The Circular Repetitive Monotony of Philosophical Discourse

Off you go eh? If I had a nickle...

You mightve missed my reply to you. I am having doubts about your intellectual capacity so I'm letting you know it's on the prior page of this thread.

Well, lucky you, there is a written record of it- it's called... THIS THREAD.

Did you forget to read the link I provided to 'ad hominem fallacy' too?

All reasoning ends in an tautology or an oxymoron. Goedel

Ideas period not always answered, when you take it to the real world there are problems, most of the time there is little to no real substance to the philosophical conversations. Neither should they be put into public unless there is real evidence to study and not found as factual just study sciences are studies, not proven, just seeing if they work if they don't harm anyone. It turns into hypotheses meaning below which comes from people and their journey from philosophy into the real world and most should have more care than they have been in the last 200 years. You know that philosophy is similar to what a lot of older people called chewing fat, this is also having ideas and working with a conversation to get opinions of these ideas. There is a point where it has been overthought until someone does something, just to try something and it harms others, yes, philosophy has brought things like communism, Nazism, and Eugenics and wanting an NWO with the so-called Elites in charge but where did they come up with themselves and Elites, who agrees with them outside their box?


hy·poth·e·sis
[hīˈpäTHəsəs]
NOUN
hypotheses (plural noun)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"

I copied this from another site but I disagree with this definition, the inventors in the past also used philosophy to work out their ideas. Inventing is starting a conversation of ideas, should this be made, can it be helpful or damaging to mankind, etc. Philosophically I disagree, it not always a there are different thoughts for different studies some people don't need to question a lot of things it already set in their mind some things are unanswerable and will always be unknowable.

The short answer
Philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects such as ethics, thought, existence, time, meaning and value. That 'way of thinking' involves 4 Rs: responsiveness, reflection, reason and re-evaluation. The aim is to deepen understanding. The hope is that by doing philosophy we learn to think better, to act more wisely, and thereby help to improve the quality of all our lives.

This is hit and miss a short answer. Just crew the fat and don't act on your ideas without a public vote on it.

I have the sneaking suspicion you didn't read this thread so fair is fair. I won't give your words much attention either.

Thank you for showing your perspective. I find that the gist I see in it is one I can agree with. The purpose to think better, act more wisely and help improve the quality of all our lives.

My question is mainly there to serve as a stimulation for contemplation. If the idea is the journey, and journey implies a destination, is there an ultimate destination?

I would say there isn't, because the process is implied (new ideas and new journeys). Actually, the journey - of this very idea - is something I would even call an Odyssey. It is a journey of journeys. It is a personal epic.

No single step is irrelevant, every moment counts. That's how I see it.

To quote a similar sentiment from earlier



Embracing the moment means living it and not being lost in it. My philosophy for life includes the strategic view of all that must be done.

And that includes considering the consequences of implementing any doctrine.

This is why I say that I agree. Have I understood you well?

And so the end becomes an outcome and a new beginning starts.

Cycles upon cycles and patterns within patterns

The everlasting creative wisdom now.

Okay so I am back at the house again with the keyboard so I can do some quoting and normal typing. Time for some cleanup

I saw it. Actually I didn't use ad hominem but stated facts of my experience. I did go out on a limb with a few statements, but since you never addressed them nor corrected them, I have no reason to doubt their validity.

I'm going to upload a handy visual reference regarding the invective humor, which you used in attempt to create a perception about my person in order to discredit me on this thread.

Yes it includes you trying to make me look like a pedophile, which I'm not. You might be, though.

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

So to clarify it,

Why debates are useless is because the nature of debate is the Invective humor.

Rather than about understanding (or what some would call the dialectic method, which is not "debating") it is about publicly discrediting the opponent.

Debates are emotional in essence as they are fueled by invective humors.

False.



The nonlinearity of contemporary philosophic methods has been addressed. Transcendence is unecessary and contradicts your statement that it must be experiential. Experiential requires immanence, not transcendence. Your conceptualization is incoherent.

Formal meditation, hard physical labor, social relationships and comfort are simply options for ways to explore new perspectives. These are not requirements for philosophy.




Fun is for everyone. I recommend reading Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga to expand your view.

