The Philosopher and Society

[Grayman]

I have within me a philosopher. I have within me a person who upholds verbal freedom to a great degree. Regardless of this, the world exists in moderation and cares not from my ideals. There are limits to everything. So what is my limit? What is my role? Should anyone be exempt from being under the microscope? Should all sides and perspectives be taken into consideration? Should we consider all avenues?



What do I mean by a philosopher? Many philosophers have but one goal and that is to seek answers and find truth above all else. They will dig for answers and ask any question and make any observation regardless of social consequence. What is society’s reaction to this?
The poor philosopher means no ill will. He simply wants truth. There is a truth he cannot or will not see. That is the truth about society, about emotions, and the truth that not all answers are his to have. Not all observations should be made.

The poor member of society feels attacked by the philosopher and personal boundaries are pushed. He feels the need to defend himself. Society puts up heads to protect its members and these heads rarely contain philosophers. Philosophers don't want to lead. They want the freedom to seek and understand and don't want to be tied to other duties. So it is that society has at its head people who do not understand the philosopher. People who disagree with the philosopher’s intentions and actions and they want to silence the philosopher and make him stop pushing boundaries. These heads feel a great need to protect the societal members as is their duty.

The philosopher complains, and he only ever complains when knowledge is kept from him. He complains when he silenced and can no longer ask his questions. This is when the philosopher feels a need to make a stand.

We have on this forum a great many philosophers. They don't realize or forget or will not accept that the INTPf is not exempt from societal rules, and that they still have to keep in line with such things to at least a minimum. So they press and the members of society and their protectors push back.
So where do we remedy this? Where do we compromise between the philosopher and society? How do we keep them from separating and fighting? Where is the compromise in the philosopher to not push and to accept a degree of society rules and values? Where is the compromise in society to accept the philosophers need for knowledge and to realize he means no harm?

Am I seeing something that is not there, or is this forum in danger of a having a dividing line of opinion on this. A line that is damaging and deconstructive to the forum. What is the answer? What is the real issue? Where do we resolve this and where do we compromise?

Perhaps the philosophers are still a rarity in this society on this INTPf and they should learn to live within the expected norms of society. Is this fair? Is it realistic and necessary? Perhaps they should realize that they simply cannot have it all and they must settle with much freedom instead of every freedom to seek truth, but how far does that go? Where do we put the boundary?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I do not know whether there are gods, but there ought to be.

When Alexander the Great addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, Diogenes replied "Yes, stand a little out of my sunshine."

Aristotle dines when it seems good to King Philip, but Diogenes when he himself pleases.

If you are to be kept right, you must possess either good friends or red-hot enemies. The one will warn you, the other will expose you.

Being asked where in Greece he saw good men, he replied, "'Good men nowhere, but good boys at Sparta."

When some one boasted that at the Pythian games he had vanquished men, Diogenes replied, "Nay, I defeat men, you defeat slaves."

To Xeniades, who had purchased Diogenes at the slave market, he said, "Come, see that you obey orders."

One day, observing a child drinking out of his hands, he cast away the cup from his wallet with the words, "A child has beaten me in plainness of living."

Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture-room with the words, "Here is Plato's man."

To one who asked what was the proper time for lunch, he said, "If a rich man, when you will; if a poor man, when you can."

He lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, "I am looking for a human."

He was seized and dragged off to King Philip, and being asked who he was, replied, "A spy upon your insatiable greed."

Once he saw the officials of a temple leading away some one who had stolen a bowl belonging to the treasurers, and said, "The great thieves are leading away the little thief."

Behaving indecently in public, he said "I wish it were as easy to banish hunger by rubbing the belly."

When some one reminded him that the people of Sinope had sentenced him to exile, he said, "And I sentenced them to stay at home."

He once begged alms of a statue, and, when asked why he did so, replied, "To get practice in being refused."

To the question what wine he found pleasant to drink, he replied, "That for which other people pay."

He was breakfasting in the marketplace, and the bystanders gathered round him with cries of "dog." "It is you who are dogs," cried he, "when you stand round and watch me at my breakfast."

Asked where he came from, he said, "I am a citizen of the world."

He was going into a theatre, meeting face to face those who were coming out, and being asked why, "This," he said, "is what I practise doing all my life."

When the slave auctioneer asked in what he was proficient, he replied, "In ruling people."

It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.

