What Are Coincidences, and How Much in Life Is Coincidence or Something More?

[Age]

So, 'I' just asked this human being WHY God would give 'it' money.

Oi

If U R not a human being then get the fuck off this forum, this forum is only for HUMANS BEING HUMAN.

See, HOW 'these ones' WILL 'try' ALL SORTS OF TACTICS to just ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT, and/or DECEIVE, when they are Truly INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING and CLARIFYING even the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST of CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

[Age]

I am all in favour of cumulative evidence but it is not easy to demonstrate always. A lot of my own thinking is based on life experience,

Could you provide just one example of your own thinking that is NOT based on 'life experience'?

which is often dismissed within philosophy as lacking objectivity

So, why then express them, within so-called 'philosophy'?

Why not just express only 'that', which could not be refuted, ONLY?

I do often wonder about giving up on philosophy writing and writing fiction because it has more creative freedom. Philosophy is becoming almost an appendix to science.

Will you provide any of your 'philosophy writing' here?

I am sorry that you got labelled by a professional as 'delusional'.

But, did you not see that "attofishpi" LOVES that it got called 'delusional' because it, supposedly and allegedly, received a so-called "shed load of money' for that.

Also, if someone got labeled 'delusional', by a "professional", because they are/were 'delusional', then why are you 'sorry' for this?

I think that I became close to delusional while I was at school and at university. That is because I was struggling to come to terms with horrible premonitions and synchronicities. I had a number of premonitions of people's deaths a short while before they died, including my headmaster. As so many were in a short period of time and I could not explain them I worried briefly that it was me causing the deaths. However, I was able to reason that was unlikely.

So, you NEVER were actually ABLE TO REASON that it was NOT 'you', and only that it was 'unlikely', you, correct?

It was my experience of premonitions and synchronicities which stopped me going down the path of atheistic materialism. For a long while, I held onto conventional Christian beliefs but it then became apparent that many mainstream Christian beliefs were too literalistic.

How is some thing so-called 'too literalistic', exactly?

So, I have continued down the pathway to a search for truth incorporating various religious perspectives, science and all worldviews.

How does 'one' FIND ALL worldviews, exactly, considering the fact that there are about eight billion worldviews, at the very time of this writing?

I do agree that some philosophies, 'leaves you fathoming in the depths of a puddle'. I see a lot of mystery, even though many wish to see philosophy as solving the mysteries in a neat way.

I wonder if these people have YET realized in how many DIFFERENT WAYS they use the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

I don't know what to make of your many posts on the thread. It seems that you are critical of my whole way of thinking and it probably does come down to the way I see philosophy as being different from you.

I will HERE suggest that instead of you just living 'in wonder' that you provide 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', and then 'you' could ASK 'me' what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', (EXACTLY LIKE 'I' have already ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY for 'us' readers here). And then 'we' can put BOTH of 'the ways' that 'we both do, to FIND OUT ONCE and FOR ALL IF 'the way' 'you' 'see' 'philosophy' is, actually, DIFFERENT from 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy'.

And, to start things moving along here 'I' will go first by INFORMING that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is that 'it' is just having a 'love-of-learning'.

Now, what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', exactly?

I see it as the ongoing search for wisdom and understanding based on thinkers from the past and present.

Well 'looky' here.

Now, if 'you' left out the words from the 'based' word on wards, then 'the way' that 'you', and 'I', 'see' 'philosophy' would not be much different at all, really.

Except that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is NOT about a 'search' 'for wisdom' but of just having A, or THE, 'love-of-wisdom', which just involves, obviously, 'learning', and thus why I said and wrote 'a love-of-learning', before. See, while one has and maintains a 'love-of-learning', then they are continually being WISE, itself.

The search for 'wisdom', and 'understanding', which you are 'looking' and 'searching' for is, and was, FOUND, and UNCOVERED, at the moment one is FULLY, and/or Truly, OPEN.

The HIGHEST FORM of 'wisdom' is just being WISE. And to be Truly WISE is, and was, achieved by just being Truly OPEN. Which, by the way, absolutely EVERY one of you human beings once was, back when you were all born.

But, unfortunately through a Wrong 'education-system' the 'ability of being Truly WISE' was 'with-drawn out' of 'you'.

I don't see it as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another.

Is there A human being that does 'see' 'philosophy' as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you say and write what you did just here for, exactly?

Of course, attention to words is important but if taken to the extreme it becomes mere rhetoric, of which Plato accused the Sophists.

Okay. Now, because one human being accused another human being/s of some thing, what does this MEAN, exactly?

As you have bombarded the thread with so many posts of chopped up quotes of mine, I haven't answered them individually at presen because it would seem tedious, especially as I am unsure of your genuineness in thinking.

There is A VERY QUICK, SIMPLE, and EASY WAY of coming to KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly, which is VERY HELPFUL, by the way, when one is UNSURE of some thing, exactly like 'you' ARE, here. And, if you would like to, also, KNOW what 'that way' IS, exactly, then just inform me of 'your curiosity', here.

If you just responding to words, which were/are just in response to 'your words', which you expressed in a public forum, would be too long, slow, or dull, or just tiresome or just monotonous, for you to do, then so be it. I am CERTAINLY NOT going to make you nor expect you to clarify, nor back up and support what you cannot or do not want to.

I will now, however, again, suggest that before one presents, or expresses, any view or idea, especially in a public philosophy forum, that they have absolute proof, and clarification, for absolutely every thing that they want to say and claim here.

I KNOW I have, so I more or less expect than less 'from others'.

So, at this stage, I would simply ask you how do you see the idea of 'philosophy' and what is your own angle and interest in it?
[/quote]

AS ABOVE, to me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means, or just refers to, 'love-of-wisdom'.

To me;

Every human being is born with 'this love'. But, through an 'education-system' that 'teaches' humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, through actual humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, itself, 'the 'love-of-wisdom', was, and still is in the days when this is being written,
'draw out', and diminished so much in some to a point of no return. Although 'this love' CAN be returned, to some it never did, before 'the body' so-called 'died'.

Now, when the word 'wisdom' is seen as some thing like 'knowledge', which is 'searched' for, then as 'all knowledge' is obtained through 'learning', then to have a True 'love-of-wisdom' would have to be associated with having a True 'love-of-learning', which is what actually DIMINISHES through a Wrongly taught 'education-system'.

My main interest here is; through a process of INSTALLING, or INSTILLING, the 'love-of-learning', AGAIN, in all of the older human beings, then through a 'heuristic approach', that is; ' teaching the student/s how to find the answers for, and by, "themselves" ', then human beings can, and WILL, get back on the Right path, in Life, and start heading BACK to where 'we' all once were, and where 'we' all want to return to and/or be heading towards. That is; Living, just/ly, in peace and harmony with every one, as One.

[Jack Daydream]

Could you provide just one example of your own thinking that is NOT based on 'life experience'?



So, why then express them, within so-called 'philosophy'?

Why not just express only 'that', which could not be refuted, ONLY?


Will you provide any of your 'philosophy writing' here?


But, did you not see that "attofishpi" LOVES that it got called 'delusional' because it, supposedly and allegedly, received a so-called "shed load of money' for that.

Also, if someone got labeled 'delusional', by a "professional", because they are/were 'delusional', then why are you 'sorry' for this?


So, you NEVER were actually ABLE TO REASON that it was NOT 'you', and only that it was 'unlikely', you, correct?


How is some thing so-called 'too literalistic', exactly?


How does 'one' FIND ALL worldviews, exactly, considering the fact that there are about eight billion worldviews, at the very time of this writing?


I wonder if these people have YET realized in how many DIFFERENT WAYS they use the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

I don't know what to make of your many posts on the thread. It seems that you are critical of my whole way of thinking and it probably does come down to the way I see philosophy as being different from you.

I will HERE suggest that instead of you just living 'in wonder' that you provide 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', and then 'you' could ASK 'me' what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', (EXACTLY LIKE 'I' have already ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY for 'us' readers here). And then 'we' can put BOTH of 'the ways' that 'we both do, to FIND OUT ONCE and FOR ALL IF 'the way' 'you' 'see' 'philosophy' is, actually, DIFFERENT from 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy'.

And, to start things moving along here 'I' will go first by INFORMING that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is that 'it' is just having a 'love-of-learning'.

Now, what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', exactly?

I see it as the ongoing search for wisdom and understanding based on thinkers from the past and present.

Well 'looky' here.

Now, if 'you' left out the words from the 'based' word on wards, then 'the way' that 'you', and 'I', 'see' 'philosophy' would not be much different at all, really.