This is my first note of your pedophilic projection. You have decided to make children the only source of fun in your reality.



You have given nothing to keep up with, but to make the point here clear, rather than your attempts to put up straw men that you can easily defeat (is it because you can't address anything real or significant in this thread?)

The point is that I could easily delete your posts, and I knew you would write this way, so I would have deleted it immediately, but for the sake of transparency and to not give you a "sissy bitch" excuse to go crying about "censorship" I let you expose yourself on this thread.

That's the real point.



It is both the means and the end, the journey and the destination. In the spirit of pointing out fallacies, understand your False Dichotomy.

Once more, thank you for being useful to this thread as the example of why debates are pointless, and why pointing out fallacies, crying about ad hominem and all this other technical talk is FOR debates, which this thread is not, and entirely based in the experience of the invective humor, and nothing really useful.

You wrote some valid things but overall I dont see any use for you except for an example.



Continuing the line of your Emotion that fun is only for children, it is worth clarifying my own words here so you don't get away with debating one-sidedly.

Fun is for anyone. I use the word "girls" in the sense of the Russian term "devchonki" which translates more to the word "gals" but it's not a word I tend to use.

Taking your bait about life experience (ad hominem as an invective humor, making irrelevant points in attempt to discredit) I wrote that age and life experience are not the same.

This isn't to say they are entirely separate, however, it does guarantee you didn't make any relevant point with that comment.

It can go on the record of this thread that all of our talk, between you and me (let's pretend it was a dialectic, just an emotional one) stemmed from the invective humor you supplied.

The humor isn't mine, and I don't find it enjoyable, so based on the reference to the experience of it, and it's source, I would bet money that you are a pedophile.

This is the same invective humor in action here now.



and


This example is left in for the sake of pointing out all the other posts by you I didn't quote: They had nothing of substance either.

Goodbye.

I did want to expand more on this particular theme because I feel it illustrated well the way I had been thinking about the "supremes" of philosophy.

The example of these four so-called "dimensions" isn't placing one as higher in relevance or importance than another.

They are simply useful for differing situations. That's also how I was understanding the "supremes" of Ethics, Epistemology, Aesthetics and Logic. It isn't rock paper scissors, they all are necessary.

However, this is simply to accentuate the model that can be seen. It is different to have multiple supremes.

I dont want it to be confused with some kind of "poly-deism" where some ideas are exalted to the status of being divine.

I think of it more like the Prime numbers (not to say it is based in mathematics, but simply it is another example that further illustrates the meaning).

Prime numbers are all supreme in a way. They are only divisible by One and Self. They are not the same, the are not redundant, they cannot be replaced by each other.

So this is more like the idea I had in mind.

Regarding the actual details of Haragei, I do find this theme interesting though I dont know much about it. If someone knows about it or simply wants to discuss it, I'm open to it (at least for now).

Regarding the juxtaposition of Architectonics and Axiology, the main emphasis I am making is in that Axiology is endlessly extensible.

It might not be fair to restrict Epistemology to Axiology (because it would mean that any fact would have a counterfactual). I think a case could be made for this, however it is made as a notion. It isn't an axiom, nor an inference.

In the english language there is a term "counterfactual" which simply means anything other than the fact.

I've explored nuances of it before, such as in



It's a bit convoluted by in simpler terms it is simply whatever is or was or could be "possible".

For example, the concept of Opportunity Cost basically pivots on this notion of "counterfactual possibilities". If there was "an opportunity that wasn't taken" (thus being a cost by its absence) then there is a "counterfactual" series of events that are not the fact.

This "oppositeness" of factual and counterfactual would form an Epistemic axis that could become its own set of quadrants.

For example,

Factual Knowledge (Evidence),
Counterfactual Knowledge (Simulation ...not like the matrix, but more like simulating possible outcomes in one's imagination)
Factual Experience (Waking),
Counterfactual Experience (Dreaming)

So this example shows how it can be reasonable to understand Epistemology as axiological (in the same domain of philosophy where Aesthetics are defined, though not necessarily related)

Actually I got to 13 minutes in and decided to vouch for it. It is very engaging content, to the point and stimulating. I'll be watching it now.

