Kierkegaard and his Christian philosophy.
What about it? . . .
Did you take a class in communication from John Cleese? That’s not reference to your ancestry, just your style.
I certainly did. As a stage actor I was likened to him.
“Internet trolls are people who want to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement.”
Where’s the projection, pray tell.
Troll is as troll does! Your commenting record speaks for itself.
Any amusement is incidental and in chagrin, sad. All I want from you/@write4u is substance in your own words, for you to give account of your claims on a website inspired by that quest.
But as usual, this is a chaos sink, not a source. It closes down inquiry.
My first hit on that was “Kohler” and then also “Lowes”. I assume you mean “sink” in the sense of swirling down, drawn down below the surface, kind of way. And that this forum is just chaos, sinking. Well, what did you expect on the internet? It’s full of scholarly articles, but if you want to engage those authors in discussion, they kind of like you to also be a scholar. This is the cocktail party, after the lecture, where us regular folks, dressed up in our best suits, stand around eating tiny cakes and cut-up fruit and say what we think about what we heard.
You should talk. When you finally did provide a website or your “quest”, it was a 140-year-old economic theory that no one ever took seriously.
Yeah
Milton Friedman
Elbert Hubbard
Aldous Huxley
Upton Sinclair
George Bernard Shaw
Leo Tolstoy
Bertrand Russell
Josiah Wedgewood
Winston Churchill
Joshua Nkomo
William F. Buckley Jnr.
Theodore Herzl
Roger Babson
Clarence Darrow
and somebody called
Albert Einstein
notwithstanding.
Scholarly articles screeded on with a trowel isn’t saying what one thinks. Trashing philosophy without knowing anything about Kierkegaard isn’t thinking.
Pronoun confusion. I wasn’t talking about Kierkegaard. I said I wasn’t going to take the bait on that trolling.
I’m talking about the economic guy, the one who said we should tax all the land ownership. You linked to that. You didn’t link to Kierkegaard, you just said his name. In my cocktail party analogy, you’re the guy who drops names of dead philosophers, hoping no one will challenge your reference.
That’s like saying, I didn’t get the Rorschach test, because I didn’t give your answer.
Besides, not all of us are so lucky as to live the coddled life that enables some to spend endless hours sitting and catching up on all the great thoughts of philosophers, men with their endless self-glorifying, “intellectualized” rhetorical diarrhea.
Most of us have to spend our lives working full-time plus and, dare I say, the deeper thinkers among us wrestle with the age old “deep questions” within the context of living our lives, confronting the realities of being a human, having to defend for one self and lots of introspective thinking and with only limited doses from the Great Thinkers.
What does, pray tell, Kierkegaard have to offer me? For crying out loud he couldn’t even acknowledge his own mother - so another damaged child made good by ignoring his own real demons and wallowing within rhetoric about other things.
I’m sure he’s got some golden nuggets, but he never gets close to recognizing humans as evolved creature. Nor the lesson that our world is here because of Evolution happening, one day at a time, through Deep Time. None stop yammering about the origins of our mind, yet zero recognition that Earth biosphere quite literally created us. It never even enters his mind, instead it a lot of trivial and showing off about the great beyond, while ignoring what’s in front of our noses.
So what good is Kierkegaard?
It’s probably a philosophical question, so no answer can be hoped for.
Sure Martin Peter-Clarke you can wallow in your own sense of superiority,
but when it come to actually relating or helping another human, you seem useless. Your attitude and trollish clipped offerings are for affect, Your responses are algorithm driven, what do you know of humanity?
I, we, can’t help forming quasi-impressions ( 
) of people we deal with in this discussion forum. I can easily imagine, Mriana, Lausten, write4U, Mrmhead and others that come through here, being handed a friend’s little baby, and knowing what to do in the moment, perhaps intimidated for lack of experience, but still they’d be a wondrous recognition of this little being, with a ripple of love coursing through their living spirit.
But you M? There I sense one of those emotional recoil happen, “take it away” - then a joke about bringing it back in few years when it can walk and talk.
You want to ridicule me for connecting the dots of billions of years worth of Earth’s Evolution (with a rich story before and after), with human thinking and human denial of real facts?
Buddy. perhaps you are the one that doesn’t get it.
Our human consciousness very literally reaches back to the Cambrian over half a billion years ago. That has a bearing on who we are. Philosophy never seems to get past the façade of the MAN and our particular brain. Totally f’n dismissive of the hundred of billions of years of development and advancement happening and creating who we are.
CONSCIOUSNESS is a WAVE rushing forward in time.
Only the living possess consciousness and to be so blind, as to not see its reflection in the creatures and biosphere around us, is beyond me.
Consciousness is the inside reflection of a creature interacting with itself and its environment.
Martin first you need to connect those dots before you can take me to task for placing ATTP’s bit about society wide willingness to ignore real facts onto the “Humanist” board.
Stop yapping and start producing.
Sir, it wasn’t you trashing philosophy and displaying ignorance of Kierkegaard’s singular methods of dialogue. My apologies for that ambiguity.
I’m certainly that guy, but that’s not my hope. If I drop a name, I would have you know that I will have wikied it. I may even have a book on my shelf. As is the case with Henry George. He whom that list of nobodies took seriously. As do contemporary, leading British radicals. I think David Lloyd George should be on it too. I’m far too insecure to drop a name I nothing of but from a fortune cookie.
I took 2 minutes out of my life to figure out what you are referring to Martin. Write4u posted a Carlin video, then you replied three days later with your Kierkegaard reference. No one knows what you are trying to say, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s knowledge of Kierkegaard.
A reference to the post that the response addresses is always helpful, especially when there are multiple posters . Without a reference it’s hard to keep things separated.
Wow. I mean, I didn’t actually do acid in the 60s. But, you know?
Hope you’re enjoying yourself.
Not for much longer I suspect. With the moderation of Damocles hanging by a thread over me.
Whereas others can spawn screeds of irrelevance on to Walrus and Carpenter questions; pre-emptive trolling with unexaminable claims.
That’s pretty much all forums everywhere. I don’t remember giving you any warnings. If I did, they were long enough ago that they don’t apply.
I have, as a member, asked you to clarify. Me not understanding you is not a reason to delete your account. Quite the opposite.
1 Like
This is a good example of one of your references. The moral of that story is that with power comes responsibility. A good moral, but your reference to the story, and it hanging over you doesn’t fit. A moderator is not a king, and you aren’t the moderator, and we didn’t switch places. I may have tasted of the grape a few times when I was younger, but I’m no Dionysus either. If I were to ask what you meant, I would not be asking as a moderator
1 Like
More word salad.
It must play well within your own mindscape - but expecting other to following your convoluted internal dialogue is expecting a bit much.
Is that really all Evolution means to you?
Do some home work, then lets see if you can come back with a response, or challenge, that possesses a bit of substance.
So, get this,
Martin is telling us,
he does not recognize the difference between serious science and philosophy.
The Martin goes silent.
It’s easy to call things “unexaminable claims” when one refuses to do any examination - let alone any rational, good-faith critique of what you’ve been offered.