Except that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is NOT about a 'search' 'for wisdom' but of just having A, or THE, 'love-of-wisdom', which just involves, obviously, 'learning', and thus why I said and wrote 'a love-of-learning', before. See, while one has and maintains a 'love-of-learning', then they are continually being WISE, itself.

The search for 'wisdom', and 'understanding', which you are 'looking' and 'searching' for is, and was, FOUND, and UNCOVERED, at the moment one is FULLY, and/or Truly, OPEN.

The HIGHEST FORM of 'wisdom' is just being WISE. And to be Truly WISE is, and was, achieved by just being Truly OPEN. Which, by the way, absolutely EVERY one of you human beings once was, back when you were all born.

But, unfortunately through a Wrong 'education-system' the 'ability of being Truly WISE' was 'with-drawn out' of 'you'.

I don't see it as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another.

Is there A human being that does 'see' 'philosophy' as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you say and write what you did just here for, exactly?

Of course, attention to words is important but if taken to the extreme it becomes mere rhetoric, of which Plato accused the Sophists.

Okay. Now, because one human being accused another human being/s of some thing, what does this MEAN, exactly?

As you have bombarded the thread with so many posts of chopped up quotes of mine, I haven't answered them individually at presen because it would seem tedious, especially as I am unsure of your genuineness in thinking.

There is A VERY QUICK, SIMPLE, and EASY WAY of coming to KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly, which is VERY HELPFUL, by the way, when one is UNSURE of some thing, exactly like 'you' ARE, here. And, if you would like to, also, KNOW what 'that way' IS, exactly, then just inform me of 'your curiosity', here.

If you just responding to words, which were/are just in response to 'your words', which you expressed in a public forum, would be too long, slow, or dull, or just tiresome or just monotonous, for you to do, then so be it. I am CERTAINLY NOT going to make you nor expect you to clarify, nor back up and support what you cannot or do not want to.

I will now, however, again, suggest that before one presents, or expresses, any view or idea, especially in a public philosophy forum, that they have absolute proof, and clarification, for absolutely every thing that they want to say and claim here.

I KNOW I have, so I more or less expect than less 'from others'.

So, at this stage, I would simply ask you how do you see the idea of 'philosophy' and what is your own angle and interest in it?

AS ABOVE, to me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means, or just refers to, 'love-of-wisdom'.

To me;

Every human being is born with 'this love'. But, through an 'education-system' that 'teaches' humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, through actual humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, itself, 'the 'love-of-wisdom', was, and still is in the days when this is being written,
'draw out', and diminished so much in some to a point of no return. Although 'this love' CAN be returned, to some it never did, before 'the body' so-called 'died'.

Now, when the word 'wisdom' is seen as some thing like 'knowledge', which is 'searched' for, then as 'all knowledge' is obtained through 'learning', then to have a True 'love-of-wisdom' would have to be associated with having a True 'love-of-learning', which is what actually DIMINISHES through a Wrongly taught 'education-system'.

My main interest here is; through a process of INSTALLING, or INSTILLING, the 'love-of-learning', AGAIN, in all of the older human beings, then through a 'heuristic approach', that is; ' teaching the student/s how to find the answers for, and by, "themselves" ', then human beings can, and WILL, get back on the Right path, in Life, and start heading BACK to where 'we' all once were, and where 'we' all want to return to and/or be heading towards. That is; Living, just/ly, in peace and harmony with every one, as One.
[/quote]

From Jack Daydŕeam in response to Age:

I certainly agree with the idea of philosophy as being about about embracing the 'love of wisdom'. However, that requires a lot of learning, which is not just reading or armchair thinking, but about tough lessons of life and learning through mistakes. Also, there is an entire history of philosophy debates and many perspectives on most of the hardest questions, including debates about free will, the existence of God and life after death. You make philosophy and the 'love of wisdom sound too simple.

Of course, it is possible to get caught up in the knots and mazes of the most perplexing issues.
On the other hand, there is the wisdom required for living, which may be most significant. Ethics is important here and some essential epistemological or metaphysics underpins most systems of ethics. Questioning of beliefs and ideas is central to examining values, but it is possible for academic philosophy to become too obscure and remote from the issues of life.

In suggesting that arguments can be attacking, my use of 'they' is based on some, but certainly not all people using forums. So, I come to this one, with a view to being open and selective. Of course, dialogue of views can be extremely useful in fine tuning and clarification of various perspectives.

The idea that people should only write on a philosophy forum if they have 'absolute proof' of what they say is absurd. If what you suggest were true, there could be no philosophy forum at all. Philosophy is backed up by empirical speculation but as it involves ideas it involves the human imagination and ways of seeing.

[Age]

I don't know what to make of your many posts on the thread. It seems that you are critical of my whole way of thinking and it probably does come down to the way I see philosophy as being different from you.

I will HERE suggest that instead of you just living 'in wonder' that you provide 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', and then 'you' could ASK 'me' what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', (EXACTLY LIKE 'I' have already ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY for 'us' readers here). And then 'we' can put BOTH of 'the ways' that 'we both do, to FIND OUT ONCE and FOR ALL IF 'the way' 'you' 'see' 'philosophy' is, actually, DIFFERENT from 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy'.

And, to start things moving along here 'I' will go first by INFORMING that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is that 'it' is just having a 'love-of-learning'.

Now, what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', exactly?

I see it as the ongoing search for wisdom and understanding based on thinkers from the past and present.

Well 'looky' here.

Now, if 'you' left out the words from the 'based' word on wards, then 'the way' that 'you', and 'I', 'see' 'philosophy' would not be much different at all, really.

Except that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is NOT about a 'search' 'for wisdom' but of just having A, or THE, 'love-of-wisdom', which just involves, obviously, 'learning', and thus why I said and wrote 'a love-of-learning', before. See, while one has and maintains a 'love-of-learning', then they are continually being WISE, itself.

The search for 'wisdom', and 'understanding', which you are 'looking' and 'searching' for is, and was, FOUND, and UNCOVERED, at the moment one is FULLY, and/or Truly, OPEN.

The HIGHEST FORM of 'wisdom' is just being WISE. And to be Truly WISE is, and was, achieved by just being Truly OPEN. Which, by the way, absolutely EVERY one of you human beings once was, back when you were all born.

But, unfortunately through a Wrong 'education-system' the 'ability of being Truly WISE' was 'with-drawn out' of 'you'.

I don't see it as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another.

Is there A human being that does 'see' 'philosophy' as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you say and write what you did just here for, exactly?

Of course, attention to words is important but if taken to the extreme it becomes mere rhetoric, of which Plato accused the Sophists.

Okay. Now, because one human being accused another human being/s of some thing, what does this MEAN, exactly?

As you have bombarded the thread with so many posts of chopped up quotes of mine, I haven't answered them individually at presen because it would seem tedious, especially as I am unsure of your genuineness in thinking.

There is A VERY QUICK, SIMPLE, and EASY WAY of coming to KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly, which is VERY HELPFUL, by the way, when one is UNSURE of some thing, exactly like 'you' ARE, here. And, if you would like to, also, KNOW what 'that way' IS, exactly, then just inform me of 'your curiosity', here.

If you just responding to words, which were/are just in response to 'your words', which you expressed in a public forum, would be too long, slow, or dull, or just tiresome or just monotonous, for you to do, then so be it. I am CERTAINLY NOT going to make you nor expect you to clarify, nor back up and support what you cannot or do not want to.

I will now, however, again, suggest that before one presents, or expresses, any view or idea, especially in a public philosophy forum, that they have absolute proof, and clarification, for absolutely every thing that they want to say and claim here.

I KNOW I have, so I more or less expect than less 'from others'.

So, at this stage, I would simply ask you how do you see the idea of 'philosophy' and what is your own angle and interest in it?

AS ABOVE, to me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means, or just refers to, 'love-of-wisdom'.

To me;

Every human being is born with 'this love'. But, through an 'education-system' that 'teaches' humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, through actual humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, itself, 'the 'love-of-wisdom', was, and still is in the days when this is being written,
'draw out', and diminished so much in some to a point of no return. Although 'this love' CAN be returned, to some it never did, before 'the body' so-called 'died'.

Now, when the word 'wisdom' is seen as some thing like 'knowledge', which is 'searched' for, then as 'all knowledge' is obtained through 'learning', then to have a True 'love-of-wisdom' would have to be associated with having a True 'love-of-learning', which is what actually DIMINISHES through a Wrongly taught 'education-system'.

