On the Impossibility of Philosophical Discussion

On one social media platform, I just left the English-speaking group Philosophy, where I was short-lived.

I have already left or been expelled from many philosophy groups. And I have not liked any kind of philosophy seminars or conferences for a long time because of the atmosphere that usually prevails there.

The general question is why such people with relatively low IQ and no higher intellectual abilities read a lot of thick obscure books, such as those from antiquity, and start to consider themselves very wise. Still, in reality, it is not possible to talk to them on any topic because they systematically violate all possible principles of rational and civilized communication.

This last philosophy group had 600 members. But only a few members posted and took part in the conversations. Two of them were the most active.

Both were constantly changing the subject matter and context.

For example, I posted there about how Karjakin was accused of “supporting an unjustified war” and deprived of his right to participate in international chess tournaments. The topic was how, logically speaking, can one be accused of “justifying the unjustified war”, not the war in Ukraine — which was just an example — but the nature of the justification, the nature of such arguments, freedom of expression and the erroneous arguments of those restricting freedom of expression.

However, despite my protests, the two active group members kept talking specifically about this war and current politics, using my post as an excuse.

Once again, philosophers who use their extensive erudition to kill a substantive debate on any subject with demagoguery and change of subject matter or talk about their favourite ideology instead (seemed to be a branch of Western Marxism).

Then, one reacted to me when I called for the subject to continue, blaming logic for narrow-mindedness. In this way, he blocked all attempts to keep the conversation going in the context.

But the other repeatedly accused me of not saying things that I had already told him explicitly several times while frequently attributing to me positions that I did not have. He seemed personally offended every time I dared to say something critical.

Finally, I complained concerning one of his long monologues about Aristotle that I did not understand how this was relevant. Instead of more precisely explaining the context of the conversation and how his remark was in that context, he turned the burden of proof upside down. He demanded that, instead, it was me who had to explain how his long monologue about Aristotle did not fit into the context of the conversation.

I began to investigate who the authors of these long monologues were. And it turned out that they were the administrators of this group.

But thank you, no, I don’t need that kind of “philosophical discussion.” I avoid such weeds.

I left that group Philosophy. Also, the uniqueness of that social media platform was that all my posts and comments in this group were reportedly deleted as well.

However, I would like to emphasize — so as there would be no doubt — that I have been avoiding such “philosophical discussions” for decades. In my opinion, it would not be a significant loss if the journals of such mumbo-jumbo ceased to appear and their chairs ceased to exist.

I have emphasized for decades that I am dealing with thinking, not philosophy. If those who call themselves philosophers are engaged in something other than thinking, then I do not need their so-called philosophy.

Published by wrestlerblower


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: