| What an auspicious return of yours, there... |
 |
| This is truly the most current of events. |
 |
| Watch Serial Experiments Lain. |
| I definitely have superpowers. I can feel it in my balls. |
| That is far too convoluted, many words are redundant and it doesn't actually say much. For fuck's sake it's 4am. I tried to make it clearer (no, really). |
InfiniteNov 10, 2012 2:29 AM
| Very wordy, you use high context words not for the sake of efficiency, but to make your dialogue more "profound" sounding. In my opinion, reduce what doesn't need to be said, streamline what you mean to say so that it is understandable; essentially as mentioned above, it is convoluted. Somethings sound like they would be deep thought, but your unconscience is really called your sub-conscience. There are simple but sometimes obvious mistakes like that which seem to give me the idea, there are some holes within the greater understanding of the topic. Also as a saying goes, "people use too many words with little meaning, but the wise use little words, but with great meaning." |
Ginko13Nov 9, 2012 8:40 PM
| This essay is unfocused, rambling, like a drunk man stumbling around in a dark path. If I'm right in that it simply wants to describe objective reality, it could be done concisely like this: I said: Something exists objectively when it is there even without being observed, therefore an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. There... the entire OP in one sentence. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Can someone get me a TL;DR version? EDIT: Nevermind, IR's was good enough. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
Ginko13 said: Very wordy, you use high context words not for the sake of efficiency, but to make your dialogue more "profound" sounding. In my opinion, reduce what doesn't need to be said, streamline what you mean to say so that it is understandable; essentially as mentioned above, it is convoluted. Also as a saying goes, "people use too many words with little meaning, but the wise use little words, but with great meaning." You would do well to heed this person's advice. And its some pretty sound advice too. |
| I had my philosophy friend take a look at this, well, he had quite a bit to say, here's him shortening it down to 7 points; 1) Good pieces of writing on Philosophy do not need to be complicated. Like the people here thought, you were using 'philosophically pseudo-intellectual buzzwords' just to sound clever. 2) You make many logical jumps and contradictions. Not even that, you can't even coherently link two points together without losing your original point in a sea of, I'm going to be generous enough to call this 'rhetoric'. 3) Your attempt to link the nearly incomparable areas of thought: epistemology (theory of knowledge) and political theory ('society' and 'convention') shows very little understanding of the consequences of said areas of thought. 4) In order to create a reasonable argument, one must first have a decent understanding of the terms one's using and further define one's terms at the beginning for the use of said argument. You have used and overlapped so many definitions of internal, external, objective and subjective that it's no wonder you've made so many contradictions. 5) There is a difference between a logical fallacy and something just being wrong. The former actually requires a logical mistake of some form, whereas the latter requires something only to not be the case in reality. The two are not synonymous. 6) Grammar helps 7)The time taken to read and, using the principle of charity, analyse your ramblings is time I will never get back... So that about sums it up. On what you said on my translation, yes, I imagine I could not translate what you were saying totally accurately, I didn't know what the hell you meant a lot of the time, as my friend said you used words so ambiguously at times that it took him a considerable amount of time to get through the text, and he is a Philosophy student in second year. You are also considerably pretentious when you talk about simple terms not working at the highest level when you can't seem to use these high level words consistently yourself. |
InfiniteNov 10, 2012 3:16 PM
TheAutocrat said: katsucats said: This essay is unfocused, rambling, like a drunk man stumbling around in a dark path. If I'm right in that it simply wants to describe objective reality, it could be done concisely like this: I said: Something exists objectively when it is there even without being observed, therefore an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. There... the entire OP in one sentence. Yes it is unfocused. I merely integrated some of my seperate writings into an essay. Also I had already stated these writings were incomplete. You are sorely mistaken with your interpretation. I am speaking of Psychological internal and external reality. Also, you missed all the various other assumptions I made, Psychological, Epistomological or otherwise. Note I also wrote this without reading anything past brief definitions and quotes of the material I wrote about. Objective and Sub-Objective Knowledge comes later to refine and amplify subjective Knowledge, even if one has to fabricate his own subjectively objective knowledge. Ones mind should remain undiluted and open to free thoughts and ideas. Once one has a certain amount of undeluded knowledge - experience or otherwise - then the mind is in entering the growing stage whilst still in the midst of a battle with survival. The brain what is makes us human, It is a reality generator. We are just like a video game. We exist for a minuscule period of time then dissapate The game characters have existence and dare I say consciousness. For what is