My main interest here is; through a process of INSTALLING, or INSTILLING, the 'love-of-learning', AGAIN, in all of the older human beings, then through a 'heuristic approach', that is; ' teaching the student/s how to find the answers for, and by, "themselves" ', then human beings can, and WILL, get back on the Right path, in Life, and start heading BACK to where 'we' all once were, and where 'we' all want to return to and/or be heading towards. That is; Living, just/ly, in peace and harmony with every one, as One.

From Jack Daydŕeam in response to Age:

I certainly agree with the idea of philosophy as being about about embracing the 'love of wisdom'. However, that requires a lot of learning, which is not just reading or armchair thinking, but about tough lessons of life and learning through mistakes.[/quote]

If as you claim here that 'wisdom', itself, REQUIRES a lot of learning, then this will all depend on how you are defining the word 'wisdom', exactly?

Would you like to share with 'us' how you define the word 'wisdom', exactly?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great.

See, to me, the word 'wisdom' does NOT mean, nor is in reference to, 'obtaining and having lots of knowledge and/or information'.

The word 'wise', to me, just refers to, having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgement, and/or being sensible or prudent. While the word 'wisdom', to me, refers to, just having the quality of having the above things.

Which although NEEDS to be LEARNED, it does NOT require a 'lot of learning', in fact, being wise, and having wisdom, is some thing that can be, and was, learned very quickly, as well as very easily and very simply, also.

Also, there is an entire history of philosophy debates and many perspectives on most of the hardest questions, including debates about free will, the existence of God and life after death.

When one IS WISE, they do NOT do 'debate'.

And, the things you listed here have ALREADY been settled, once and for all. But, like all knowledge and/or information not all human beings come to it at the exact same time, obviously.

You make philosophy and the 'love of wisdom sound too simple.

BECAUSE it IS.

In fact absolutely EVERY thing IN, and ABOUT, 'Life', Itself, IS SIMPLE.

you adult human beings, ONLY, are the ONLY things that make ANY thing seem or appear hard and complex, but IN LIfe there is absolutely NOTHING that is hard nor complex.

'philosophy', literally, just means, 'love-of-wisdom'. NOTHING more and NOTHING less. And, having the QUALITY of 'loving wisdom', and 'being wise', is, and was, FOUND and UNCOVERED, and is BEING DONE, when one has a True 'love-of-learning'.

What this MEANS is that when one has the QUALITY of Truly LOVING-TO-LEARN always, and in all ways, then they are, literally, being WISE, and have WISDOM, itself, FULLY.

Of course, it is possible to get caught up in the knots and mazes of the most perplexing issues.

There are NO so-called 'perplexing' issues nor problems in Life.

you human beings are under a False presumption that if you individually or collectively have just not yet uncovered what the actual Truth of something is YET, then 'it' is and must be 'perplexing'. Which is an absolutely False perspective to have and to be holding onto.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL 'perplexing' about 'free will', 'God', and 'life after death', for example. But, obviously some of you adult human beings think and believe there is.

On the other hand, there is the wisdom required for living, which may be most significant. Ethics is important here and some essential epistemological or metaphysics underpins most systems of ethics. Questioning of beliefs and ideas is central to examining values, but it is possible for academic philosophy to become too obscure and remote from the issues of life.

1. What, supposed, 'issues' of life?

2. If one did not have nor hold 'beliefs', then there would not be any thing to question.

3. Obviously, 'ideas' arise, which are best questioned and/or challenged.

In suggesting that arguments can be attacking, my use of 'they' is based on some, but certainly not all people using forums. So, I come to this one, with a view to being open and selective.

If one is 'being, (Truly), open', then they will ENCOURAGE and SEEK OUT to be questioned and challenged over their ideas and views.

What are you being 'selective' about, exactly?

Of course, dialogue of views can be extremely useful in fine tuning and clarification of various perspectives.

The idea that people should only write on a philosophy forum if they have 'absolute proof' of what they say is absurd.

Why?

If they do not have PROOF for what they are saying, and they will not answer questions nor accept and take up challenges to what they say here, then WHY are they saying what they are here?

If one does NOT YET have the 'absolute proof' for what they want to say and claim here, and are NOT expecting to be QUESTIONED nor CHALLENGED over what they say and claim here, then best they do NOT speak and write here.

Coming to a philosophy forum to seek out and look for PROOF for pre-existing views or ideas, which one cannot YET fully substantiate is perfectly fine, or to express pre-existing views or ideas, which 'absolute proof' has already been obtained, so that when QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED they can, and will, PROVIDE actual CLARITY, ELABORATION, and SUPPORT FOR is perfectly fine, as well.

But, to come to a 'philosophy forum' to just 'try to debate' some particular view or beliefs one has is TOTAL STUPIDITY. Doing or attempting to do this goes AGAINST the very thing of 'philosophy', itself.

True 'philosophy' involves 'logical reasoning'. And, 'trying to fight for A position, belief or view, is NOT 'logically reasoning'. If, however, one is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of some thing, then they can, and WILL, PROVE 'that'.

If what you suggest were true, there could be no philosophy forum at all.

Why, supposedly, not?

What about, for example, if one 'came across', the 'irrefutable Fact' that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, and that one has the 'absolute proof' of, and for. Would not a 'philosophy forum' be a good, or right, place for them to take this 'new idea' and 'new knowledge' to, exactly?

Philosophy is backed up by empirical speculation but as it involves ideas it involves the human imagination and ways of seeing.

Because you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, much prefer to MAKE UP assumptions, guesses, theories, hypothesises, and models of 'what might be', instead of just remaining Truly OPEN while 'looking at', ONLY, 'what is', then this in NO way means that 'doing this' is the better nor more right thing to do.

In Fact 'doing this' can be PROVED, absolutely, True to be a VERY, VERY slow way of coming-to-learn, and comprehend and understand, the actual Truth of things in Life.

By the way, how can what you call the 'love-of-wisdom', which you also claim REQUIRES 'lots of learning', be 'backed up by so-called 'empirical speculation', exactly?

Also, there are, REALLY, only 'two ways' of 'seeing', itself, which are OPENLY, or, CLOSED.

There is, of course, 'seeing' through and with the physical eyes, or, through and with the Mind's Eye. (But, this is for another time, right?)

[Jack Daydream]

Could you provide just one example of your own thinking that is NOT based on 'life experience'?



So, why then express them, within so-called 'philosophy'?

Why not just express only 'that', which could not be refuted, ONLY?


Will you provide any of your 'philosophy writing' here?


But, did you not see that "attofishpi" LOVES that it got called 'delusional' because it, supposedly and allegedly, received a so-called "shed load of money' for that.

Also, if someone got labeled 'delusional', by a "professional", because they are/were 'delusional', then why are you 'sorry' for this?


So, you NEVER were actually ABLE TO REASON that it was NOT 'you', and only that it was 'unlikely', you, correct?


How is some thing so-called 'too literalistic', exactly?


How does 'one' FIND ALL worldviews, exactly, considering the fact that there are about eight billion worldviews, at the very time of this writing?


I wonder if these people have YET realized in how many DIFFERENT WAYS they use the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

I don't know what to make of your many posts on the thread. It seems that you are critical of my whole way of thinking and it probably does come down to the way I see philosophy as being different from you.

I will HERE suggest that instead of you just living 'in wonder' that you provide 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', and then 'you' could ASK 'me' what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', (EXACTLY LIKE 'I' have already ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY for 'us' readers here). And then 'we' can put BOTH of 'the ways' that 'we both do, to FIND OUT ONCE and FOR ALL IF 'the way' 'you' 'see' 'philosophy' is, actually, DIFFERENT from 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy'.

And, to start things moving along here 'I' will go first by INFORMING that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is that 'it' is just having a 'love-of-learning'.

Now, what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', exactly?

I see it as the ongoing search for wisdom and understanding based on thinkers from the past and present.

Well 'looky' here.

Now, if 'you' left out the words from the 'based' word on wards, then 'the way' that 'you', and 'I', 'see' 'philosophy' would not be much different at all, really.

Except that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is NOT about a 'search' 'for wisdom' but of just having A, or THE, 'love-of-wisdom', which just involves, obviously, 'learning', and thus why I said and wrote 'a love-of-learning', before. See, while one has and maintains a 'love-of-learning', then they are continually being WISE, itself.

The search for 'wisdom', and 'understanding', which you are 'looking' and 'searching' for is, and was, FOUND, and UNCOVERED, at the moment one is FULLY, and/or Truly, OPEN.

