It is ad homines (you, Diebert, Russell and Beingof1), but not an argumentum. I'm not deriving my speculations (or as you say accusations) about these personalities from my judgment of their views. It is the other way around - I judged your views and opinions on their own merit, *then* speculated about the prejudices, motivations and so on that would lead to such views. This latter might be inappropriate (though not in this case because I'm not exposing anyone's personal details or insulting them for no reason), but it isn't a logical fallacy.Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:How would you defend this sort of description or accusation - as I see it an open invitation to participate in snark and a level of conversation which can only become ad hominem - as being defensible from the platform of wisdom? Is this a 'wise approach'? You are smart enough - I reckon - to understand that there is no way to respond to any of this, aren't you? How in your view does this first into philosophical discourse?Jupiviv wrote:Seeker's "magnificent something" (and to some extent Diebert's and Russell's, and Beingof1's to a larger extent) is the "wisdom" and/or "consciousness" (especially his own) that can somehow magically arbitrate the nature of reality. Yours is the fantasy of coming home to mammy (dialectical cream of the vole as collective Western consciousness) after a nasty spat with those GF kids who just moved into the neighbourhood - repeated indefinitely within, presumably, your personal library inside Castle Alex.
It's also ironic, and sadly unsurprising, that you ignored my actual arguments (before the portion of my reply you quoted) and went straight for the "cheese" as it were.
It is human nature to imagine things and situations we desire, and block out - if possible - things we fear or despise. When such imagination intercourses with reason and conscience, you have notions of magical arbitration and necessarily unsuccessful attempts to justify it. Whether it is because he is a native English speaker or just more honest, Russell demonstrates these failed attempts more clearly than Diebert does.1) Can you expand on the 'magical arbitration of the nature of reality'? I don't quite get the term 'magical'. So, you imply that the 'nature of reality', for the Wise, is not 'arbitrated' by consciousness? Can you speak more about this?
Based on your posts, it's whatever makes you-accusative special.2) What is 'dialectical cream of the vole'? I'd have to guess and I'd rather hear your definition.
How do I couch my understanding? I think most people can tell when I'm being serious and when flippant or droll, and my serious expression of my views is clear enough. The problem is that some people want something *more*, something mysterious and *overwhelming* that puts a halt to their pesky thinking.Is there any other person that you refer to, or know, who is Wise? Is there another wise one on this planet right now? (It sounds like I am mocking, but yet it is implied in the way your couch your understanding of truth and wisdom). But I am interested in a straight answer: Who?
For example, what difference does it make to *you* if there is any other person except me who is Wise? None. You asked me that stupid question because you're trying to cook another "story", presumably slathered in dialectical cream of vole. In any case, I am very far from perfectly wise because I do and think plenty of unwise things everyday. However, I am at a point in my spiritual development where whatever little I have seen I cannot un-see barring - obviously - death or brain damage. If somebody pisses me off enough I'll most likely do something irrational, but I won't be able to trick myself into thinking that the irrational/immoral act is actually rational/moral.
But to answer your question, Kevin Solway is someone whom I consider to be Wise. And from appearances, far wiser than myself in terms of consistency in thought and deed. In fact, I think he might be one of the wisest people ever to have lived. It's a shame he seems to be spending his spare time on Youtube, but I guess he can't think of anything more worthwhile to do with his current means.