Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[vicdan]

That sort of accusation routinely gets leveled at philosophers as a whole, too.

"They're too frightened by the real work of science and math, too afraid of having to think in a precise way that gets tangible results, so they lose themselves in vague abstractions and concoct self-justifying stories about how philosophy is superior and science and math "depend" on philosophy."

More self-pitying BS. Philosophy is very important, was in the past, and will be in the future. However, trying to excuse your weaknesses is not philosophy. It's just pitiful whining wearing a funny hat.

Was Spinoza a real philosopher? he worked for a living. how about Quine? Locke? Kant? Nietzsche?.. All of them were real philosphers, philosophers' philosophers if you will. Not a single one of them did what Unidian is so pathetically doing.

[vicdan]

The "criticism" was just an accusation that he clings to philosophy to prop up his self-esteem and salve his fear of failure. Not really much there to "address."

No, the criticism was that doing philosophy due to suffering is not a good approach, and that imposing moral obligation to support you upon others is immoral.

But you believe whatever you want to believe.

[Philosophaster]

The moral obligation thing has already been gone over dozens of times with no progress, here and elsewhere.

Philosophy is very important, was in the past, and will be in the future. However, trying to excuse your weaknesses is not philosophy.

This is again just your accusation that Nat takes up philosophy because he is weak and wants to make himself seem strong and important.

Was Spinoza a real philosopher? he worked for a living. how about Quine? Locke? Kant? Nietzsche?.. All of them were real philosphers, philosophers' philosophers if you will. Not a single one of them did what Unidian is so pathetically doing.

What your psychoanalysis accuses him of doing, you mean.

Unless you mean to say that philosophy is incompatible with being on the dole.

But I'm not sure what you're referring to with that.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, we need to cope; but coping through self-deception is just one way, though apparently your path of choice. You can also cope by accepting the falsehood of your previous self-image and by adjusting how you see yourself; or by actually managing your weaknesses, perhaps even excising some of them; or by being very clever about how you adopt them to the environment; etc.

No, no! You're still talking about deception only, you freak! Endless categories of them. LOL. Their function is to hide the reality of our situation so we can remain clever and adaptive, whatever our particular situation is.

But I do agree about the accepting of previous falsehood, adjusting, managing and excising. Deceptions need constant change, improving and evolution because they would collapse unto themselves without it.

Better self-deception, more transparent and thus more contented self-deception, is the solution of myopic fools who like to claim the mantle of philosophy because is sounds better than calling one's self a deluded fool, a conman who cons only himself.

Such remarks work both ways of course. Why wouldn't it apply to yourself? Let me guess: you know yourself better through superior self-inquiry.

[vicdan]

Philo,

Spin much?..

Unidian was the one who said that employment is basically incompatible with philosophy. However, most philosophers through history weren't on the dole, nor unemployed. Diogenes was one --but guess what? he didn't proclaim that others owe him a living, did he?..

Unidian's point is transparently self-serving bullshit. A few years ago, in one of his more honest moments, he even admitted that his support for such welfare is driven purely by self-interest.

[vicdan]

No, no! You're still talking about deception only, you freak! Endless categories of them. LOL. Their function is to hide the reality of our situation so we can remain clever and adaptive, whatever our particular situation is.

Ah, i see. Everything is a lie by definition!

isn't defining your way to a conclusion a wonderful thing?..

Such remarks work both ways of course. Why wouldn't it apply to yourself?

Because i don't believe that self-deception is the only solution. Duh.

[Philosophaster]

Unidian was the one who said that employment is basically incompatible with philosophy. However, most philosophers through history weren't on the dole, nor unemployed. Diogenes was one --but guess what? he didn't proclaim that others owe him a living, did he?..

No, he didn't. But I still don't see how the fact that a person argues in favor of something that would benefit him automatically makes his philosophy "self-serving bullshit." If we applied that criterion to any political philosopher who argued in favor of his preferred political arrangement, then every one of them would be guilty of "self-serving bullshit," since people who argue in favor of a system tend to argue for it because it's the one that brings about a lot of things that they desire. I think that all of us have self-interest in view to some degree or another, but I wouldn't consider a philosophy "self-serving bullshit" unless somebody were arguing for a system solely because it benefited him.

