Almost 80% of philosophy majors favor socialism, poll finds (US)

[Syne]

People with unsupported opinions often do have a problem with those with facts. No skin off my nose. Unlike leftists, conservatives can't live in a bubble, for the simple fact that they are constantly inundated with dissenting views in just about any media they imbibe.

Observable facts are not name calling.

"Talking out of your ass" is a common idiom for talking nonsense, which you demonstrated by not being able, or willing, to support your opinions. If you profess to want an intelligent conversation and refuse to give reasons for your opinions (hypocritical*), one can only assume they are only how you "feel" without any further depth worth exploring in discussion.
"Intellectual dishonesty" can be intentional or unintentional, depending on one's self-awareness. But assuming you're capable of simply rereading this relatively short thread, a modicum of self-honesty would inform you that no one has criticized the liberal arts in general. Between that and other straw men, *hypocrisy, poisoning the well, and red herrings, it is an objective fact that you have been intellectually dishonest.

I tell people who can't take disagreement or criticism to put me on ignore all the time. If my posts unsettle you, please, do so post haste. Unlike most people, I'm not looking for validation by being responded to. I can air my views just fine without any response at all. All this circling the wagons about the poster instead of posts gets tedious anyway.

But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, with more poisoning the well and straw men. What question did I not have an answer to? Oh right, that's just another intellectually dishonest tactic.  

"Unsupported" opinion is your term for any opinion other than your own. So is "intellectual dishonesty".

I don't put anyone on "ignore". Why be in a discussion forum if you can't even read something that you don't like or disagree with. How insecure is that?

Condescension and arrogance is not the same as intellect and understanding.

Putting people off because you fear that they won't accept you is easily seen though as well. I'm taking my ball and going home is the juvenile version of this tactic.

Nope, unsupported is demonstrably so. Otherwise you could simply point to where you had supported your opinion. Likewise, you could defend against any accusation of intellectual dishonesty, if you had any evidence in the vein.

LOL! I don't use ignore to avoid things a dislike or disagree with. As I said, I'm confronted with those daily, whether I visit such a forum or not. I ignore people who make meaningless posts with no intent to engage in any discussion that doesn't fit their bias. Like claiming someone criticized the liberal arts simply because they think some specific liberal arts majors are selfish. You've made up you mind about my view, contrary to anything I have or may say. And if that proves to be a consistent pattern, there's simply no point in bothering with you. Just a biased troll and a waste of time.

The unintelligent and noncomprehending often do feel the need to make justifications about condescension and arrogance. My attitude, real or imagined, should only affect you if you're complicit in lending it credence. Your talk about being accepted is projection. And all this talk about me, personally, is essentially you storming off with the ball...the actual, on-topic conversation that was going on before you got too defensive to engage it anymore.  

---

Intellectual dishonesty is deliberate, is it not?

No, it can just as readily be unintentional. Just a matter of self-awareness.
Ignorance is no excuse though.

Oh, I see. Often it’s deliberate, but it’s possible to be intellectually dishonest without realizing it, e.g. when you’re lying to yourself.

Well, pot meet kettle.

Yet, as usual, you have nothing you can point to as evidence of this self-deception, other than just not agreeing with you. Quit projecting, deary.

[Seattle]

Secular Sanity

Well, I enjoy physics, too. I wouldn't consider myself an intellectual, though. More like a [I'm nobody! Who are you!] type thingy.

And, yes, I like philosophy probably because I enjoy riddles. So, I’m a big Nietzsche fan, of course, but I haven’t been able to find too many people that agree with my interpretation of him, not even some of the feminist philosophers, which is very surprising. I did find one comment on a forum that was very similar to mine, but it was made years ago, and I wasn’t able to track him down.

I’ll give you an example. At the end of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” he says…

“Oh, you higher men, it was to your distress that this old soothsayer foretold yesterday morning—

—to your distress he wanted to seduce and tempt me. Oh, Zarathustra, he said to me, I come to seduce you to your last sin.

“To my last sin?” cried Zarathustra, and laughed scornfully at his own words. “What has been left me now as my last sin?”

—And once more Zarathustra became immersed in himself and sat down on the great stone, and he reflected. Suddenly he jumped to his feet.

“Pity! Pity for the higher men!” he cried, and his face transformed to bronze. “Well then! That —has its time!

His pity for the higher men was his last sin, why?

Anyone know?

It's been a while since I read that book. I do like the music and Elvis did a particularly good job with that. 

I guess, he is objecting to the word "pity". I "empathize" being the more positive term and "pity" having the context of looking down on someone as in "I'm better than you and your small life but I also feel sorry for you. I'm just glad it isn't me".

Otherwise, I don't know. As I said, it's been awhile. I hope that's  not too intellectually dishonest for Syne or a straw man or a red herring.

[Secular Sanity]

Wow! I’m impressed. You’re not afraid of failing. That’s a good trait. I’m glad wegs invited you.

I guess, he is objecting to the word "pity". I "empathize" being the more positive term and "pity" having the context of looking down on someone as in "I'm better than you and your small life but I also feel sorry for you. I'm just glad it isn't me".

Otherwise, I don't know. As I said, it's been awhile. I hope that's not too intellectually dishonest for Syne or a straw man or a red herring.

Well, not exactly. It’s not that simple. It’s a riddle, remember? Let’s leave it up for a while, shall we? Maybe C C or Yazata will take a crack at it. Lord knows that Syne won’t touch it—appearances and all, you know?  