The video has given me something to think about. I've had a limited understanding regarding the role of absent parents in someone's life. I think my view of it has lacked nuance.

I've taken for granted some things my parents did for me that didn't seem so majorly important at the time, but I do see how it protected me later.

One thing I will say now is to admit I was lying about a few things.

I lied about being a nihilist and I lied about this thread being fun. It stopped being fun almost immediately (but I kept it going due to feeling responsibility for having gotten attention in the first place).

I understand there are serious issues in the world but understand me too, that I am not here on this site for help or solutions.

I can have my family and be a good father and that will have to be enough, because it is something I already will do. It's just obvious.

There is no quick and impactful solution for social parenting problems. It can only be one child at a time, within one generation at a time.

Slow, arduous, and gradual. What other options are really available? (Really)

Regarding the analysis of the situation in the video, there are some subtleties with which I cannot agree. However they are based on my subjective experiential facts, anecdotal to the trend, and probably an outlier.

The general principle is probably true: missing parents result in developmental disorders and inability to socialize...such that the person is unable to achieve meaningful satisfaction in life.

This stunts the maturation of awareness and understanding in the person suffering from such misfortune, and they remain trapped in a field of pain which obscures their view of the present as deep traumatic memories that overtake them as a false identity which is loathe to die or heal (which is for it to dissolve, and therefore, die).

The resistance to treatment, resolution and re-integration into society is indistinguishable from this same false identity, a vibrating and quasi-intelligent unconscious emotional continuity of pain.

Once again it can be seen that there is no One-Stop-Shop nor One-Size-Fits-All solution for those suffering from this affliction. Of course, this can be prevented by better parenting. However those already afflicted will not benefit from preventative measures.

They can only be helped one at a time, case by case, facing the pain that drives them into unconscious behaviors and dissolving the past hurts by understanding them.

For better or for worse, I have written a text that addresses these concerns which is designed to allow a reader to enter this process privately and individually. I think I will have it up on a site where I'll probably make it free, but accept donations.

However it is facing the editor now and being honest, it needs work. I can't help but hope it will make a difference.

In logic theory, the statement "All of my cars are green." is a true statement if I don't have any cars. They call it a "vacuously true" statement.

So you can impress people by truthfully saying "All of my Ferraris are in the shop."

That's pretty neat. I didn't know about that.

Maybe the sarcastic posts don't fit the mood of how this thread has gone. I think it tends to attract people who are annoyed and have something to say. I don't think this is bad, I just didn't have a way to know how this thread would have gone. Should I leave the thread as it is, or should I edit/delete some of the early posts to spare everyone (including new commenters) the trouble?


Edit: a lot of misspellings

This thread has been sliced and diced every which way. Then it was renamed and revised, edited, and sex reassigned. Then it caught a flight to mars and was shredded by a meteor shower

Anything more or less done to this thread at this point is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.

I guess to your pornographic mind, you got quite a show

Hey, I hear women love literature porn. I'm choosing to not be judgmental about it

The new idea is the latest philosophical primes. They are Induction, Wit, Economics, Design, Imagination and Strategy

It might be noticed that some of these are analogs of prior mentioned supremes or their relations..! However, it is its own thing.

Induction obviously ref. to Hume's problem of induction (more popularly called Black Swan event) which is the beginning of philosophy, I say.

Wit, to escape the drudgery.

Economics, to be grounded in the real.

Design, to elegantly embrace all forms of art as intelligence.

Imagination as the basis of intelligence in the first place.

Strategy as the operational effectiveness being aware of the world, having a goal within it and referencing actions accordingly.

Ethics is not mentioned because it is inseparable from Economics. There is no "unethical economics", that would simply be crime.

Mathematics is not mentioned because Induction takes us to all the proofs in the patterns we discover.

Aesthetics can be found in the principles of Design. Logic here is ambiguously excluded.

Logic has gotten too much attention already!! Shut up Logic!

Ok.

What does each of this list of prime values as words in philosophical discourse take away from the meaning of each other to center them each precisely within their own field of meaning?

I don't know, but I might find out.

Alright I think I'm not going to find out. You can only talk to a blank wall of your own words for so long. It shouldn't even be that long, I say. I might just be a special case. A special nutcase. Har har.