A few years ago, in one of his more honest moments, he even admitted that his support for such welfare is driven purely by self-interest.

You've claimed this before, but I've never seen any support of it.

[vicdan]

he agreed to it when i claimed it -- he just asserted that this was him speaking in a moment of weakness and self-loathing, not honesty.

Whatever, dude. Tribalism ain't pretty.

[Philosophaster]

Well, it looks like all we have left to discuss is an accusation that neither of us has any real way to support or discredit.

Care to psychoanalyze me now? LOL.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ah, i see. Everything is a lie by definition!

Adjusting self-image and managing ones weaknesses was what you were talking about. Perhaps for you that constitutes 'everything'? In that case: yes.

[Unidian]

Philo,

I bet he can come up with some real gems about why you are defending me. Hehe...

If you want to amuse yourself, throw his own argument back at him and watch how livid he gets. Suggest that he argues for social permissiveness because it would result in a climate more accepting of his own preferred "activities" and watch the resulting fireworks. Based on the excerpts you quoted, it appears he's using the same "self-justification by proxy" argument I used to use against him years ago to his considerable aggravation. He did this the last couple of times he trolled me as well. I stopped using the argument because it requires mind-reading and generally cannot be supported outside the framework of presumptuous psychoanalysis. But he seems to have really developed a fondness for it.

It's not even much of a point at all, because we all tend to be interested in causes which have a personal connection to our own circumstances. Duh. That's the way progress moves forward - people get interested in issues that matter in their own lives and speak out accordingly. The whole history of human social advancement has been achieved on that basis.

But hey, the more he carries on, the better. He's certainly not doing himself any favors by filling this thread with abusive outrage and bigoted comments about "the weak," etc. Never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake. And if (once again) publicly exposing oneself as an economic Darwinist in the finest tradition of Rand and Reagan isn't a mistake, I don't know what is.

[David Quinn]

Well, it looks like all we have left to discuss is an accusation that neither of us has any real way to support or discredit.

Care to psychoanalyze me now? LOL.

I think he already has. Pretty much on the mark too.

-

[Unidian]

Hey Quinn, am I to understand that you are siding with someone who thinks you should be deprived of your meal ticket, your home, and quite possibly your life? That's what he thinks, you know. If you think he's hard on me for advocating a universal unconditional right to welfare and suggesting that unemployment is a possible sign of spiritual development, what do you figure he thinks about you? You feel entitled to collect welfare because you think you're a Buddha. You don't even have the decency to think of everyone as entitled to welfare as a basic human right, you just think you should get it because you're a Genius and to hell with everyone else if they aren't "enlightened." Jesus, dude, even I think that's just wrong. Not only would Vickie take your income in a heartbeat if he could, he'd probably have you institutionalized as well. Do you really want to lend support to that?

And all just to take a snipe at Philo, who you still resent for not converting to Quinnology?

[David Quinn]

I don't have any issue with people being on the dole in order to think. Given the sheer backwardness of modern society, we desperately need as many full-time spiritual thinkers as possible. But I agree with Victor and Matt that you are trying to make yourself look good in society's eyes for the decision you have made. I also agree with them that it stems from having a bad conscience about your current lifestyle.

If society doesn't value wisdom, then our decision to be on the dole can't be justified on society's terms. We will always be regarded as leeches who give nothing in return. It is our challenge to arise above the guilt that society will always try to instill in us and fully embrace our own values.

-

[vicdan]

If you want to amuse yourself, throw his own argument back at him and watch how livid he gets. Suggest that he argues for social permissiveness because it would result in a climate more accepting of his own preferred "activities" and watch the resulting fireworks.

Ah yes, i was just going to mention it. See, Philo, this was the context in which Unidian had admitted that he is doing all this for selfish reasons. We had been arguing about apotemnophilia, me defending it for libertarian reason, and he accused me of doing so so justify my perversion... even though i am openly bi and not in the least bit ashamed of it. I then brought up the fact that he is projecting -- he always argues for policies which match his selfish goals, such as welfare, and he assumes everyone els does the same -- and he had admitted that he does indeed argue for policies based on selfish goals; i.e. that he is in favor of welfare simply because it suits him, and not for any more significant ethical or political reason.

