🚀 go-pugleaf

<snip - as irrelevant to the point at hand>

> >Nope.  You have nothing to teach.
> >
> >
>
> You would have no way of knowing that since in order to, you would have
had to
> have agreed to engage with me as a pupil in the Socratic method of
teaching
> autononous thinking.
>

I do have very good evidence of that assertion, since if you were schooled
in such methods, I would have expected you to apply them and understand
them.  You didn't.  Therefore any credibility with respect to any of the
generally-accepted philosophical methods, principles and concepts goes out
the window with your arguments that have, time and time again, violated
those very principles.  Those who understand Socrates, Hume, Berkeley,
Descartes and any other number of the world's best known critical thinkers
tend to use the lessons they learn from them; which is why they are the
world's best-known critical thinkers.  Since neither you, nor I, can make
the same claim, we have to assume that they did know something we don't.

You see, teaching places certain responsibilities on the teacher, and
certain ones on the student.  It is not an imbalance.  Because the teacher
must also be willing to learn, in order to teach; the best method of
teaching is still by example.  Again, you have not shown that you have to
ability to teach anything, and you have given plenty of evidence to the
contrary.  Interestingly enough, it is all there for the world to see for
anyone who would want to waste enough time to read this entire thread.
Lucky the internet is somewhat anonymous, eh?

In addition, people who need to make a claim about superiority, rarely are;
if they were, it would be obvious to anyone.  Therefore, your claim of being
"a high-functioning autodidak", where "two months of your research equates
to several years of graduate work for others" is really the same implicit
claim that any high-school dropout makes when they decide to fight a
speeding ticket because they think that a couple of days with the MVA
equates to a few years of law school.  If that is the case, why are you not
a professor at some recognized university.  Most universities provide a
method of challenging undergraduate degrees so one can go directly into
graduate work.  And, if you can function that highly in research, why not
write a Phd thesis within your first year and go from there.  Once you have
done that, then your wild claims will become acceptable.

How about the claim to being well on the way to becoming a Philosopher King?
Yet, you haven't shown any evidence that you even know how to form a decent
argument, and even if you do, your tendency to not bother indicates a
complete lack of intellectual discipline.  Any philosopher worth his/her
salt would never dain to stoop as low as to deliberately inject a fallacy
into an argument.  For one thing, for philosophers, the truth or falsity of
an argument is irrelevant; only its validity is important.  The
preponderance of evidence here is that you haven't the foggiest notion of
what you are talking about, and you don't even understand that you don't
understand.

And so, I can't say for certain that there is nothing I can learn from you
just as you can't say for certain there is nothing you can learn from me.
However, given the length of the thread I have engaged in with you, and you
have not only taught me nothing, but in fact shown that you don't really
know much that I need to learn, or even how to form a decent argument or to
stick to a consistent one without resorting to insults (contrary to your
belief that IS an Ad Hominem fallacy; which is further evidence that you
don't really understand anything to do with philosophy), I have sufficient
evidence to make that claim.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that unless
you re-read the thread, you probably have no idea what the original premises
were.  That leads me to the conclusion that even if you do know something
that would interest me, there are far more efficicient ways for me to gain
that knowledge than to continue to engage you.