"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathan Swift
I told crashfrog why relativism is bunk. He said "Who cares what Socrates said! You haven't proven anything". I also noted that moral relativism is not supported by one moral philosopher. He said there are. Heidegger, Sartre and someone else of little significance. Then I asked him to support his claim as I promised I would read Socrates's words to back up mine. He then tried and failed to turn philosophy into a perversion based on what he knows best: video games. crashfrog doesn't want to support his assertion. His names he offered to me are probably crudely based from an internet website. There is no need to dwell on such perversion.
I wish to tell you a story that Socrates told me within
Protagoras
Socrates dealt with Protagoras, a sophist him and his friend went to see. Socrates sensed that Protagorous would no longer continue in the argument as he had questioned him into disproving one of his own convictions. Holy is holiness. Justice is just. Everything has one opposite Protagorous thought. But holiness is just. Socrates had called P. out on this but P. responded with what is known as "rhetoric" or what is also known as "fluff" or eloquent bullshit. Socrates thus called P. out on this and P. became agitated to the point where there was no hope for further discussion. As Socrates was leaving, the men there pulled him back over saying that it would be wrong if Socrates left without completing the argument. After much deliberation and details that are important but aren't central for my message for you all, Socrates was able to reengage Protagoras.
My point in all this has to do with the suggestions of the men to aid in getting the argument going once more. It was suggested that there be a chairman or referee to make sure that the argument was kept under control. The long drawn out speeches of Pythagoras would be kept on eye and the question and answer style of Socrates i.e. the Socratic method would be monitored. Socrates rejected this approach because he reasoned that there was noone there that was greater than Protagoras and that having someone who is lesser than the participants in the argument referee would ruin the argument. The people there were all inferior to Socrates and P. This was generally accepted. The moderators here are similar. They keep watchful eye over the discussion and whenever it drifts, often above their heads, they pounce upon the person. Most of the time admittedly, the moderation works because there is noone here of any type of merit. When a person like me surfaces it is a different story. I am not an average joe who views knowledge as competition or some game as this character crashfrog obviously does. I am at the pinnacle of human reasoning and therefore, I would never survive here. I wanted to help you people but I think this post is like Moses preaching to the people. If you can't believe now, a miracle couldn't help you. Thank God for freedom of thought. I hold no grudge against all of you and your inadequacies. I hope I do not hurt the feelings of any of you. If one among you hears me than this is all worth it. I know this is not the case. This confederacy of dunces so to speak would never be able to begin to fathom the complexities of higher thought. Although what I am presenting here is rather plain, it is higher thought. Thank God for freedom of thought. The good can't get dragged down in the murky waters on the floor of this Godforsaken cave.
Thank you for your time. Crashfrog I feel sorry for you and the people that buy your less than sophomoric thoughts if I dare call such drivel that. At least you'll never be consumed by this game called life.
Read a good book,
Ignatius J. Reilly
Edited by Ignatius, : No reason given.
Edited by Ignatius, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2