19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009If you think the stuff about "snowflakes" is pointless, take it up with Philokalia not me.
Don’t drag me into a pointless argument to save this thread. It was doomed from the start.
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You appear to be misunderstanding what you acting the fool actually demonstrates on this thread and on this forum generally.
[This thread] was doomed from the start.
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @fmfSnowflake is directly applicable in the snese that a highly atomized person that strives for some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting is a snowflake.
And what does this have to do with the OP? [Clue: you wittering on self-obsessively about your love of punk rock and metal music and your tattoos is not relevant.] Yes, I know you are scornful of certain people. But this is a thread. There is an OP. If you want to rail on about "snowflakes" and/or people with an "exaggerated" something or other, then start a thread about it.
Originally posted by @philokaliaI'm not much interested in your Alex Jones-like sneering "funky banter". The OP has absolutely nothing to do with "some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting as a snowflake" and I am not interested in being drawn into your alcohol-fuelled lonely ex-pat pretentious cyber-misanthropy. If your sneering about certain people that you disapprove of is all you can offer in response to the OP, then so be it. I am simply not interested. Maybe somebody else will take you up on it.
Snowflake is directly applicable in the snese that a highly atomized person that strives for some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting is a snowflake.
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @fmfBut often times individualism is nothing more than some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting, like a snowflake.
I'm not much interested in your Alex Jones-like sneering "funky banter". The OP has absolutely nothing to do with "some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting as a snowflake" and I am not interested in being drawn into your alcohol-fuelled lonely ex-pat pretentious cyber-misanthropy. If your sneering about certain people that you disapprove ...[text shortened]... the OP, then so be it. I am simply not interested. Maybe somebody else will take you up on it.
Many people also don't have much of a capacity to truly be unique. They are basic people of basic intelligence with common interests.
Even people who are very smart, have unique interests, and come off as rare persons end up following very, very similar paths.
I have begun to think that individuality must rely mostly on the unique position, birth, circumstances, history, inter-relations, and observations that a person has not so much by virute of themselves as an independent unit, but mostly by their relatioship to other people and things.
So, like, dude... where's the spirit? Where is the totally self-sustained spirit?
Or is it fine for the spirit, and the individual, to be very much non-unique?
19 Feb 18
I think, at least, that the individualism has always connoted some sort of uniqueness.
Individualism where everyone is very similar or even the same is, of course, something of a contradition.
At least... we have these feelings, perhaps, because of the word 'individuality.'
But maybe I an overly conflating the two.
We'll have to turn to our resident expert on the only possible way too ever interpret a word and dude who likes to fragmentize & dissect meaning until it all meaning is lost to figure out if I have gone too far, or haven't gone far enough.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuality
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou already know my views on this. Or do you want me to type it out all over again?
So, like, dude... where's the spirit? Where is the totally self-sustained spirit?
Or is it fine for the spirit, and the individual, to be very much non-unique?
Originally posted by @philokaliaBut often times individualism is nothing more than some exaggerated sense of being special, unique, and interesting, like a snowflake.
Many people also don't have much of a capacity to truly be unique. They are basic people of basic intelligence with common interests.
Even people who are very smart, have unique interests, and come off as rare persons end up following very, very similar paths.
I have begun to think that individuality must rely mostly on the unique position, birth, circumstances, history, inter-relations, and observations that a person has not so much by virute of themselves as an independent unit, but mostly by their relatioship to other people and things.
I'm not interested in your "snowflake" stuff as you define it here.
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaIf you have anything to offer on the OP and John Ralston Saul's definition of "individualism" - which relates to "participation" and not how much or little contempt you happen to have for your fellow humans - it would be interesting.
I think, at least, that the individualism has always connoted some sort of uniqueness.
Individualism where everyone is very similar or even the same is, of course, something of a contradition.
At least... we have these feelings, perhaps, because of the word 'individuality.'
But maybe I an overly conflating the two.
We'll have to turn to ou ...[text shortened]... oo far, or haven't gone far enough.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuality
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaDo those studies on genetic racial differences which you famously cited in debates a few week ago, shed any light on your understanding of individualism?
I think, at least, that the individualism has always connoted some sort of uniqueness.
Individualism where everyone is very similar or even the same is, of course, something of a contradition.
At least... we have these feelings, perhaps, because of the word 'individuality.'
But maybe I an overly conflating the two.
We'll have to turn to ou ...[text shortened]... oo far, or haven't gone far enough.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individuality
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterI see you’re back to campaigning - and in impressive fashion.
Do those studies on genetic racial differences which you famously cited in debates a few week ago, shed any light on your understanding of individualism?
That you’re so brazenly trolling in one of your election opponent’s threads, the creation of which may have been a massive troll baiting exercise, means you’re troll blocking too.
I salute you, sir!
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterThey maybe could if you were to talk about cognitive capability and individuation. You could probably find info about higher IQ correlating with other parameters necessary for meaningful individuation.
Do those studies on genetic racial differences which you famously cited in debates a few week ago, shed any light on your understanding of individualism?
But I'm not sure if individuation itself is the point of the individualism people are talking about.
But yeah obviously a group of Harvard professors probably have far more individuation from one another than a group of low IQ persons who don't possess much capacity for even beginning to understand subelteties that feed into the complexities of a deep personality and intellectual life.
But lol, what are you going to do? Make an argument or just call me names?
19 Feb 18
Originally posted by @fmfNo content.
If you have anything to offer on the OP and John Ralston Saul's definition of "individualism" - which relates to "participation" and not how much or little contempt you happen to have for your fellow humans - it would be interesting.
What's the deal?
This thread is a cognitive ghetto.
19 Feb 18
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeester to philokaliaEnlighten me...
Do those studies on genetic racial differences which you famously cited in debates a few week ago, shed any light on your understanding of individualism?
Reply by @philokalia
They maybe could if you were to talk about cognitive capability and individuation.