dimreepr

Morality is generally judged by what we can get away with at the time, it's like a spouse that loses their partner before the horror of understanding their humanity; they're forever a Saint, despite their humanity... Is that ironic? Or is that the excuse?

That's the problem, it's not a problem; the answer is 42, what's the question?

What problem? I have read it all and I stand by my posting, there is no conflict between us, you just don't know how to answer my questions. Listen to this, as opposed to reading it; it may give you a little understanding of the difference between our approach to comprehension. Where does hate stand in a philosophical argument? Can I driver there?

It is for them, philosophically it's about asking ourselves question's; it's kinda like morality, what can I get away with, if they don't speak the lingo...

This reminds me of Will self, trying to describe Einstein's block universe; trying to compress 3D into 2D is easy, we do it every day with a map, we can do it in 4D but only individually, i.e. x and y is the map and z is the time spent in each portion of the map.

That's exaclty why you're wrong, philosophy isn't about a school of thought it's about the nature of thought. Simply put, a school is to teach a child how to live in this culture; a graduate of philosophy question's, why this culture? This certainly means you don't understand what he means in that quote. I published my assumption just to confirm your meaning, now that you have, it's no longer an assumption... 😉 Indeed, money is no substitute for actual friends...

It's often the only explanation that work's.

By tribalistic I'm assuming you mean a philosopher's tendency to cite previous philosophical thinking to bolster their arguments? A PHD is awarded to those that extend our knowledge and understanding, and there's a bloody good chance that Wittgenstein wouldn't have a clue about what a modern philosopher is talking about; but he would understand why you're wrong "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein"

You could ask for clues, which is kinda the point of cryptically; not my fault that you don't understand the language...

I do indeed, you don't understand 'the point'...

And we're back to Nietzcher and what you want to discover/believe, that's a lot of page's to end up believing in something a Mormon might...

I don't speak the languge, do you?

Maths is a more precise language, that allows the language speaker's to argue more precisely; but not all scientist's speak the language fluently enough to understand the argument. Philosophy is like mathematics in many way's, other than the likelihood of the people that don't understand the math to disagree with a simple arithmetical sum versus the people faced with a simple philosophical argument spoken in pigeon English...

Why not? All of your word's were a critique of the op, which I did in my first reply with many less word's. I was wondering if you had something for us to discuss. Bc I read very slowly and have a limited time to indulge in the practise, I thought it was a reasonable request; but if you've got nothing to add to my 1st post, then I'm glad I didn't waste my time, reading all those unnecessary word's.

It certainly gives you an excuse to not answer my question... 🙄

Essentially, it's like being free to think what you want; without an idiot savant, telling you what comma would convey more/better, better. Either way the result is the same, we eliminate the less/better, better...

Which part specifically and why?

Firstly, he isn't going to reply. But you've put a lot words into your effort and I've got a short attention span; so if you want an answer, would you be so kind as to summarise your main point, and we'll go from there. 🙂

Philosophy is about judging things objectively, digging into ones soul and eliminating our 'humanity' and the biases within, in order to evaluate the information available; in many respects it demands even more rigor, than some scientists are prepaired to pay... 😣

Great post +1, it reminds me of the vaccine argument; some science went wrong 'somehow' 'once upon a time' therefore we should suffer 'small pox' bc chicken pox isn't that bad... 🤒

Exactly <sarcasm> and the irony is the icing on the cake... 🙄

From a philosophical POV, it's your responsibility to transfer your understanding to other's via metaphor's and analogue's and etc. It's also your responsibility to defend your ideas, with arguments that are understood by your interlocutor; not just demands of correctness because you thought it. It's a difficult skill to acquire, hence the very small number of notable exponents at the highest level of talent... 😉

That doesn't make it right...

What you lack is the proficiency for making other's believe what you do... OTOH Einstein was very good at explaining his idea to virtual idiots...

What is it you think, you understand better?