consciousness, couldn't an alarm be said to be coscious of intruders. A machine conscious of errors. What I have just said about consciousness is a fallacy, Linguistics does not have flexibility to personify everything. But you didn't know that. Don't worry I'm sure someone superficial in their perception has got a name... right, a fool. Thanks for wasting my time, I was looking for intelligent analysis. Well if you want to be snarky, you've wasted your own time with all the sophistry, using big words merely to appear intelligent without meaning. Sub-Objective is not a word. "Subjectively objective" is an oxymoron. Having to fabricate objectiveness is contradictory. To begin with, the only objective knowledge that is possible are self-defined (A=A). If the brain generates reality, then knowledge is impossible. Consciousness is a user illusion, or at the very least, you have no proof as to whether something has or has not consciousness. A logical fallacy needs to be invalid, not just unsound. You've just strung together a bunch of words that you don't know the meaning of. How can someone be superficial in their perception? -- Oh, right, because you're using perception in a different way than it is accepted by any serious biologist or philosopher worth his salt. Now thank you for wasting both our times. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| OP, I've been where you are before. If you can say something in five words, say it in five words. |
 |
TheAutocrat said: Intent is inherently subjective, and all linguistics are man-created.Lies are considred bad as anything spoken that is untrue breeds incoherency. The application of speech is of course, intended to be truthfull. This can be dated back to its creation. Words are assigned meaning so they are used for that purpose. In this regard man wants to unify through truth. Lying is perhaps a logical fallacy in discourse else it is a man-created component of discourse. TheAutocrat said: Since perception is subjective, how can words have specific meanings?The problem is that words have specific meanings and connotations individual to them when used in context through perception. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
TheAutocrat said: I am uninterested and inexperienced of external reality I feel like this phrase is the singular most defining point of this entire rant. |
| wtf am i reading Big words and walls of text doesn't equal intelligent thought if the content doesn't make sense. |
 |
| I was staring at a rather large pair of breasts over the internet when I, unfortunately, decided to switch over to the MAL forum tab I had open for some unfortunate reason. I noticed you posted a new thread. I am now too angry to flog the log. |
| Solution: Existentialistic nihilism with as much hedonism as you can squeeze in. Nothing matters, life is just a pointless game, so have as much fun as you can and don't give a shit. In other words, the moment existential musings like these become anything other than casual entertainment, chug alcohol, trip acid or whatever until you forget about it. Any minute not spent being entertained is wasted. |
Baman said: Solution: Existentialistic nihilism with as much hedonism as you can squeeze in. Nothing matters, life is just a pointless game, so have as much fun as you can and don't give a shit. In other words, the moment existential musings like these become anything other than casual entertainment, chug alcohol, trip acid or whatever until you forget about it. Any minute not spent being entertained is wasted. Are you by any chance an avatar of Slaneesh? |
| If we begin with the assumption that you (and by you I mean TheAristocrat) created this thread for the sake of open discussion on... 1989, then we are led to the conclusion that you meant to communicate a series of thoughts to other people. Communication requires at least two parties, a sender and a receiver. If the idea doesn't get through then it is one or both parties' fault. Since the medium through which you communicated is written English and furthermore since I and many others writing in this thread can be considered well versed in written English I must conclude that the sender party failed in this communique. The rebuttal which you might come up with would likely be to the effect that you have achieved an even greater understanding of English than all of us. That is not logically impossible. However, if that is the assumption you make then I must argue that my hypothesis is still intact. Should you truly be superior in writing English then it would be child's play for you to write out a post which anyone else could understand. The next rebuttal which you might come up with would likely be to the effect that your post contains knowledge which cannot be expressed using simpler rhetoric than what you used (That is extremely pretentious and would be very difficult to prove, though I invite you to try using 'simpler' English rhetoric.). However, given your status as a member of this community, you would be knowledgeable of our general levels of English and would logically see communicating this thought as impossible. You did so anyway. I thus conclude that you are not, in fact, far better than many of us in terms of mastery over written English, or that you took an illogical course of action. You may assume I imply the former until a logical, concise, cogent counter-argument discussing the impossibility of writing a simpler statement is provided. |