When people laughed at him because he walked backward beneath the portico, he said to them: "Aren't you ashamed, you who walk backward along the whole path of existence, and blame me for walking backward along the path of the promenade?"

Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them.

The noblest people are those despising wealth, learning, pleasure and life; esteeming above them poverty, ignorance, hardship and death.

Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice.

Poverty is a virtue which one can teach oneself.

 

[Kuu]

No man is an island. There is no boundless freedom without consequence. If the philosopher were so inquiring and objective seeker of the truth, the philosopher would realize this truth applies not just to social matters but physical matters as well, observation affects the observed, it is an inescapable fact of existence and ignoring it is fraught with peril.

Society values society above the individual. The freedoms provided to the individual when engaging in society rest upon simple responsibilities which define the extent of such freedoms, in order to maintain a degree of peaceful coexistence. Failing to meet such responsibilities breaches this social contract and damages society. The intent of the philosopher, or any other social actor, thoughtful or thoughtless, matters little: what matters is the effects of his actions upon society. Damage is made, regardless of good will, ill will, ignorance or accident. And society can only tolerate so much damage.

If the philosopher knows there is gravity, and in spite of that decides to spit upwards as is his freedom, it's his fault if he gets spit on his face. If he also manages to splatter others in this process, some will consider this unacceptable. Who but him knows the nature of his actions, what grand truth he was after? None. There may be no truth in that at all, merely folly. But there is another truth that is evident: there are people that ended up splattered with spit. If he is condemned for repeating such behaviour in spite of protest, is he a martyr of truth or a victim of his own stubborn foolishness?

Furthermore, the philosopher is never forced to stay in society. He is in his full capacity to inquire elsewhere if he finds the rules of society restrictive. If, however, he insists on a quest to find truths about human interaction, he must surely realize the truth that he has to operate within social boundaries. Knowing this, if he still decides to pursue social truth without care for social consequence, what right does he have to complain about the consequences derived from such behaviour?

Lack of acceptance or understanding of these simple facts reflects not a failure of society, but the philosopher. Perhaps, just maybe, some people aren't good philosophers...

 

[Grayman]

No man is an island. There is no boundless freedom without consequence. If the philosopher were so inquiring and objective seeker of the truth, the philosopher would realize this truth applies not just to social matters but physical matters as well, observation affects the observed, it is an inescapable fact of existence and ignoring it is fraught with peril.

This is exactly why philosophers are so important to society. Your stance seems a bit strong...

Philosophers are just a conduit. They bring observations and questions and this brings opportunity for change and growth.

What is a society without change? Without growth? It is a society that dwindles dissolves and dies.

From your post it seems as if it can be summarized to "Philosophers are bad". This is part of the problem. We need to accept each others roles and to work together instead of viewing each other with such distaste.

I don't wish to argue who is good or bad as I believe each has their role. There are good and bads in everyone's role. The question still remains, "How tolerant should society be of the philosopher and how restrained should the philosopher be in his observations?"

*****

Am I currently, not being restrained enough?

 

[TBerg]

This appears to mean that the persecutors must persecute in order to prove the point of those who point out their persecution. In such a way the KKK was MLK's greatest co-conspirator.

 

[Grayman]

This appears to mean that the persecutors must persecute in order to prove the point of those who point out their persecution. In such a way the KKK was MLK's greatest co-conspirator.

This seems to general for me to pin down what you mean.


1) Black people are stupid.
Perceived as Persecution

2) These arguments are inconsistent.
Perceived as an observation


My OP was not meant to take into account persecution

. The Philosopher is not getting attacked because of who he is or his beliefs but for the damage the observation can cause. The observation can also contribute to future change progress.

The societal member is not getting attacked by the philosopher but is only perceiving that they are. The observation of the philosopher can carry emotional baggage and the receiver takes it personally. some EXAMPLEs: Given by Solemoneous below...

Generally the philosopher is not trying to destroy the person, hurt them, or upset them. They are just observing hoping for the person to use it in their own and positive way.

Where is the persecution?

 

[Cavallier]

The OP reminds me of the ancient Greek play Dyskolos or The Misanthrope. When I think of Philosophers in the high and mighty aspect that you assign to them I imagine grumpy old dudes far outpaced by their younger and more mentally lithe counterparts. Do you know how to sing or dance?

 

[redbaron]

A line that is damaging and deconstructive to the forum.