The HIGHEST FORM of 'wisdom' is just being WISE. And to be Truly WISE is, and was, achieved by just being Truly OPEN. Which, by the way, absolutely EVERY one of you human beings once was, back when you were all born.

But, unfortunately through a Wrong 'education-system' the 'ability of being Truly WISE' was 'with-drawn out' of 'you'.

I don't see it as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another.

Is there A human being that does 'see' 'philosophy' as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you say and write what you did just here for, exactly?

Of course, attention to words is important but if taken to the extreme it becomes mere rhetoric, of which Plato accused the Sophists.

Okay. Now, because one human being accused another human being/s of some thing, what does this MEAN, exactly?

As you have bombarded the thread with so many posts of chopped up quotes of mine, I haven't answered them individually at presen because it would seem tedious, especially as I am unsure of your genuineness in thinking.

There is A VERY QUICK, SIMPLE, and EASY WAY of coming to KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly, which is VERY HELPFUL, by the way, when one is UNSURE of some thing, exactly like 'you' ARE, here. And, if you would like to, also, KNOW what 'that way' IS, exactly, then just inform me of 'your curiosity', here.

If you just responding to words, which were/are just in response to 'your words', which you expressed in a public forum, would be too long, slow, or dull, or just tiresome or just monotonous, for you to do, then so be it. I am CERTAINLY NOT going to make you nor expect you to clarify, nor back up and support what you cannot or do not want to.

I will now, however, again, suggest that before one presents, or expresses, any view or idea, especially in a public philosophy forum, that they have absolute proof, and clarification, for absolutely every thing that they want to say and claim here.

I KNOW I have, so I more or less expect than less 'from others'.

So, at this stage, I would simply ask you how do you see the idea of 'philosophy' and what is your own angle and interest in it?

AS ABOVE, to me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means, or just refers to, 'love-of-wisdom'.

To me;

Every human being is born with 'this love'. But, through an 'education-system' that 'teaches' humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, through actual humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, itself, 'the 'love-of-wisdom', was, and still is in the days when this is being written,
'draw out', and diminished so much in some to a point of no return. Although 'this love' CAN be returned, to some it never did, before 'the body' so-called 'died'.

Now, when the word 'wisdom' is seen as some thing like 'knowledge', which is 'searched' for, then as 'all knowledge' is obtained through 'learning', then to have a True 'love-of-wisdom' would have to be associated with having a True 'love-of-learning', which is what actually DIMINISHES through a Wrongly taught 'education-system'.

My main interest here is; through a process of INSTALLING, or INSTILLING, the 'love-of-learning', AGAIN, in all of the older human beings, then through a 'heuristic approach', that is; ' teaching the student/s how to find the answers for, and by, "themselves" ', then human beings can, and WILL, get back on the Right path, in Life, and start heading BACK to where 'we' all once were, and where 'we' all want to return to and/or be heading towards. That is; Living, just/ly, in peace and harmony with every one, as One.
[/quote]





REPLY TO AGE FROM JACK DAYDREAM:
I am not sure the basis of what your philosophy is, because it does not seem religious or scientific. Do you see it as being common sense or pragmatic? With the idea of the 'mind's eye', there is the idea of intuition, and inner truth or wisdom. Looking within and in the external world are part of the challenge, as in balancing the knowledge of the senses, rationality and senses. This is as important as reading. The value of reading is of being able to learn from the mastery of those who have developed their thinking significantly.

In your emphasis on the getting back to knowledge of wisdom and learning, there is some leaning towards ancient thought, including Platonism. He saw the task of philosophy to be one of remembering what humans had forgotten in their cultural evolution.What do you think of this idea?

One aspect of Plato's thinking which is particularly relevant to this thread topic is the concept of the 'daimon', which involves the soul's sense of purpose. A similar idea exists in Eastern philosophy in the idea of the 'overself', which is the inner link between one's thinking and evolutionary consciousness. I do believe this exists with the proof being that humans have an innate ability to grasp universal concepts.

I have gone down this train of ideas to bring the focus back to the question of whether anything is coincidental or randomness. I would argue that randomness does not exist. At the level of evolution there is natural selection which is balanced by the survival of the fittest. At the human level, there is conscious awareness, which gives humans a more active role of choices. The synchronicities or coincidences may be the way ib which human beings encounter the hidden order and patterns within nature and life. What do you think about the concept of coincidences?

[Age]

I don't know what to make of your many posts on the thread. It seems that you are critical of my whole way of thinking and it probably does come down to the way I see philosophy as being different from you.

I will HERE suggest that instead of you just living 'in wonder' that you provide 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', and then 'you' could ASK 'me' what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', (EXACTLY LIKE 'I' have already ASKED 'you' to CLARIFY for 'us' readers here). And then 'we' can put BOTH of 'the ways' that 'we both do, to FIND OUT ONCE and FOR ALL IF 'the way' 'you' 'see' 'philosophy' is, actually, DIFFERENT from 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy'.

And, to start things moving along here 'I' will go first by INFORMING that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is that 'it' is just having a 'love-of-learning'.

Now, what is 'the way' that 'you' 'see' 'philosophy', exactly?

I see it as the ongoing search for wisdom and understanding based on thinkers from the past and present.

Well 'looky' here.

Now, if 'you' left out the words from the 'based' word on wards, then 'the way' that 'you', and 'I', 'see' 'philosophy' would not be much different at all, really.

Except that 'the way' 'I' 'see' 'philosophy' is NOT about a 'search' 'for wisdom' but of just having A, or THE, 'love-of-wisdom', which just involves, obviously, 'learning', and thus why I said and wrote 'a love-of-learning', before. See, while one has and maintains a 'love-of-learning', then they are continually being WISE, itself.

The search for 'wisdom', and 'understanding', which you are 'looking' and 'searching' for is, and was, FOUND, and UNCOVERED, at the moment one is FULLY, and/or Truly, OPEN.

The HIGHEST FORM of 'wisdom' is just being WISE. And to be Truly WISE is, and was, achieved by just being Truly OPEN. Which, by the way, absolutely EVERY one of you human beings once was, back when you were all born.

But, unfortunately through a Wrong 'education-system' the 'ability of being Truly WISE' was 'with-drawn out' of 'you'.

I don't see it as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another.

Is there A human being that does 'see' 'philosophy' as being simply about taking words as a point of attacking another?

If yes, then who are 'they', exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you say and write what you did just here for, exactly?

Of course, attention to words is important but if taken to the extreme it becomes mere rhetoric, of which Plato accused the Sophists.

Okay. Now, because one human being accused another human being/s of some thing, what does this MEAN, exactly?

As you have bombarded the thread with so many posts of chopped up quotes of mine, I haven't answered them individually at presen because it would seem tedious, especially as I am unsure of your genuineness in thinking.

There is A VERY QUICK, SIMPLE, and EASY WAY of coming to KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, exactly, which is VERY HELPFUL, by the way, when one is UNSURE of some thing, exactly like 'you' ARE, here. And, if you would like to, also, KNOW what 'that way' IS, exactly, then just inform me of 'your curiosity', here.

If you just responding to words, which were/are just in response to 'your words', which you expressed in a public forum, would be too long, slow, or dull, or just tiresome or just monotonous, for you to do, then so be it. I am CERTAINLY NOT going to make you nor expect you to clarify, nor back up and support what you cannot or do not want to.

I will now, however, again, suggest that before one presents, or expresses, any view or idea, especially in a public philosophy forum, that they have absolute proof, and clarification, for absolutely every thing that they want to say and claim here.

I KNOW I have, so I more or less expect than less 'from others'.

So, at this stage, I would simply ask you how do you see the idea of 'philosophy' and what is your own angle and interest in it?

AS ABOVE, to me, the word 'phil-o-sophy' just means, or just refers to, 'love-of-wisdom'.

To me;

Every human being is born with 'this love'. But, through an 'education-system' that 'teaches' humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, through actual humiliation, ridicule, judgment, and/or punishment, itself, 'the 'love-of-wisdom', was, and still is in the days when this is being written,
'draw out', and diminished so much in some to a point of no return. Although 'this love' CAN be returned, to some it never did, before 'the body' so-called 'died'.

Now, when the word 'wisdom' is seen as some thing like 'knowledge', which is 'searched' for, then as 'all knowledge' is obtained through 'learning', then to have a True 'love-of-wisdom' would have to be associated with having a True 'love-of-learning', which is what actually DIMINISHES through a Wrongly taught 'education-system'.