| Well, firstly I would like to point out a mistake you've made: TheAutocrat said: Well, firstly, I'd like to point out a logical fallacy you make. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. I did not call your argument false because you were pretentious, I was simply making the act of calling you pretentious, which in of itself is not "Ad Honinem Tu Quoque". Just so you know, me talking about your choice of words and incoherence is not an attack on whatever the argument you were trying to make was, it was me simply stating how I felt that you tried to show greater ability than you possessed. I have a hard time even understanding what your argument is, so I would not attempt to discredit it. I do not know if you read my response thoroughly (I would hope so given the time others needed to make), but at no point did I call your argument false, I only talked about how poorly made it was, unless your argument was how you made your argument well or how you aren't pretentious, but I don't think this is the case. As such, I shall be ignoring many of your points based on this false assumption (though I did read them), because they simply do not apply. As a small note before I talk on your ability to use words, if you do know these words, it is very helpful to define these words beforehand, so that both the reader and yourself do not lose track and use them with different meanings, should you wish to produce another topic like this. As for your lack of ignorance, I am so very glad that you "stated" that it is only a misconception, the illusion is shattered! I realize now that you are indeed capable! Jokes aside, I did not pick up this impression up from you talking about your ignorance (which was ever so modest of you) or how you quickly scanned, I may have had some bias given who you are, but I have more than simply that, so don't feel hard done by and wait for my points. You say you can use your vocabulary efficiently, I really wish you would do so in this case. I really wish you would stop making these assumptions, I did not "seek to perceive your words meaning through knowledge, not context", I honestly tried to make as much sense of what you were saying as possible. I'm actually pissed off if you actually intentionally made it vague to increase the possibility of interpretation, are you saying that you don't even have a specific argument, but are making several at once, which varies depending on the reader? How can you defend an argument when you don't even know what it is? Right... I can't really say anything more if you are being dastardly unclear on purpose, so I'll skips to the next part. I do have to wonder at what exactly you were trying to achieve with this, well, you stated, to promote discussion, but why would the members of MAL debate over the meaning of your words anyway. If it was a famous book or something like Penguindrum then I could understand, but why would your words that appear incoherent be of enough interest to us to argue with another over their meaning? Did you have something different in mind? Your spiel on ignorance aside, and whether I could attempt to do what the great philosophers did (which I could not in all likelihood, but I don't claim to be able to), your point on verbosity is well enough made, however I was not saying that using these buzz words of itself was a sign of pretension, I said that the needless use of said words to make your point/s sound more profound (of which I was accusing you of) was pretentious. I am well aware that verbosity does not equal intelligence, although it does show a certain knowledge of words. Since you understand this yourself... then why do what you did in the first place? Oh, never mind. On the pre-conceived notions of my friend, what? Do you believe that he did it to point to your growth, as the right thing? Oh you... You are really quite the individual... No he did it because I take pleasure in someone as arrogant as you being shown to be wrong, hence why I asked him to look through it and help write a reply in the first place (for I am unfortunately lacking in knowledge of Philosophy). He has no reason to not like you since he doesn't know you, so it wasn't through prejudice. Also, impartial analysis? You just said yourself that what you said was vague so it was open to interpretation, that seems to conflict with you saying now that you wanted an opinion without bias (which if you think about it isn't really possible is it? An impartial analysis is an incorrect term). Maybe what you meant by him being partial is that you believe him to be prejudiced against you, which as I've already said is wrong. My friend is immature is he? He is a massive twat sure, and for all you know he may be 5 years old and a total dumbass, but that is all irrelevant as it doesn't make what he said wrong does it? Or are you suggesting that his points are invalid because of this? Because you know, that would be... oh, you guessed it. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Of course you aren't doing that though, are you? Thank you for your concern however, but my friend seems to be progressing through his philosophy course well enough, so, finger crossed, he won't fail his degree or anything. Unfortunately, whilst you still have a lot to say to me and my immature, unprofound and twat friend, said friend will not be here to read it, he said after he wrote the first response that he doesn't want to be involved any further, though he did appreciate your comment when pointed out to him. Don't be angry at him for leaving, he was merely there to cover up for my lack of philosophical knowledge, however feel free to respond to me if you so wish, whilst I don't know much on the subject, for some reason I feel I'll do just fine. |
InfiniteNov 11, 2012 5:07 PM
| InfiniteRyvius: My new favorite MALer. |