As far as I can tell from several different forums, redundancy and tautology are some of the most deconstructive things for any public forum. Spread enough of it anywhere and people get tired of discourse. Discussion loses its appeal when it becomes repetitive and useless.

Redundancy:

1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

Tautology:

1. needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness

The observation of the philosopher can carry emotional baggage and the receiver takes it personally.

Are you sure it's philosophy and not simply tautology that people respond negatively to? Seems like people actually engage in quite a lot (compared to other population samples) of philosophical discussion.

What constitutes something being philosophical or tautological in nature depends on who perceives it too. So naturally some people are going to find one line of thought useful while another finds it useless. So the question is: how long should people endure useless tautological bombardment before speaking up?

 

[Grayman]

Redundancy is one of the most deconstructive things for any public forum.

1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

There is irony in how much you repeat your dislike for redundancy. That observation hopefully is something new for you RB.

I am not certain if you were trying to indicate that this thread is redundant by posting this in my thread or if you just like to say this all the time... maybe because you are irritated by something going on in the forums???

Often on the INTP forum, what seems as redundant, is just taking the same issue from a slightly different angle. To others this seems repetitive but to many INTP this provides a wider understanding to how the object or concept being reviewed relates to everything.

 

[StevenM]

If I'm not mistaken, I think that there is an argument, or debate being brought up, which may, if defined concisely, be interpreted:

Judge of character <------------------ VS -------------------> Judge of actions and behavior

I'm believing an agreement can be reached in between, where there is a consensus on the consequences and disciplinary effects based on this middle ground.

 

[Grayman]

What constitutes something being philosophical or tautological in nature depends on who perceives it too. So naturally some people are going to find one line of thought useful while another finds it useless. So the question is: how long should people endure useless tautological bombardment before speaking up?

I have been on many forums and tautology is not as perceptible here. I find them as learned answers. It is very observable in politics, religion, and various areas where teaching what to think is more prominent than how to think. Even the strong belief in individualism can come with tautological arguments when too like minded individuals gather and pass back and forth the same ideas. I suppose that is more the issue here isn't it? Same personalities, like minds, sharing information... I imagine a good Ne would help break that habit but only help.

I think redundancy is ingrained in being in the same place and not moving around and less a problem with the place you're staying. It is inevitable that the place would remain somewhat consistent and change slowly. It draws like minded people who get comfortable and people who are too different are pushed out.

 

[redbaron]

It draws like minded people who get comfortable and people who are too different are pushed out.

Please provide examples of people who have been, "pushed out" for being different.

 

[StevenM]

For instance, I have a proposition.

Let us say that those who may not be inherently trolls (a good character), yet who have an obsession with an idea and take annoying actions, or use unwise behavior (Judge of actions and behavior) be only sentenced a ban for 1-2 months (agreeable decision of disciplinary action).

This would give the defendant time to calm down, perhaps dampen the obsession with the ideal as they use the time to fill their mind with more important matters of real life. By the time the sentence is up, the person may return with a new mindset.

And if this rule was in place, we could also drastically see a reduction to this type of debate to begin with.

Now, this is just a proposition, you have the will to do what you want. And I'm not going to drag this on, your decision (or a better proposition from someone else) will be the final thing you hear from me on this.

Just a thought.

 

[Grayman]

Please provide examples of people who have been, "pushed out" for being different.

Variform is not different on a whole but he different on this forum. He wss given the boot without the normal temp ban because he his differences were so obvious that it was expected he would continue to create strong conflict.

More accurately, more different = more conflict thus increased chances of getting the boot when you misstep.

His arguements of polyamory were... tautology but the core of his views, the idealistic view that the entire purpose of his life was to live for the perfect woman, was new. Many of his other arguments were new also.

 

[Cavallier]

Variform is not different on a whole but he different on this forum. He wss given the boot without the normal temp ban because he his differences were so obvious that it was expected he would continue to create strong conflict.

More accurately, more different = more conflict thus increased chances of getting the boot when you misstep.

His arguements of polyamory were... tautology but the core of his views, the idealistic view that the entire purpose of his life was to live for the perfect woman, was new. Many of his other arguments were new also.

No, he was "given the boot" because he was using personal attacks to the point of calling various members whores and quoting PM conversations in public.

Have you even been here the last few days? Yes, of course you have. Desist with your thinly veiled spite.

 

[redbaron]

Variform is not different on a whole but he different on this forum.