Hey, why don't you follow his suggestions, and troll? he is suggesting you troll, after all. Go ahead, argue that I support freedom only to legitimize my own bisexuality. Should be interesting.

[Philosophaster]

I hope you can at least admit that you are trolling.

[vicdan]

Hey Quinn, am I to understand that you are siding with someone who thinks you should be deprived of your meal ticket,

Ah, the outrage! The sheer amazement that someone might possibly not hold views for selfish reasons! See what i mean, folks?

I am against the dole for those who can work but choose not to. I am, however, far, far more against such people claiming that the society has a moral obligation top provide for them. if you wanna live on the dole, just be honest and admit that you are taking selfish advantage of the system -- don't try to turn it into a virtue. I had already said before that i am still in favor of welfare, even though some cheaters will inevitably be able to take advantage of it without really qualifgying. However, when you tell me that I owe you a living, you are slime.

your home, and quite possibly your life?

yeah, and i want to make lampshades from his skin, too!

And all just to take a snipe at Philo, who you still resent for not converting to Quinnology?

The raw tribalism here, the feral fight for followers and privileges, is painful to watch. Grow the fuck up.

[vicdan]

I hope you can at least admit that you are trolling.

if by 'trolling' you mean refusing to let unidian get away with claiming that everyone else owes him a living simply because he hates work -- then yes, guilty as charged.

Note however that Unidian has explicitly asked you to make arguments solely for the sake of stirring up trouble. That is the textbook definition of trolling.

[Unidian]

David,

But I agree with Victor and Matt that you are trying to make yourself look good in society's eyes for the decision you have made.

In society's eyes? You've got to be kidding. Of all the outlandish objections on this thread, this has to be the most comical. How could anything I said possibly make me look good in society's eyes? The reactions of Victor, dhodges, and Matt Gregory are quite typical of society's overall reaction to the points I made.

I can't fathom how you figure I'm trying to make myself look good in society's eyes by advocating positions that society finds beneath contempt. It makes less sense than anything thus far.

Society finds the idea of "thinkers on the dole" or "collecting welfare for spiritual reasons" laughable at best and more often reprehensible. It should have been crystal clear that I intended my ideas for consumption by unconventional thinkers, which I (apparently somewhat mistakenly) figured were in the majority at Genius Forum, if anywhere. Did I post this on a "NASCAR" type of message board, as I would if I were seeking mainstream approval? No. Would I ever? Of course not. A universally negative reaction would be ensured. I'm not into pointless masochism.

I also agree with them that it stems from having a bad conscience about your current lifestyle.

Totally off again. My conscience is completely clear with regard to my means of income. I get considerably less than I feel rightfully entitled to. Society is getting a great bargain at the moment. If anyone should have a guilty conscience, it is those who pretend that the pittance I get is enough to reasonably live on. It's less than minimum wage. I have no conflict of conscience about it at all. I can't imagine why you (of all people) would come to that conclusion. Have you struggled with a bad conscience in regard to collecting benefits yourself?

If society doesn't value wisdom, then our decision to be on the dole can't be justified on society's terms. We will always be regarded as leeches who give nothing in return.

That much is inarguably true and I'm glad someone has finally said it. You're absolutely right - there is no winning this one in mainstream eyes. But I'm not trying to do that. Genius Forum is hardly the ideal place to try to win over the mainstream. This is supposed to be "a forum for dangerous thinkers," but when it comes to this issue, it seems to me more like a forum of kittens and lambs. Not even the administration, who are voluntarily unemployed welfare recipients themselves (even going so far as denying any actual disability), seem willing to engage the issue with any gusto. Instead, I was quite taken aback to find you lending aid and comfort to the enemy, David.

It is our challenge to arise above the guilt that society will always try to instill in us and fully embrace our own values.

