Philosophy: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 23:58, 13 August 2004

Redirect to:

Consumerium:Philosophy

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-''For the un[[trolled]] tale see [[Consumerium:Philosophy]] - which is [[gnawlij]] of a sort as the [[trolls]] have already gnawed on it a fair bit.  The following is a response to any attempt to use philosophy against trolls:''
+#REDIRECT [[Consumerium:Philosophy]]
-Some people have tried to invent "the Consumerium school of pro-troll philosophy" out of plain old [[troll-friendly]] policy and [[New Troll point of view]].  This is silly.   But to help those of you who just love big ideologies:
-[[Trolls]] have instead provided a [[Simple Trollish]] guide to those of you trying to figure us out.  However:  It is probably wiser to just read [[styles of capital]] instead and think about the economics of [[trolling]] and not the damn philosophy of it, who cares about philosophers?  It's economists who rule the world and do it badly.  Just forget you ever heard of this '''philosophy''' idea.  It's wrong.
-: ''I wonder why people - like the author above - so often feel T need 2 tell other people what's right or wrong. Or: what language 2 use or not 2 use. To say "just forget" means "let me think for U" and this is, quite simple, bad style and a bad idea. -- T2R''
-::Certainly, foes of [[philosophy as usual]] have included many tyrants, but some [[GodKing]]s have also embraced [[philosophy]] as a way to turn dissent and calls for serious change into meaningless talk.  It is this that is wrong more than the philosophy itself.
-: ''There is no formal way 2 solve human problem. Such as: don't use this word. Don't use philosphy or negro. People will find other ways 2 express what they intend 2. Words are only symptoms. There is no way around the need 2 individually judge sentences and situations with respect 2 their meaning and their positive or negative effects. There is no formal way 2 replace this individual judgement. --T2R''