QRS delusion

[Dan Rowden]

Don't be so openly idiotic! Can't you at least make an effort to give an impression of sanity? It's not possible to give an account of "Kant's main thesis". That phrase doesn't even mean anything. Are you referring to his views on analytic/synthetic, experience and reality, phenomena/noumena, limits of reason, moral law and the categorical imperative or what?

[1otherS]

OK then: discuss his categorical imperative.

[Dan Rowden]

To what end, when we can simply discuss morality? Are you not a thinker in your own right?

[1otherS]

I try to be an independant thinker, but even the best of the best philosophers read other peoples thoughts.

You do it too: your thoughts I've witnessed thus far are very Zen and Buddhist.

My ideas find their roots in economics, social dynamics and authors like Camus or Nietzsche.

I think this borrowing of ideas is inevitable, really.

[Tomas]

This is what you "QRS" do constantly: you claim this authority of "Genius" while completely altering the definition of this word WITHOUT any factual backing or qualification what-so-ever.

e.g.

Completely dismissing Kant without proving you've read more than a handful of quotes.

Consider what Solway/Quinn/Rowden have written earlier on these fellows, there is a search engine provided at Genius and Worldly Forums.

You just click on Kevin's David's Dan's posting and employ the search engine for their respective writing on those long-gone philosophers. Remember, they lived in different times and countries. Identical twins don't even think the same thoughts at any given time era.

Read up on each persons thoughts and formulate a followup question...

Warm Regards,

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Freemason

VietNam veteran - 1971

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This is what you "QRS" do constantly: you claim this authority of "Genius" while completely altering the definition of this word WITHOUT any factual backing or qualification what-so-ever.

e.g.

Completely dismissing Kant without proving you've read more than a handful of quotes.

You give me the impression of a power-hungry kid (I don't know your age, but you give the impression of being in your teens or 20's) who is testing his prowess at manipulating others into "dancing" for him. Kindly dial your ego down please.

[1otherS]

This is what you "QRS" do constantly: you claim this authority of "Genius" while completely altering the definition of this word WITHOUT any factual backing or qualification what-so-ever.

e.g.

Completely dismissing Kant without proving you've read more than a handful of quotes.

You give me the impression of a power-hungry kid (I don't know your age, but you give the impression of being in your teens or 20's) who is testing his prowess at manipulating others into "dancing" for him. Kindly dial your ego down please.

I'm not as power-hungry as the QRS...

[Dan Rowden]

And what sort of power, pray tell, do we desire?

[Dan Rowden]

I try to be an independant thinker, but even the best of the best philosophers read other peoples thoughts.

Yes, they do, in their formative years, but then they move on and beyond those others. Discussing the extraordinarily complex theses of Kant, whose ontology was plain wrong, is not on my agenda. It's the sort of thing academics do to keep themselves in a job. I prefer to go right to the core of the issue. I like a good root.

You do it too: your thoughts I've witnessed thus far are very Zen and Buddhist.

Yes, my thinking has been influenced by those traditions, yet, I seldom speak about them at any length because I have my own voice.

My ideas find their roots in economics, social dynamics and authors like Camus or Nietzsche.

Camus? Oh, you like being depressed? :)

I think this borrowing of ideas is inevitable, really.

I think being influenced by ideas is inevitable. A true thinker never really "borrows" ideas.

[1otherS]

I try to be an independant thinker, but even the best of the best philosophers read other peoples thoughts.

Dan Rowden
Yes, they do, in their formative years, but then they move on and beyond those others. Discussing the extraordinarily complex theses of Kant, whose ontology was plain wrong, is not on my agenda. It's the sort of thing academics do to keep themselves in a job. I prefer to go right to the core of the issue. I like a good root.

1others
Fair enough.

You do it too: your thoughts I've witnessed thus far are very Zen and Buddhist.

Dan Rowden
Yes, my thinking has been influenced by those traditions, yet, I seldom speak about them at any length because I have my own voice.

1otherS
I don't want this to sound like an insult, but it doesnt always read like you've found your own voice.

My ideas find their roots in economics, social dynamics and authors like Camus or Nietzsche.

Dan Rowden
Camus? Oh, you like being depressed? :)

1otherS
I'm not even depressed. Camus observed many interesting things about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

I think this borrowing of ideas is inevitable, really.

Dan Rowden
I think being influenced by ideas is inevitable. A true thinker never really "borrows" ideas.[/quote]

1otherS
Point well taken.

[Dan Rowden]

My ideas find their roots in economics, social dynamics and authors like Camus or Nietzsche.

Dan Rowden: Camus? Oh, you like being depressed? :)

1otherS: I'm not even depressed. Camus observed many interesting things about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

Yes, but through depressive vision. The French existentialists never really came to terms with the realisation of the non-existence of ultimate or objective meaning and purpose. Even now, many Xians field this point in their attempts to argue against the pragmatism of atheism. i.e., they claim atheism leaves life empty and sad and miserable and full of woe and existential angst and, as Russell, put it, unyielding despair. They never got to the core reason that such a realisation may produce despair or existential angst. In other words, they never got to the bottom of the nature of the ego, from which all such responses emanate. The general atheist response to this point is really inadequate.

I'll be doing a Youtube presentation on this very topic in the next couple of days.