My main interest here is; through a process of INSTALLING, or INSTILLING, the 'love-of-learning', AGAIN, in all of the older human beings, then through a 'heuristic approach', that is; ' teaching the student/s how to find the answers for, and by, "themselves" ', then human beings can, and WILL, get back on the Right path, in Life, and start heading BACK to where 'we' all once were, and where 'we' all want to return to and/or be heading towards. That is; Living, just/ly, in peace and harmony with every one, as One.

REPLY TO AGE FROM JACK DAYDREAM:
I am not sure the basis of what your philosophy is, because it does not seem religious or scientific.[/quote]

So, even though I TOLD you, SPECIFICALLY, and DIRECTLY, you are still not sure here, right?

Do you see it as being common sense or pragmatic?

Do I see 'what' as being common sense or pragmatic?

What is the 'it' that you used here in reference to, exactly?

With the idea of the 'mind's eye', there is the idea of intuition, and inner truth or wisdom. Looking within and in the external world are part of the challenge, as in balancing the knowledge of the senses, rationality and senses.

There is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL 'challenging' here. Well NOT to me there is not anyway.

This is as important as reading. The value of reading is of being able to learn from the mastery of those who have developed their thinking significantly.

There is, essentially, NOTHING really to develop in just 'thinking' things, itself.

In your emphasis on the getting back to knowledge of wisdom and learning, there is some leaning towards ancient thought, including Platonism. He saw the task of philosophy to be one of remembering what humans had forgotten in their cultural evolution.What do you think of this idea?

If that human being 'saw' that there was some sort of 'task' of 'philosophy', itself, then that one would have also considered 'philosophy' was some thing that some one 'did'. And, as that one 'saw' that the 'doing' 'of philosophy' was 'a task', then this implies that 'that one' 'doing philosophy' was somewhat 'hard' and/or 'stressful'.

Whereas, 'to me', just 'having' a 'love-of-learning', and thus just 'having' a 'love-of-becoming wiser', and/or just 'having' a 'love-of-being wise' is CERTAINLY NOT 'hard' nor 'stressful' AT ALL.

One aspect of Plato's thinking which is particularly relevant to this thread topic is the concept of the 'daimon', which involves the soul's sense of purpose.

one would HAVE TO BE ABLE TO share, express, and explain what a 'soul' is, exactly, FIRST, to be able to then go on and talk about 'any sense of purpose' what this 'soul thing' could, or does, have, exactly.

Are 'you', "jack daydream", or was "plato", ABLE TO share, express, and explain what a 'soul' is, exactly?

If yes, then great, who and/or what is a 'soul', exactly?

But, if no, then how would 'you' or "plato" KNOW is is 'involved' in some UNKNOWN things so-called 'sense of purpose', exactly?

A similar idea exists in Eastern philosophy in the idea of the 'overself', which is the inner link between one's thinking and evolutionary consciousness. I do believe this exists with the proof being that humans have an innate ability to grasp universal concepts.

This is ALL just KNOWN, and ABLE TO BE explained, IRREFUTABLY, when who and what 'you', human beings, are, exactly, and who and what 'i', the One and ONLY Real and True Self, God, is, exactly, comes-to-be FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

Which, by the way, is A Truly VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, Again, that is; once one discovers, or learns, and understands the 'know-how' of HOW to do this, FULLY.

I have gone down this train of ideas to bring the focus back to the question of whether anything is coincidental or randomness.

Would you, also, like to come back to responding to 'my previous responses and answer' to 'the question' of whether anything is coincidental or randomness? Or, did you MISS what I said and responded with above in relation to 'that'?

I would argue that randomness does not exist.

So, you are, REALLY, NOT 'actually asking' whether anything is coincidental or randomness BECAUSE you already BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that 'randomness' does not even exist, correct?

See, what can and does happen quite often when you human beings have or are holding onto A BELIEF, and you want to 'try to' fight FOR 'that "side", that position, or that belief', then you will present and put up False, LEADING, and/or even MISLEADING 'pretend question/s' in the hope of 'hooking' 'others in' who have the OPPOSING view, side, position, or belief. Which is a much more Accurate definition for the 'trolling' word in forums, and even more so in philosophy forums.

Now, if you BELIEVE that 'randomness' does not exist, and/or would like to 'argue' that 'randomness' does not exist, then I suggest that you, first, present 'the definition' of the word 'randomness' in how you use that word here, and then proceed.

But, to 'ask' whether anything is coincidental, or in other words, 'Does randomness exist?' is just 'throwing a, baited, line out', and 'fishing', or 'trolling', to 'see' what, or who, 'you' will 'catch'. And, you are doing this so that you can then 'argue', and 'fight', for 'your position' here, correct?

At the level of evolution there is natural selection which is balanced by the survival of the fittest.

Just out of curiosity how are you using the 'fittest' word here, exactly?

Are you using that word in and with the 'popular belief' definition used in the days when this is being written? Or, are you using the 'fittest' word in 'the way' that that word was 'intended' to mean and to be used as?

At the human level, there is conscious awareness,

1. What are 'the levels', exactly?

2. How many 'levels' are there, exactly?

3. What things are above and/or below the so-called 'human level'?

4. How many levels are above and how many below the so-called 'human level'?

5. Do 'ants', for example, have 'conscious awareness'? Or, at the 'ant level', for example, is there 'conscious awareness' as well?

6. How are you defining the words 'conscious awareness' here, exactly?

7. Do not think that 'I' am over questioning and/or over challenging 'you' more than 'I' do 'others' here.

which gives humans a more active role of choices.

When did this, supposed, 'more active role of choices' begin, exactly?

Was it 'in the beginning', when human beings 'popped' into Creation, when human beings 'evolved', (out of whatever they came from), or is this, so-called 'more active role of choices' evolving also as you human beings are also obviously evolving?

For when 'I' 'looked into' what 'you' just claimed here what 'I' 'saw' was when you human beings first evolved, and thus were at the beginning of 'your creation', you human beings had no 'more choices' than any other animal did. However, and obviously, as you human beings have 'progressed', (and 'I' use that word VERY LIGHTLY), then what 'I' 'see' is you human beings in the days when this is being written have 'far more choices', to 'choose from' than you, previously, did, and that you will continue to have 'more choices', as 'you' move along, or continue to evolve, here.

So, what, exactly, were you meaning by, 'a more active role of choices', here?

And, 'more' in relation to what, exactly?

For example, when you human beings evolved into being, did you have just as much 'conscious awareness' as you human beings do 'now', when this is being written? Or, does 'conscious awareness' grow or get larger, for example, as you human beings keep evolving?

The synchronicities or coincidences may be the way ib which human beings encounter the hidden order and patterns within nature and life.

What is, for lack of a better word, 'within' Nature and Life, Itself, is NOT 'hidden', it has just NOT YET been 'uncovered/discovered' by most of you human beings, in the days when this is being written.

But, once you human beings, at 'that stage, or level', of evolution and of Life, also come to recognize, see, understand, and know the KNOW-HOW of HOW to find all of the Truly meaningful answers, in Life, then you will, also, SEE that there is absolutely NOTHING 'hidden', in Life, and things are just UNVEILED, UNCOVERED, or REVEALED at the Right time/s.

There is, also, and by the way, absolutely NO rush at all HERE, as absolutely ALL things are evolving along PERFECTLY, HERE, NOW.

For example, how to achieve what is Wrongly called 'time travel' did not happen, (and does not yet 'begin' to those when this is being written), while GREED and SELFISHNESS was, still, existing. And, for the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS reason that while there were, still, some GREEDY and SELFISH adult human beings still alive, then they would, obviously, want to use 'this ability' for their own selves and/or for just a few select others, ONLY.

So, and as for absolutely every other invention, contraption, creature comfort, and/or creation they ALL come about at the Right time, and/or at a PERFECT synchronization with this One evolving Life, Itself.

Just like the Truly peaceful and harmonious world did not come-into-Being, and become Reality, until after some things had come, and gone, first, as well

What do you think about the concept of coincidence.

It is just ANOTHER 'concept', along with the just about countless other 'concepts' that you human beings have, and have had.

I prefer to just 'look at' and 'discuss', only, what is actually Real and True instead, and ONLY.

[ThinkOfOne]

Each of us probably understands and interprets life experiences differently. My connection between 'chance meetings' and experiences of a person phoning just as they were thinking of them are ones I am familiar with, and ones people describe to me. Maybe, you have never had the phone experience. In experience, a lot of interpretation is about working out what is significant and what is not.

In the example of chance meetings, so many people are met on a daily basis and some will play a significant role in life and others will not. Personally, I have found that sometimes the people who become close friends are met in the strangest circumstances.

