparent have not, I think, listened to what we say. As we said
before, we do not overturn anything which leads us, without our willing it, to assent in accordance with a passive
appearance - and these things are precisely what is apparent. When we investigate whether existing things are such
as they appear, we grant that they appear, and what we investigate is not what is apparent but what is said about
what is apparent - and this is different from investigating what is apparent itself. For example, it appears to us
that honey sweetens (we concede this inasmuch as we are sweetened in a perceptual way); but whether (as far as the
argument goes) it is actually sweet is something we investigate - and this is not what is apparent but something
said about what is apparent.[
Thus, attending to what is apparent," says Sextus Empiricus, “we live in accordance with everyday observances, without holding opinions… These everyday observances seem to be fourfold, and to consist in guidance by nature, necessitation by feelings, handing down of laws and customs, and teaching of kinds of expertise.” It is therefore clear that the Pyrrhonist is the exact opposite of the skeptic who is constantly worried about the reality of his perceptions and is extremely pragmatic, concerning himself with his circumstances and not with holding opinions about the nature of experience.
Because from what the paper says in the beginning, their stance towards things seems to flow from logic. That since the methods by which we gather information are flawed that the logical thing is to withhold assent from doctrines about the nature of reality. I want to find something wrong with that line of reasoning, but it seems to make sense.
The notion that the only thing we have is our senses and that we have no idea of how reality “really is” outside of them (like how they say that objects change based in relation to others or that they appear large or small) is true. What I don’t get is how from that you have science going one way and these guys going the other direction.
I’m also wondering if people are reading the same thing I am in regards to these people. I know that not making beliefs and opinions doesn’t lead you anywhere. Their claim about laws and customs and to follow them is odd, since how else do those come about by beliefs and opinions.
I would liken pyrrhonism to a parasite. Only it feeds off the very thing it criticizes, but left on its own it fails miserably.
Are you not skeptical regarding logic?
Now you’re starting to get it.
“Doctor, it hurts when I do this.”
“Don’t do that.”
You’re right, we have ample proof that Machinaforce is engaging sincerely and open to change. :rolleyes:
He simply doesn’t change, which is why there are links to so many other Machinaforce threads that are just like this. Circular, obsessive sophistry.
You’ve already stated that you’re just having fun spouting. Machinaforce’s circular obsessive sophistry just gets you another whack at the tether ball. That’s all I hear: the sound of whacking.
Complicated ideas are worthy when they are pointed in worthy directions. Tackling his issues and links head on is feeding his beast - show us, how, in this case, that is worthy or been worthy in the countless other MF threads. I have started plenty of philosophy threads where I and many other Dopers wax on for blocks of texts. That is not the point here.
We are not discussing my damage, we are discussing Machinaforce’s OP, and my assertion that dancing his dance is not philosophy. I thought our motto was Fighting Ignorance, not Enabling Obsessviveness.
Trinopus - “Then don’t do that” is at the core of every attempt to get Machinaforce on a healthier path, yes? Managing one’s thoughts - learning those techniques and processes so you “don’t do that” - are at the heart of every philosophical system. How has MF responded to comments in that direction?
Yes, that’s a reply. But it doesn’t tell me what troubles you, with regard to it.
That’s the whole point, right? You’re posting because something about that approach troubles you? You said it seems like a detachment from life?
And this reply says – what? That such folks say “it appears to us that honey sweetens (we concede this inasmuch as we are sweetened in a perceptual way)”. And that they “live in accordance with everyday observances” by “attending to what is apparent”.
Picture the least detached guy that you can imagine: wouldn’t he attend to what’s apparent, while living in accordance with everyday observances and enjoying the sweetness of honey? If you hear that he goes in for “teaching of kinds of expertise”, would you be a bit surprised? How about if you heard that the guy who wasn’t detached also wasn’t all that troubled – what would follow?
I’m sorry you don’t understand or want to hear the answer to your endless self-obsessed ponderous dithering on the meaning of it all. But therapy is your best and most likely answer. I don’t expect you to heed that advice. But the lack of understanding does not lie with my observations and conclusion.
Step 6.
Q.E.D.
Hardly at all. He doesn’t appear to be listening to anyone, and repeats his themes ad nauseam.
But I agree with begbert2: I comment to engage with the person and the ideas when possible, but also just to express myself, and yet also for third parties who may be reading. begbert2’s post succeeded in getting my attention, and approval. He wasn’t wasting his time, because someone read what he said and “got it.”
There are different ways of “succeeding” at the games we play here on the SDMB.
Since you ignore posts with arguments against the philosophy you cut and paste, I think this kind of post is quite appropriate.
Man, I enjoy expressing myself on the 'Dope, too. I start threads when I need to - I don’t feed someone’s obsessive beast in a circle-jerk thread.
I enjoy your posts. You really think this thread fights Machinaforce’s ignorance? Or that some connection with begbert makes this worthwhile? Really?
I fucking hate it when Philosophy is just masturbation. We should think hard for good reasons. Machinaforce sets up poorly thought-out scenarios and refuses to acknowledge attempts to engage him. I call bullshit - and that is not the same as threadshitting.
I submit that the OP question is only answerable in ways that the OP refuses to acknowledge. His endless tail chasing is my cite. How is that threadshitting? Own the OP, Machinaforce - you set up the question, I am speaking to it. Answer it directly. How should Managing One’s Thoughts factor into how one approaches philosophical questions?
No, and yes, respectively. What can I say? I liked begbert2’s post.
You’re certainly right in that this is all pretty much a waste of time…but so many of the threads here on the SDMB are that. The next time “free will” or “the Star Trek Transporter” or even “.999…” comes up, I’ll be in there slugging.
To very loosely paraphrase Gomez Addams, “They say that a man who does the same thing over and over hoping for a different result is insane. And, with God as my witness, I am exactly that insane!”
The difference with the free will or transporter questions is that they’re just perennial favourites for shooting the breeze in harmless fun.
Nobody’s ever sent me PMs after a transporter thread, strongly hinting they wanted to top themselves if I couldn’t make life make sense for them, is what I’m saying.
Just so you understand who you’re dealing with, here.