[1otherS]

My ideas find their roots in economics, social dynamics and authors like Camus or Nietzsche.

Dan Rowden: Camus? Oh, you like being depressed? :)

1otherS: I'm not even depressed. Camus observed many interesting things about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

Yes, but through depressive vision. The French existentialists never really came to terms with the realisation of the non-existence of ultimate or objective meaning and purpose. Even now, many Xians field this point in their attempts to argue against the pragmatism of atheism. i.e., they claim atheism leaves life empty and sad and miserable and full of woe and existential angst and, as Russell, put it, unyielding despair. They never got to the core reason that such a realisation may produce despair or existential angst. In other words, they never got to the bottom of the nature of the ego, from which all such responses emanate. The general atheist response to this point is really inadequate.

I'll be doing a Youtube presentation on this very topic in the next couple of days.

I lost faith my first time at the age of 8. I've gone through a short religious phase but can now honestly say I'm past this. I've never felt angsty because of this religious absence-the reason I HAD much angst was my being ostracised from the regular workforce, school and family for no good reason...

Some reasons I get stared at or receive harsh sarcasm:

-"Your fashion sense is offbeat."
-"What a dork."
-"You don't believe in the many miracles of Jesus?"
-"Did you actually whistleblow?"
-"You're actually reading the entire book? But it's sooo longg. Phew, over 500 pages. Geek!"
-"Do we really have to watch this shit? So many politics..."

[Unidian]

1otherS, I think you have some intellectual growing up to do. While you are obviously intelligent enough as far as that goes, you strike me as someone who has decided to oppose QRS just for the hell of it, without any consistently coherent worldview of your own. Although I personally think a few of your criticisms are valid, you won't get far with this shotgun approach. Flinging shit at the wall until something sticks is a perfectly workable approach to many problems, but not to philosophy. You'll need more than a tenuously-assembled collection of criticisms and objections to effectively oppose QRS views. At some point, you need to refine your own thinking process in order to elevate yourself to the status of a credible opponent.

Just a word of advice from a veteran of all this. I think you have definite potential as a thinker, and that isn't something I'd say about everyone. With any luck, as you mature philosophically, you will develop a more consistent and coherent approach. Until then, I'd advise you to focus less on blasting QRS just for the sake of it and more on examining your own thought processes.

[guest_of_logic]

Well fuck me, but are you in impeccable form today or what, Nat? I couldn't have come close to putting it as well as that, but I back your comments totally. 1otherS, please take Nat's post to heart. You're obviously smart enough to have picked up that there are huge deficiencies with the QRS philosophy, which I highly commend you for, however so far your attack has been very ineffective and scattered, and has at times come across as a bit of a personal vendetta. Maybe take a little time to regroup and rethink your approach.

[1otherS]

Thanks for the compliments and good advice-I'll quickly chime in with this:

I see it as my duty to confront the QRS with their problems: hypocrisy and the willful intent to turn outsiders into bitter nihilists instead of REAL thinkers.

I'm proving the QRS have zero-and I mean absolutely zilch- credibility when it comes to intellectual and philosophic integrity.

Sure I need to "mature", but so does the overwhelming majority on this entire webforum...

[Jamesh]

willful intent to turn outsiders into bitter nihilists instead of REAL thinkers

Such nihilism can only either be reality or a product of oneself.

I'm pretty much a nihilist, well except I don’t believe in anarchism. Nor do I reject all theories of morality, however most morality is false and hides the truth or simply exists to support undeserving egos.

I'm proving the QRS have zero-and I mean absolutely zilch - credibility when it comes to intellectual and philosophic integrity.

Well then you would be quite wrong. Mind you their philosophical integrity is something I have whined about on many occasions in the past - but it is at the real pointy end, wherein I agree with the vast bulk of their philosophical assessments. Often it is just picking at over-the-top wording, rather than the intention of what they say.

If a Buddha or Nietzsche or Schopenhaur was around today - no doubt I would find faults in their philosophies. What someone like Nietzsche (or pick whomever you appreciate) had however was immense inventiveness and drive, real creativity, and it is this that leads you to think of such people as being extremely credible. Inventive philosophy is practically dead - everything has been said in one way or another - and academic philosophy is the result wherein people nitpick on details like competing scientists and thus mostly fail to see the bigger picture. What the QRS have done however is to pick many of the good bits from philosophies past creations and put them together rather well so that people can more readily begin to see reality as it really is, without resorting to egotistical self-serving guru-ness (for the most part). I don't see how this could not be credible when it is a life's work for each of them.

But anyway, you are only saying this because somehow your ego has been offended or unsated.

[1otherS]

My ego isn't offended or unsated whenever I read Camus or Nietzsche.

I am however "shocked" what kind of emotional poetry by the QRS passes for enlightenment on here.

Just go through my posts to see my arguments behind this "shock."

[Animus]

Animus, I'm glad that for you it is as "easy" of a choice as between your job and your sanity. I've been in your position and did what I still consider to be the right thing to the best of my ability, and I lost both. I admire you.

I had a meeting today with the HR director who thanked me for bringing the issue to her attention. It turns out there was a bit of miscommunication, but also some procedural anomalies on their part which they are now working through.

I apologized (somewhat) for being so aggressive against them, but she thanked me as otherwise they wouldn't have given it the attention it deserved.

Not what I expected to happen...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Congratulations.