Thanks, Seattle.

[Seattle]

A riddle you say...

There are two guards standing in front of two doors. One door leads to life and one door leads to death. You have only one question that you may ask before you have to go though one of the doors. You obviously want to figure out which one leads to life.

One guard will always tell you the truth and the other guard will always lie.

What question do you ask? You only have one and you can only ask one guard. You must go though one of the doors.

[Secular Sanity]

A riddle you say...

There are two guards standing in front of two doors. One door leads to life and one door leads to death. You have only one question that you may ask before you have to go though one of the doors. You obviously want to figure out which one leads to life.

One guard will always tell you the truth and the other guard will always lie.

What question do you ask? You only have one and you can only ask one guard. You must go though one of the doors.

Is there life after death?

[Syne]

Lord knows that Syne won’t touch it—appearances and all, you know?  

If you want my opinion, you only need ask me. No need to poison the well without even asking.

"“Oh, you higher men, it was to your distress that this old soothsayer foretold yesterday morning—

—to your distress he wanted to seduce and tempt me. Oh, Zarathustra, he said to me, I come to seduce you to your last sin.

“To my last sin?” cried Zarathustra, and laughed scornfully at his own words. “What has been left me now as my last sin?”

—And once more Zarathustra became immersed in himself and sat down on the great stone, and he reflected. Suddenly he jumped to his feet.

“Pity! Pity for the higher men!” he cried, and his face transformed to bronze. “Well then! That —has its time!"

His pity for the higher men was his last sin, why?

It seems it was also his first sin, the one that led him to search for the "higher man". The initial distress he heard being his own, reflected in his protege "higher men", who were all flawed in ways expressly linked to their desirable traits as "higher men". Their disillusionment was both the "higher" perspective he sought and the result of their own distress, which thus couldn't be escaped. Thus the whole search is him trying to justify or escape his own self-pity. And it's his last sin when he realizes he need only let it go. The search and the distress.

Nietzsche seems to be relating that the only purpose is in struggle, and that happiness, as purpose, is impossible.

---

A riddle you say...

There are two guards standing in front of two doors. One door leads to life and one door leads to death. You have only one question that you may ask before you have to go though one of the doors. You obviously want to figure out which one leads to life.

One guard will always tell you the truth and the other guard will always lie.

What question do you ask? You only have one and you can only ask one guard. You must go though one of the doors.

Is there life after death?

Someone doesn't remember Labyrinth.

[Secular Sanity]

A riddle you say...

There are two guards standing in front of two doors. One door leads to life and one door leads to death. You have only one question that you may ask before you have to go though one of the doors. You obviously want to figure out which one leads to life.

One guard will always tell you the truth and the other guard will always lie.

What question do you ask? You only have one and you can only ask one guard. You must go though one of the doors.

Ah, dang it. I was wrong. 

Thanks, Seattle.

---

Lord knows that Syne won’t touch it—appearances and all, you know?  

If you want my opinion, you only need ask me. No need to poison the well without even asking.

"“Oh, you higher men, it was to your distress that this old soothsayer foretold yesterday morning—

—to your distress he wanted to seduce and tempt me. Oh, Zarathustra, he said to me, I come to seduce you to your last sin.

“To my last sin?” cried Zarathustra, and laughed scornfully at his own words. “What has been left me now as my last sin?”

—And once more Zarathustra became immersed in himself and sat down on the great stone, and he reflected. Suddenly he jumped to his feet.

“Pity! Pity for the higher men!” he cried, and his face transformed to bronze. “Well then! That —has its time!"

His pity for the higher men was his last sin, why?

It seems it was also his first sin, the one that led him to search for the "higher man". The initial distress he heard being his own, reflected in his protege "higher men", who were all flawed in ways expressly linked to their desirable traits as "higher men". Their disillusionment was both the "higher" perspective he sought and the result of their own distress, which thus couldn't be escaped. Thus the whole search is him trying to justify or escape his own self-pity. And it's his last sin when he realizes he need only let it go. The search and the distress.

Nietzsche seems to be relating that the only purpose is in struggle, and that happiness, as purpose, is impossible.

Yes. You can't look back at all your struggles and still be a yes sayer with self-pity. He loved her [LIFE] eternally. 

Not bad, little buddy, not bad all.

[Syne]

Next time, just ask, instead of the vain attempt to poison the well, SS.
Oh wait, that would too far out of character for you. You take to trolling and baiting like breathing.

[Seattle]

Don't poison the well SS.

[Syne]

His pity for the higher men was his last sin, why?

It seems it was also his first sin, the one that led him to search for the "higher man". The initial distress he heard being his own, reflected in his protege "higher men", who were all flawed in ways expressly linked to their desirable traits as "higher men". Their disillusionment was both the "higher" perspective he sought and the result of their own distress, which thus couldn't be escaped. Thus the whole search is him trying to justify or escape his own self-pity. And it's his last sin when he realizes he need only let it go. The search and the distress.

Nietzsche seems to be relating that the only purpose is in struggle, and that happiness, as purpose, is impossible.

Yes. You can't look back at all your struggles and still be a yes sayer with self-pity. He loved her [LIFE] eternally. 

Not bad, little buddy, not bad all.

So what's your answer?

Certainly my take isn't "very similar to" yours.