He was banned for making personal attacks, as well as a myriad other reasons which Kuu outlined in the thread where the offence was made. Different had nothing to do with it.

Anyone else who's apparently been banned for being different?

 

[Grayman]

No, he was "given the boot" because he was using personal attacks to the point of calling various members whores and quoting PM conversations in public.

Have you even been here the last few days? Yes, of course you have. Desist with your thinly veiled spite.

I am sorry percieve spite in me. I have been making extra effort to not walk over your sensitivities but it is getting tiresome. I think it is time I address it before it gets any further. Consider this notification of you being too sensitive and me addressing it. I'll leave there.

This was new information for me. I dont recall a single person giving this as an explanation. Perhaps I have not been very observant, but then I did not read every little thing he wrote. Some of these conjectures came from various members, so it is good you are addressesing this instead of letting it persist within their minds as reality.

 

[Grayman]

He was banned for making personal attacks, as well as a myriad other reasons which Kuu outlined in the thread where the offence was made. Different had nothing to do with it.

Anyone else who's apparently been banned for being different?

I didnt say he was. Thatis an obvious misrepresentation of my statement. ?.. perhaps inadvertently. ?.

I said he was given less tolerance because of the conflict he posed as a result of his differences. It seems perhaps his actions were just worse than I knew and he burned through tolerances faster than normal.



***********************

I will need to contemplate your question more. I don't know enough about who as much as how people work. Conflict is normally avoided and people conflict more with those they have issues understanding or seeing eye to eye.

Anyways this is a redirection from my main argument. Perhaps you should start a thread and get more involved with this discussion. you seem to be very interested in it as you tend to bring it up in subtle ways. Why not address it completely?

 

[Kuu]

From your post it seems as if it can be summarized to "Philosophers are bad".

This is an absolute misrepresentation of my arguments. If you really believe that is a proper summary of my position on this matter, of which I have also written extensively elsewhere, then you either have severe reading comprehension problems or you are being deliberately misleading.

Asshole behaviour is "bad". "Philosophy" is not an excuse for asshole behaviour. Assholes get to sleep with the fishes. Capisce?

This is part of the problem. We need to accept each others roles and to work together instead of viewing each other with such distaste.

It seems the ones that have a distaste problem is the "philosophers". Though me and others have certainly developed a distaste to you that was not there before, since you made this thinly-veiled rehash when two others on the same matter have been closed already and the same questions have been asked and answered ad-nauseum.

"How tolerant should society be of the philosopher and how restrained should the philosopher be in his observations?"

*****

Am I currently, not being restrained enough?

It is intolerable to society that you are still pushing this issue under a paper-thin guise of a philosophical discussion, and very distasteful in its thinly-veiled attack on "protectors" and their presumed philosophical incapacity.

You don't have to "be restrained". You have to understand what is being clearly and repeatedly told and not make yet another thread on the same tired thing.

For instance, I have a proposition.

Let us say that those who may not be inherently trolls (a good character), yet who have an obsession with an idea and take annoying actions, or use unwise behavior (Judge of actions and behavior) be only sentenced a ban for 1-2 months (agreeable decision of disciplinary action).

This would give the defendant time to calm down, perhaps dampen the obsession with the ideal as they use the time to fill their mind with more important matters of real life. By the time the sentence is up, the person may return with a new mindset.

See, he gets it! Is it so hard to get?

(Alas, Tmills, this hasn't worked when tried)

This was new information for me. I dont recall a single person giving this as an explanation. Perhaps I have not been very observant, but then I did not read every little thing he wrote.

FFS.

That was THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION GIVEN. And it was repeated SEVERAL TIMES BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

If you did not read every thing he wrote, unlike those that made the decision, and did not even bother to read the most basic information about such as the announcement of the decision, then perhaps you should not be making bullheaded defenses of what you have no information of?

This is the very reason why we're sick and tired of this so-called "philosophy" and "philosophers". And you dare call yourselves truth seekers.

 

[redbaron]

I didnt say he was. That is an obvious misrepresentation of my statement.

Er, no it's not. I made a specific request for you to provide an example of someone who has been pushed out for being different. You responded with:

Variform is not different on a whole but he different on this forum. He was given the boot without the normal temp ban because he his differences were so obvious that it was expected he would continue to create strong conflict.

He was given the boot without the normal temp ban because he his differences

In exact words you stated that Variform was given the boot because of his differences.