| Well i guess my advice was rather unheard to him. To sum up my point before I bail on this topic, i would like to point a few helpful tips. Complication is not sophistication. Sophisticated thinking is when you can make many levels of concepts and ideas function coherently. Autocrat, you dont do that. You take distant points and create incoherent concepts that cloud any sense of logical correlation so much so that the reader cannot even begin to comprehend what you are talking about. Simply, the ideas idea you try to convey are unclear, whether they are correct or not. The problem is that you cannot begin to sound intelligent when no one can understand anything you bring up. Any ideas you do have are lost in a sea of incoherent structure, bad wording, and inefficiency, which frankly means your mind is just as much of a mess. Language is symbolic; symbolism is the medium of self expression. Failure to use language is failure of self expression. What you write and say is your expression of your mind. If you cannot express yourself intelligently through use of language, you are not correct in the eyes of those to whom you speak. Like the others here who have generously taken time from their day and lives to read and respond, i bid you adieu. |
| InfiniteRyvius: Surely you've got work to do? Or is that the reason for such long posts? :P |
|
Hitchens said: InfiniteRyvius: My new favorite MALer. Indeed. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
| There is nothing good about ambiguous writing; how many times and by how many different ways does this single criticism need to be relayed to you before you eventually take heed of it? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
japonecka said: Alas, if I were, I would be in a gigantic orgy right now, fondling my six breasts with my tentacles as my eardrums bleed from the impossibly loud music.Are you by any chance an avatar of Slaneesh? |
TheAutocrat said: No, you made your text ambiguous because you lack the articulation to effectively communicate your argument, or your internal narrative is incoherent and you have no argument.I made my text ambiguous so it increases in interpretation value and consequently discussion value. I do assign a few different meanings and interpretations to my words, so it is worth scrutinising. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| "Everything that can be said, can be said clearly." - Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical writing should always be laid out in a syllogistic fashion prior to writing in an essay fashion. Logical syllogisms force the writer to remove ambiguity by having only facts contained in the premises which have to be relevant to the conclusion. From there, the writer can reinforce the premises with sub-arguments that have the main premise as the conclusion. Almost throughout your post you have statements of opinions instead of arguments. I would not even consider this a piece of philosophical writings, but instead blabber on philosophical and political topics. Edit: Also, you have a serious inability to use words in the proper context. |
CitizeninsaneNov 13, 2012 12:10 AM
| Never change, Autocrat. |
 |
| Funny thing is if I remember correctly, Nietzsche used to despise above all the lack of clarity in the writing, he got that from Schopenhauer, and they both hated Hegel for this reason. Pretty ironic for a guy using Nietzsche's pic, eh? |
 |
TheAutocrat said: You know what InfiniteRyvius, you're right. I'm done being modest. I try to be blunt and truthful with everything but remain humble to myself. I now realise that is contradictory. I'm going to be blunt. I'm more intelligent than you. You are highly pretentious. You are so blinded by arrogance. And you are by far, the biggest hypocrite I have ever met. Resorting to personal attacks is the weakest form of discourse. How about responding to criticism like an intelligent human being you claim to be? |
| Honestly, at times I even doubted you were a native English speaker at all... And I'm older than you btw. |
|
TheAutocrat said: I'm going to be blunt. I'm more intelligent than you. "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. " - Hemingway |
| Just do what I do guys, and copy his own tactics. You're bad Autocrat, really bad, and I mean bad. There, perfect copypaste. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
TheAutocrat said: Citizeninsane said: TheAutocrat said: I'm going to be blunt. I'm more intelligent than you. "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. " - Hemingway Just stating a fact that InfiniteRyvius is oblivious to. He arrogantly believes he is better than some, and doesn't consider the consequences of his arrogance. @noob: It's dissapointing how oblivious you are to the intelligence of this situation yet still arrogantly but in with your misconceptions. I'm sorry, I can't see more than Ad Hominem and your really hard to read post, which is another logical fallacy itself. You don't have to use a dictionary everytime you post, you just need to be clear, that's all. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I thought it's obvious I don't understand, nobody does. It's you posting after all. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
» Have you ever done any mischief in your younger years that your family is still unaware of to this day?fleurbleue - 2 hours ago |
2 |
by Zarutaku
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» Silly ways of making moneytraed - 6 hours ago |
7 |
by Exhumatika
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Internet Ads you just hate/can't standTheBlockernator - Sep 28 |
23 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» does anyone have nerd skills?XMGA030 - 4 hours ago |
2 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Have you ever seen the northern lights?waferish - Sep 13 |
28 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
2 hours ago |