For example, someone who is my closest friend was someone I knew at school but not very well. However, I saw her a few years later and while we were talking her shoe broke. She came home to see if my mother had a suitable pair of shoes for her to borrow and that is how I got to know her. Similarly, one friend I got to know was someone who was moving out from the room which I was moving into. You may think that I am blowing these examples out of proportion but I find it hard to find friends even when I go to places and events for that specific purpose.

Your definition of superstition is interesting because it draws on the primitive idea of sympathetic magic. That is because it is about seeing relationships and working with underlying patterns for effects. The most obvious example is voodoo magic. Historically, superstitions about certain numbers etc was a watered down version of this. Nevertheless, there are certain underlying sympathies in nature. For instance, often people who have body transplant parts of another, such as a kidney, find that the part fails on the death of the original owner. It is part of the way of interconnectedness in nature.

You seem to think that I read too much into your remark about the 'supernatural' or 'force'. That is because I grew up in a Catholic background with a belief that God has a specific path for each person. I have changed my belief system many times and do query the idea of what is the supernatural. I do think that there may be some underlying consciousness, or divinity, underlying all nature but rather than it being simply transcendent as 'supernature', see it as being imminent in nature itself.

For instance, often people who have body transplant parts of another, such as a kidney, find that the part fails on the death of the original owner. It is part of the way of interconnectedness in nature.

What leads you to believe that this is true?

I do think that there may be some underlying consciousness, or divinity, underlying all nature but rather than it being simply transcendent as 'supernature', see it as being imminent in nature itself.

What leads you to believe that this is true?


On a different tack, considering what you've been writing thus far as a whole, I've been trying to figure out whether or not the distinctions you make are based on reason. Based on your responses thus far, this does not seem to be the case. Have you considered taking a step back seeing if you can synthesize your thoughts into a coherent whole?

I am sure that some of my arguments are not backed up by evidence. If I was writing a thesis or report it would matter. As it is, I am writing on a philosophy forum, which is from my point of view a way of sharing ideas with others. I have been writing on forums since the time of lockdown and see it as a way of expansion and reflection of thought.

As far inconsistencies, I am a human being not a thinking machine, so I have many. Through forum discussion, I feel that I become more aware of these, especially my own philosophical blindspots.

Philosophy is hard and I am not just into philosophy as academia, but as a means of understanding life informed by critical awareness of ideas. Philosophy is not easy and the topic of whether what happens in life is coincidental, accidental or something more, is one which can be extremely perplexing. Some find solutions in religious thinking or other viewpoints but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

You speak of "understanding life informed of critical awareness of ideas", yet your posts show a repeated pattern of a lack of intellectual rigor; a lack of "critical awareness". Whether or not it's a "thesis or report", you need to bring good critical thinking skills and good conceptual skills to the table. Your excuse that you are "a human being not a thinking machine" is nothing more than a poor rationalization. Have you considered that one of the reasons that you find it "extremely perplexing" is precisely because of your lack of intellectual rigor?

You can call it "philosophy" all you like, but calling it that doesn't make it so.

Brings to mind the following quote:
"Like a man that can't play a tune,
blowing a horn right loud,
hoping that in a minute it will begin to make music".

---William Faulkner

[Jack Daydream]

For instance, often people who have body transplant parts of another, such as a kidney, find that the part fails on the death of the original owner. It is part of the way of interconnectedness in nature.

What leads you to believe that this is true?

I do think that there may be some underlying consciousness, or divinity, underlying all nature but rather than it being simply transcendent as 'supernature', see it as being imminent in nature itself.

What leads you to believe that this is true?


On a different tack, considering what you've been writing thus far as a whole, I've been trying to figure out whether or not the distinctions you make are based on reason. Based on your responses thus far, this does not seem to be the case. Have you considered taking a step back seeing if you can synthesize your thoughts into a coherent whole?

I am sure that some of my arguments are not backed up by evidence. If I was writing a thesis or report it would matter. As it is, I am writing on a philosophy forum, which is from my point of view a way of sharing ideas with others. I have been writing on forums since the time of lockdown and see it as a way of expansion and reflection of thought.

As far inconsistencies, I am a human being not a thinking machine, so I have many. Through forum discussion, I feel that I become more aware of these, especially my own philosophical blindspots.

Philosophy is hard and I am not just into philosophy as academia, but as a means of understanding life informed by critical awareness of ideas. Philosophy is not easy and the topic of whether what happens in life is coincidental, accidental or something more, is one which can be extremely perplexing. Some find solutions in religious thinking or other viewpoints but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

You speak of "understanding life informed of critical awareness of ideas", yet your posts show a repeated pattern of a lack of intellectual rigor; a lack of "critical awareness". Whether or not it's a "thesis or report", you need to bring good critical thinking skills and good conceptual skills to the table. Your excuse that you are "a human being not a thinking machine" is nothing more than a poor rationalization. Have you considered that one of the reasons that you find it "extremely perplexing" is precisely because of your lack of intellectual rigor?

You can call it "philosophy" all you like, but calling it that doesn't make it so.

Brings to mind the following quote:
"Like a man that can't play a tune,
blowing a horn right loud,
hoping that in a minute it will begin to make music".

---William Faulkner

Intellectualisation can be a form of mystification and pseudo philosophy. Theories are only representations just like metaphors are. The idea of philosophy as being so intellectual may be too narrow.

I like the Faulkner verse but am a bit saddened that you think that my approach to philosophy is so out of tune. Also, my understanding of creating a thread is not just to present my own ideas but to create collaborative discussion of a topic. Also, my general stance of philosophy is one of admitting uncertainty.

I was not presenting myself as an 'expert', so rather disappointed that you seem to be telling me that I am not up to standard for writing on the forum. I come with a passion to learn and see use of philosophy forums as being complementary to reading. I can't believe that every other person on the forum has expertise knowledge and intellectual rigour. My topic was simply intended to encourage others to think about the nature and experience of coincidences.

[Age]

I am sure that some of my arguments are not backed up by evidence. If I was writing a thesis or report it would matter. As it is, I am writing on a philosophy forum, which is from my point of view a way of sharing ideas with others. I have been writing on forums since the time of lockdown and see it as a way of expansion and reflection of thought.

As far inconsistencies, I am a human being not a thinking machine, so I have many. Through forum discussion, I feel that I become more aware of these, especially my own philosophical blindspots.

Philosophy is hard and I am not just into philosophy as academia, but as a means of understanding life informed by critical awareness of ideas. Philosophy is not easy and the topic of whether what happens in life is coincidental, accidental or something more, is one which can be extremely perplexing. Some find solutions in religious thinking or other viewpoints but I see understanding life as being an ongoing quest.

You speak of "understanding life informed of critical awareness of ideas", yet your posts show a repeated pattern of a lack of intellectual rigor; a lack of "critical awareness". Whether or not it's a "thesis or report", you need to bring good critical thinking skills and good conceptual skills to the table. Your excuse that you are "a human being not a thinking machine" is nothing more than a poor rationalization. Have you considered that one of the reasons that you find it "extremely perplexing" is precisely because of your lack of intellectual rigor?

You can call it "philosophy" all you like, but calling it that doesn't make it so.

Brings to mind the following quote:
"Like a man that can't play a tune,
blowing a horn right loud,
hoping that in a minute it will begin to make music".

---William Faulkner

Intellectualisation can be a form of mystification and pseudo philosophy. Theories are only representations just like metaphors are. The idea of philosophy as being so intellectual may be too narrow.

I like the Faulkner verse but am a bit saddened that you think that my approach to philosophy is so out of tune. Also, my understanding of creating a thread is not just to present my own ideas but to create collaborative discussion of a topic.

If you, REALLY, want to start a thread with wanting to create a 'collaborative discussion', then I suggest just being open and honest about this, and then just mention what you would like to 'discuss, collaboratively' about, exactly. But, admitting that you would argue that randomness does not exist, is not, really, coming across as though you, really, want to create a 'collaborative discussion of a topic', at all.

For example, if more than one wanted to have a 'collaborative discussion' 'about peace', and if it could be possible to create a Truly peaceful world, then how could we find out how to create a Truly peaceful world', then those that wanted to have 'that collaborative discussion, on that topic' could begin.

But, if anyone had a 'stance', and wanted to say and claim that 'that world' could not exist, or even say and claim that 'that world' could exist (while not yet knowing how it could), then NO actual, real, 'collaborative discussion about that topic', could take place.

Also, my general stance of philosophy is one of admitting uncertainty.

Admitting 'uncertainty' in regards to 'what', exactly?