Also let's go back to what started this discussion:

It draws like minded people who get comfortable and people who are too different are pushed out.

You said in exact words that people who are too different are pushed out. Although it seems now you think it's people who cause conflict who get pushed out.

But what's the issue? That's a bit of a no-brainer really. Starting fights in public venues tends to get one removed from the venue. You start a fight in a club, you get banned from the place. Disrupt a game at a sports stadium, you get barred from attendance. Disrupt discussion on a public forum, you lose your ability to participate.

So where in all this convoluted mess (complete with self-contradictions) is the point you're trying to make?

 

[Cavallier]

*sigh*

This was new information for me. I dont recall a single person giving this as an explanation. Perhaps I have not been very observant, but then I did not read every little thing he wrote. Some of these conjectures came from various members, so it is good you are addressesing this instead of letting it persist within their minds as reality.

Do you often suffer from short term memory loss?

The same is true for Variform. He was warned for attacking members and ultimately he was permabanned because his attacks were becoming increasingly heated and he was releasing information from personal communications.

And finally if you read only the last three of Variform's posts you note Kuu's response to him naming why he was banned.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. You think you know more about their relationship than them? Get your head out of your asshole. I edited out the most offensive part, which is also a privacy breach and equally unacceptable.

I am sorry percieve spite in me. I have been making extra effort to not walk over your sensitivities but it is getting tiresome. I think it is time I address it before it gets any further. Consider this notification of you being too sensitive and me addressing it. I'll leave there.

By bringing it up you call into question my ability to be objective. Oh lord give me patience. Yes, I do perceive spite in you. I'm fairly certain everyone reading this thread does especially with this latest ploy. I have been trying to be kind to you and give you the time you need to adjust to what you may find to be a banning you don't agree with.

However, you've lied to me in this thread and are making an idiot of yourself. Again, please desist.

 

[Grayman]

This is an absolute misrepresentation of my arguments. If you really believe that is a proper summary of my position on this matter, of which I have also written extensively elsewhere, then you either have severe reading comprehension problems or you are being deliberately misleading.

Your representation may have been misleading. It did not seem to take the position of the philosopher or his feeling into consideration at all.

My OP had considerable defense on the side of the protector. It is important to see all sides of the issue in order to come to a full understanding. I felt you did not do that.

Anyways, I don't want to bullhead the argument. I want to discuss the delicate balance that the philosopher and the societal protector need to maintain in their opinions to reach a middle ground and get along.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What constitutes something being philosophical or tautological in nature depends on who perceives it too. So naturally some people are going to find one line of thought useful while another finds it useless. So the question is: how long should people endure useless tautological bombardment before speaking up?

Driven off by redundancy? It seems like just as many new, shiny, and interesting folk leave because they aren't engaged.

My argument is that if the folks who hate redundancy so much (not specifically directed at you, btw) don't want to engage, they have no reason to bitch about the redundant folk who are doing the engaging.

 

[Grayman]

However, you've lied to me in this thread and are making an idiot of yourself. Again, please desist.

I am sorry, his offenses seemed less dire when previously discussed and people were indicating that we usually get more warning than he got.

I am not certain what your are talking about in lying.....

I wouldn't be surprised if my memory is that bad. I do forget a lot.


There isn't some ploy to bring you down or destroy you Cav

I just want to figure out were the line is that separates a certain group that exists in this forum and the admin and how to dissolve it.

I want the so called 'rebels' to stop seeing the admin as a bunch of power hungry people and the admin to stop seeing them as authority hating out of pure spite.

 

[redbaron]

Driven off by redundancy? It seems like just as many new, shiny, and interesting folk leave because they aren't engaged.

I wonder why interesting people would leave, if not because they find other people uninteresting. In other words, what you're saying actually supports what I said.

 

[Cavallier]

I am sorry, his offenses seemed less dire when previously discussed and people were indicating that we usually get more warning than he got.

I am not certain what your are talking about in lying.....

I wouldn't be surprised if my memory is that bad. I do forget a lot.


There isn't some ploy to bring you down or destroy you Cav

I just want to figure out were the line is that separates a certain group that exists in this forum and the admin and how to dissolve it.

I want the so called 'rebels' to stop seeing the admin as a bunch of power hungry people and the admin to stop seeing them as authority hating out of pure spite.

My point has been made. You are delusional and a troll. This thread has been moved to the Crime and Punishment section and is now closed. This is your third warning.