But I don't feel guilty. Rather, I feel angry about being ignorantly and unjustly marginalized when in fact I'm doing far more with my life than the mockers and hecklers are (at least from the perspective that is supposed to be valued here at GF). However, you are correct that it is our challenge to get past this sort of feeling, even though it is anger rather than guilt. I wouldn't argue with you that I've done a poor job in that regard and that much of my activity in this regard stems from a defensive posture. I have a lot of work to do in that area and I thank you for reminding me of it.

But again, I'm not trying to "look good" in society's eyes. I don't care if people hate me, because I know that is the way it works. All truly independent thinkers are universally hated. History is quite clear about that, as you know. What I am trying to do is get some people who are already participating in a very unconventional, non-mainstream community to consider the idea that their egotistical certainty that they are superior to me is deeply mistaken. That is the purpose of reversing the typical egotistical view by creating topics such as "unemployment is a sign of integrity." The opposite view (that employment indicates superior integrity) is universally (and falsely) presumed true throughout society, evidently including some GF members. All I'm doing is forcing people to re-examine their baseless and egocentric cultural indoctrination, which is something you should be quite sympathetic to, no?

[Dan Rowden]

Am I psychic or what!! Also, accusations of trolling are my job, guys; give it a rest before you put me on the discussion board dole.

[Philosophaster]

I hope you can at least admit that you are trolling.

if my 'trolling' you mean refusing to let unidian get away with claiming that everyone else owes hjim a living simply because he hates work -- then yes, guilty as charged.

Come on. Neil Mynyk and DHodges had already, on the first two pages of the thread, provided the exact same arguments and complaints ("you're just trying to justify yourself" and "nobody owes a living to people who choose not to work") against Nat:

Surely it is beneath you to chop your own wood and carry your own water. You are diligently working on things that are very very important (or, maybe, doing nothing), and must not be distracted or disturbed.

...

The reason I mock this is because it smells really, really bad.

It smells like an argument from someone trying really hard to justify - to themselves - the way they live their life. It gives that smell in part because of the implication that anyone who doesn't do it that way must be lacking in integrity. It's self-righteous.

I think you are just trying to rationalize idleness. "I am idle. I like philosophy. Therefore philosophy is absolute good and idleness is necessity that only the strongest people, like myself, can do."

Maybe you just skipped over this, or maybe you thought three people needed "help" arguing against Nat. I think you just joined in to get another thrill from railing against Nat, using the exact same arguments and terms of abuse as before.

[vicdan]

dan,

Am I psychic or what!!

Oh? Did you predict Unidian attacking Quinn?

[Dan Rowden]

No, I predicted this discussion would turn to gratuitous personal shit, as it always does. As soon as I finish the pages for the latest podcast your arse is grass, Danilchenko! :)

[Unidian]

Dan, please note that I haven't responded to anything he has said, except the "trailer park" thing which I learned of indirectly. I have him on ignore, so there is nothing to respond to.

But his tactic, of course, will be the same as it has been in previous trolling episodes at FP and elsewhere - he will just continue addressing me and bringing up my name until someone else jumps in. He hopes to draw me out through others, which is why he will keep slinging the shit until the whole thing devolves into a cesspool no matter whether I address him directly or not.

Make no mistake - Philo is 100% correct now and you were 100% correct in your original estimate. It is simple trolling and nothing more. Whether or not you want to put a stop to it is up to you.

Oh, you might also be interested in the issue of who summoned him here, because I think it's fairly clear that they have their own entertainment and not the best interests of Genius Forum in mind. Whoever clued him in to the existence of this thread knew exactly what would happen, and that's precisely why they did it.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't intend to stop it, but it would have been nice if my original concerns for the direction this would take were respected a little more. Still, it's a worthwhile discussion of itself. People responding need to appreciate that you have a socio-economic framework underpinning your supposed "attitude". It'd more conducive to intelligent discourse if that was the focus.

Oh, you might also be interested in the issue of who summoned him here, because I think it's fairly clear that they have their own entertainment and not the best interests of Genius Forum in mind. Whoever clued him in to the existence of this thread knew exactly what would happen, and that's precisely why they did it.

I'm aware of all this. Let's move on from that.