See, for absolutely ANY one that wants to CLAIM that there is 'NO certainty', 'NO absolutes', 'NO truths', or that 'we can never know the absolutely truth of things', that 'that one' is CONTRADICTING "itself" as well as being a 'HYPOCRITE'.

I was not presenting myself as an 'expert', so rather disappointed that you seem to be telling me that I am not up to standard for writing on the forum. I come with a passion to learn and see use of philosophy forums as being complementary to reading. I can't believe that every other person on the forum has expertise knowledge and intellectual rigour.

I KNOW I have NO 'intellectual rigor', let alone even really just much 'intellect', itself, at all.

'Philosophy forums' are certainly NOT the place to display one's 'intellectual prowess'. 'Philosophy forums' were more intended to just share and express new ideas, with the understanding of learning how to express them better, and/or to gain a better comprehension and understanding of them and other things.

To me, 'philosophy forums' are CERTAINLY NOT the place to go to just express one's idea or one's own beliefs, and then 'try to' 'debate' that idea or belief there.

'Philosophy forums', well to me anyway, are places to go to to DISCUSS ideas and views, new and old, in the hope of expanding on them, through just, logical reasoning, until the final answer or final resolution is found, and uncovered, and for ONCE and for ALL.

My topic was simply intended to encourage others to think about the nature and experience of coincidences.

But, if absolutely every thing that happens and occurs, happens and occurs because of previous events, happenings, or occurrences, then there is absolutely no thing that is a so-called, actual, 'coincidence'.

[Jack Daydream]

You speak of "understanding life informed of critical awareness of ideas", yet your posts show a repeated pattern of a lack of intellectual rigor; a lack of "critical awareness". Whether or not it's a "thesis or report", you need to bring good critical thinking skills and good conceptual skills to the table. Your excuse that you are "a human being not a thinking machine" is nothing more than a poor rationalization. Have you considered that one of the reasons that you find it "extremely perplexing" is precisely because of your lack of intellectual rigor?

You can call it "philosophy" all you like, but calling it that doesn't make it so.

Brings to mind the following quote:
"Like a man that can't play a tune,
blowing a horn right loud,
hoping that in a minute it will begin to make music".

---William Faulkner

Intellectualisation can be a form of mystification and pseudo philosophy. Theories are only representations just like metaphors are. The idea of philosophy as being so intellectual may be too narrow.

I like the Faulkner verse but am a bit saddened that you think that my approach to philosophy is so out of tune. Also, my understanding of creating a thread is not just to present my own ideas but to create collaborative discussion of a topic.

If you, REALLY, want to start a thread with wanting to create a 'collaborative discussion', then I suggest just being open and honest about this, and then just mention what you would like to 'discuss, collaboratively' about, exactly. But, admitting that you would argue that randomness does not exist, is not, really, coming across as though you, really, want to create a 'collaborative discussion of a topic', at all.

For example, if more than one wanted to have a 'collaborative discussion' 'about peace', and if it could be possible to create a Truly peaceful world, then how could we find out how to create a Truly peaceful world', then those that wanted to have 'that collaborative discussion, on that topic' could begin.

But, if anyone had a 'stance', and wanted to say and claim that 'that world' could not exist, or even say and claim that 'that world' could exist (while not yet knowing how it could), then NO actual, real, 'collaborative discussion about that topic', could take place.

Also, my general stance of philosophy is one of admitting uncertainty.

Admitting 'uncertainty' in regards to 'what', exactly?

See, for absolutely ANY one that wants to CLAIM that there is 'NO certainty', 'NO absolutes', 'NO truths', or that 'we can never know the absolutely truth of things', that 'that one' is CONTRADICTING "itself" as well as being a 'HYPOCRITE'.

I was not presenting myself as an 'expert', so rather disappointed that you seem to be telling me that I am not up to standard for writing on the forum. I come with a passion to learn and see use of philosophy forums as being complementary to reading. I can't believe that every other person on the forum has expertise knowledge and intellectual rigour.

I KNOW I have NO 'intellectual rigor', let alone even really just much 'intellect', itself, at all.

'Philosophy forums' are certainly NOT the place to display one's 'intellectual prowess'. 'Philosophy forums' were more intended to just share and express new ideas, with the understanding of learning how to express them better, and/or to gain a better comprehension and understanding of them and other things.

To me, 'philosophy forums' are CERTAINLY NOT the place to go to just express one's idea or one's own beliefs, and then 'try to' 'debate' that idea or belief there.

'Philosophy forums', well to me anyway, are places to go to to DISCUSS ideas and views, new and old, in the hope of expanding on them, through just, logical reasoning, until the final answer or final resolution is found, and uncovered, and for ONCE and for ALL.

My topic was simply intended to encourage others to think about the nature and experience of coincidences.

But, if absolutely every thing that happens and occurs, happens and occurs because of previous events, happenings, or occurrences, then there is absolutely no thing that is a so-called, actual, 'coincidence'.

When I speak of uncertainty, I am speaking of the basis of epistemology, based on Kant's idea of the limitations of the mind, as well as Socrates' 'I know nothing'. However, humans do have quest for the closest idea of truth, although there are psychological aspects of this.

I definitely wish to expand my knowledge through learning on the forum. That is not for ONCE and FOR ALL from my perspective because I see philosophy as being a lifetime exploration with openness to modification in the light of new knowledge.

As far as your remark about coincidences, causation is definitely central. There are chains of causation and this is based on the idea, 'As you reap so shall you so'. This is also the basis of the concept of karma which is more than the shallow interpretation of it as being about punishment. It is bound up with ripple-like effects of all actions, with consciousness as well as material factors in causation. It is an esoteric concept or idea but such ideas are difficult to prove. This may make it problematic for some in philosophy but being able to prove something does not mean that it was true or untrue. It involves being aware that it is speculative and the twentieth century philosopher, AJ Ayer, saw metaphysical speculation as problematic. Nevertheless, he does admit that humans are likely to speculate.

[Age]

Intellectualisation can be a form of mystification and pseudo philosophy. Theories are only representations just like metaphors are. The idea of philosophy as being so intellectual may be too narrow.

I like the Faulkner verse but am a bit saddened that you think that my approach to philosophy is so out of tune. Also, my understanding of creating a thread is not just to present my own ideas but to create collaborative discussion of a topic.

If you, REALLY, want to start a thread with wanting to create a 'collaborative discussion', then I suggest just being open and honest about this, and then just mention what you would like to 'discuss, collaboratively' about, exactly. But, admitting that you would argue that randomness does not exist, is not, really, coming across as though you, really, want to create a 'collaborative discussion of a topic', at all.

For example, if more than one wanted to have a 'collaborative discussion' 'about peace', and if it could be possible to create a Truly peaceful world, then how could we find out how to create a Truly peaceful world', then those that wanted to have 'that collaborative discussion, on that topic' could begin.

But, if anyone had a 'stance', and wanted to say and claim that 'that world' could not exist, or even say and claim that 'that world' could exist (while not yet knowing how it could), then NO actual, real, 'collaborative discussion about that topic', could take place.

Also, my general stance of philosophy is one of admitting uncertainty.

Admitting 'uncertainty' in regards to 'what', exactly?

See, for absolutely ANY one that wants to CLAIM that there is 'NO certainty', 'NO absolutes', 'NO truths', or that 'we can never know the absolutely truth of things', that 'that one' is CONTRADICTING "itself" as well as being a 'HYPOCRITE'.

I was not presenting myself as an 'expert', so rather disappointed that you seem to be telling me that I am not up to standard for writing on the forum. I come with a passion to learn and see use of philosophy forums as being complementary to reading. I can't believe that every other person on the forum has expertise knowledge and intellectual rigour.

I KNOW I have NO 'intellectual rigor', let alone even really just much 'intellect', itself, at all.

'Philosophy forums' are certainly NOT the place to display one's 'intellectual prowess'. 'Philosophy forums' were more intended to just share and express new ideas, with the understanding of learning how to express them better, and/or to gain a better comprehension and understanding of them and other things.

To me, 'philosophy forums' are CERTAINLY NOT the place to go to just express one's idea or one's own beliefs, and then 'try to' 'debate' that idea or belief there.

'Philosophy forums', well to me anyway, are places to go to to DISCUSS ideas and views, new and old, in the hope of expanding on them, through just, logical reasoning, until the final answer or final resolution is found, and uncovered, and for ONCE and for ALL.

My topic was simply intended to encourage others to think about the nature and experience of coincidences.

But, if absolutely every thing that happens and occurs, happens and occurs because of previous events, happenings, or occurrences, then there is absolutely no thing that is a so-called, actual, 'coincidence'.

