Latest Rankings

Mar 25, 2005 22:58


Objective Rankings of LJ "Philosophers"


Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 54

mehdi_caps March 26 2005, 11:34:38 UTC
OMG, the Forces of Darkness are in my friends list! ;)

Reply

glowingwhispers March 26 2005, 19:36:13 UTC

We have something in common then.

Reply


jeffrock March 26 2005, 16:51:50 UTC
I will consent to: Astral beings, lost in reverie for Cosmic Consciousness, communicate from the Ether. Appeal to mysticism and "If that is the case, then how do you explain the insights of the Vedas?" and to a very limited extent "theosophy".

However, I'm not so sure about: Divination and channeling, voodoo, human sacrifice, exorcism, garlic. I think perhaps you tried to fit too much into one category with that one-- I suggest a new one: necromancers.

All in all though, it got a smirk out of me. The gods of objectivity are surely smiling upon you today.

Reply


mendaciloquent March 26 2005, 19:08:45 UTC
Ich sehe nur dunkelheit.... zerstoere, zerstoere, zerstoere... alles ist zweckloss.

Reply

apperception March 26 2005, 19:43:35 UTC
Jeff seems to think that voodoo, human sacrifice, exorcism, and garlic do not belong to the Space Cadets. Perhaps he's right. Some of those may belong to Forces of Darkness.

He also suggested a new category, "Necromancer," but I think I may just change "Forces of Darkness" to "Necromancers." What do you think?

(I still think garlic is the only way to defeat Jeff. He's just upset that we gave the secret away.)

Reply

mendaciloquent March 26 2005, 20:00:15 UTC
Hmm. I think "Forces of Darkness" is better.

I think we could take human sacrifice out of the repertoire of the Space Cadets, however, since they are not by nature malevolent.

Reply

jeffrock March 27 2005, 03:09:11 UTC
And "Appeal to...divination and channeling, voodoo" because they don't do that either. (I would add "intuition" under the "appeal to" category as well).

I would also suggest that the best way to defeat them is to simply ignore them and/or claim that they don't really exist, or that if they do exist their existence isn't verifiable or demonstrable, so can be of no consequence.

Reply


glowingwhispers March 26 2005, 19:43:03 UTC

Very cute. You made me giggle.

Given all the drama happening over there, I'm tempted to throw my hat into the ring as well. My only concern was the the name of the community in itself made the venture doomed from the start. Afterall, what the heck is 'real' philosophy in contrast to an imaginary or unreal one?

Reply

apperception March 30 2005, 06:00:37 UTC
Some of us have been trying to figure that out.

Reply


Bad Example philosophyjeff March 26 2005, 20:23:30 UTC
I am not a member of real_philosophy. Why am I on this list entitled "Objective Rankings of real_philosophy Members"?

Reply

Re: Bad Example jeffrock March 27 2005, 03:24:15 UTC
You didn't raise this objection to cabrutus when he put you on his list. :p

Reply

Re: Bad Example philosophyjeff March 27 2005, 03:42:41 UTC
I don't think that detracts from the force of the point here.

Reply

Well... technically... lilwilly March 27 2005, 10:41:02 UTC
Yeah, but cabrutus's list is inclusive of all philosophers on LJ. Not merely those in real_philosophy.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up