When I speak of uncertainty, I am speaking of the basis of epistemology, based on Kant's idea of the limitations of the mind, as well as Socrates' 'I know nothing'.

Well by passing the Wrong parts of this, there is one thing that is KNOWN.

However, humans do have quest for the closest idea of truth, although there are psychological aspects of this.

I definitely wish to expand my knowledge through learning on the forum.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, if you informed the readers in the forum what knowledge that you would like to expand on, exactly, then this will speed up the process of you expanding 'your knowledge', here, tremendously.

Also, why not just wish to expand 'your knowledge', through learning, just EVERYWHERE, anyway?

That is not for ONCE and FOR ALL from my perspective because I see philosophy as being a lifetime exploration with openness to modification in the light of new knowledge.

So, then NEVER hold a presumption nor belief, and then you WILL BE a True "philosopher", having a True 'love-of-learning', and ALWAYS OPENS to LEARNING, DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING MORE, and ANEW.

As far as your remark about coincidences, causation is definitely central. There are chains of causation and this is based on the idea, 'As you reap so shall you so'.

The One chain of 'causation' is NOT based on any idea, AT ALL. The 'chain of causation' exists because of, or is based upon, the Fact that there just could not be any other way.

This is also the basis of the concept of karma which is more than the shallow interpretation of it as being about punishment. It is bound up with ripple-like effects of all actions, with consciousness as well as material factors in causation.

Also, 'karma', 'heaven', 'hell', and 'after life' are in relation to human beings collectively and NOT individually, as well.

It is an esoteric concept or idea but such ideas are difficult to prove.

NOT when one has obtained the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of the True idea and True concept of those words, ideas, and concepts. In fact PROVING them is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed. In fact, and as WILL BE SHOWN and PROVED, those NON-ESOTERIC concepts and ideas are ACTUALLY SELF-PROVEN, and PROVED.

This may make it problematic for some in philosophy but being able to prove something does not mean that it was true or untrue. It involves being aware that it is speculative and the twentieth century philosopher, AJ Ayer, saw metaphysical speculation as problematic. Nevertheless, he does admit that humans are likely to speculate.

And, TO SPECULATE is the SAME as TO assume, presume, guess, theorize, hypothesize, or any of the other just IMAGINING thing/s to be true.

Which, as I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here only SLOWS DOWN, PREVENTS, and/or STOPS you human beings from actually SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things. See, if one is PRESUMING, or worse still, BELIEVING that they already know the truth of some thing, then they are NOT FULLY OPEN to KEEP LOOKING, properly and Correctly.

So many, if not ALL, of Life's ACTUAL Truths get MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, and/or MISUNDERSTOOD solely because of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

[puto]

"Everything is an omen." For every yin, there must be a yang. The occult.

[Jack Daydream]

If you, REALLY, want to start a thread with wanting to create a 'collaborative discussion', then I suggest just being open and honest about this, and then just mention what you would like to 'discuss, collaboratively' about, exactly. But, admitting that you would argue that randomness does not exist, is not, really, coming across as though you, really, want to create a 'collaborative discussion of a topic', at all.

For example, if more than one wanted to have a 'collaborative discussion' 'about peace', and if it could be possible to create a Truly peaceful world, then how could we find out how to create a Truly peaceful world', then those that wanted to have 'that collaborative discussion, on that topic' could begin.

But, if anyone had a 'stance', and wanted to say and claim that 'that world' could not exist, or even say and claim that 'that world' could exist (while not yet knowing how it could), then NO actual, real, 'collaborative discussion about that topic', could take place.


Admitting 'uncertainty' in regards to 'what', exactly?

See, for absolutely ANY one that wants to CLAIM that there is 'NO certainty', 'NO absolutes', 'NO truths', or that 'we can never know the absolutely truth of things', that 'that one' is CONTRADICTING "itself" as well as being a 'HYPOCRITE'.


I KNOW I have NO 'intellectual rigor', let alone even really just much 'intellect', itself, at all.

'Philosophy forums' are certainly NOT the place to display one's 'intellectual prowess'. 'Philosophy forums' were more intended to just share and express new ideas, with the understanding of learning how to express them better, and/or to gain a better comprehension and understanding of them and other things.

To me, 'philosophy forums' are CERTAINLY NOT the place to go to just express one's idea or one's own beliefs, and then 'try to' 'debate' that idea or belief there.

'Philosophy forums', well to me anyway, are places to go to to DISCUSS ideas and views, new and old, in the hope of expanding on them, through just, logical reasoning, until the final answer or final resolution is found, and uncovered, and for ONCE and for ALL.



But, if absolutely every thing that happens and occurs, happens and occurs because of previous events, happenings, or occurrences, then there is absolutely no thing that is a so-called, actual, 'coincidence'.

When I speak of uncertainty, I am speaking of the basis of epistemology, based on Kant's idea of the limitations of the mind, as well as Socrates' 'I know nothing'.

Well by passing the Wrong parts of this, there is one thing that is KNOWN.

However, humans do have quest for the closest idea of truth, although there are psychological aspects of this.

I definitely wish to expand my knowledge through learning on the forum.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, if you informed the readers in the forum what knowledge that you would like to expand on, exactly, then this will speed up the process of you expanding 'your knowledge', here, tremendously.

Also, why not just wish to expand 'your knowledge', through learning, just EVERYWHERE, anyway?

That is not for ONCE and FOR ALL from my perspective because I see philosophy as being a lifetime exploration with openness to modification in the light of new knowledge.

So, then NEVER hold a presumption nor belief, and then you WILL BE a True "philosopher", having a True 'love-of-learning', and ALWAYS OPENS to LEARNING, DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING MORE, and ANEW.

As far as your remark about coincidences, causation is definitely central. There are chains of causation and this is based on the idea, 'As you reap so shall you so'.

The One chain of 'causation' is NOT based on any idea, AT ALL. The 'chain of causation' exists because of, or is based upon, the Fact that there just could not be any other way.

This is also the basis of the concept of karma which is more than the shallow interpretation of it as being about punishment. It is bound up with ripple-like effects of all actions, with consciousness as well as material factors in causation.

Also, 'karma', 'heaven', 'hell', and 'after life' are in relation to human beings collectively and NOT individually, as well.

It is an esoteric concept or idea but such ideas are difficult to prove.

NOT when one has obtained the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of the True idea and True concept of those words, ideas, and concepts. In fact PROVING them is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed. In fact, and as WILL BE SHOWN and PROVED, those NON-ESOTERIC concepts and ideas are ACTUALLY SELF-PROVEN, and PROVED.

This may make it problematic for some in philosophy but being able to prove something does not mean that it was true or untrue. It involves being aware that it is speculative and the twentieth century philosopher, AJ Ayer, saw metaphysical speculation as problematic. Nevertheless, he does admit that humans are likely to speculate.

And, TO SPECULATE is the SAME as TO assume, presume, guess, theorize, hypothesize, or any of the other just IMAGINING thing/s to be true.

Which, as I have been POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here only SLOWS DOWN, PREVENTS, and/or STOPS you human beings from actually SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things. See, if one is PRESUMING, or worse still, BELIEVING that they already know the truth of some thing, then they are NOT FULLY OPEN to KEEP LOOKING, properly and Correctly.

So many, if not ALL, of Life's ACTUAL Truths get MISSED, MISINTERPRETED, and/or MISUNDERSTOOD solely because of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS.

Speculation and the idea of the KNOWN is a fine line because all understanding of facts is about involves interpretation. It is possible to get too caught up by the area of beliefs, which are both culturally based and subjective. Presumptions get in the way so often and can be a stumbling block in openness in understanding. My own approach is to recognise when one is speculating in order to not fall into traps of presumptions. This may be as far as it goes because to only accept that which is proven may rule out so much of what is UNKNOWN.

[Jack Daydream]

"Everything is an omen." For every yin, there must be a yang. The occult.

There is the seen and the unseen as the interplay of opposites. The occult, although I prefer the term esoteric, is about looking for patterns as potential omens or signs. The art of the astrologer was about seeing connections based on the study of interplanetary conditions. Nevertheless, the observations of seeing omens and fortune telling has often had a negative impact, leading to superstition and fear. Some of this may come down to charlatans but, also, there is a danger of misreading patterns as a form of prediction of the future, which is not fixed.

[attofishpi]

It's a good thread Jack and you are making very salient points, well done thus far. Some are too arrogant and well, plain daft to analyse the nature of reality to comprehend what it is indeed that you are actually questioning.