Another Interpretation

[Dubious]

In other words, don't bother to learn how to communicate with others, just post the truth, because the truth is recognised by everyone who reads it.

...since when?

[Age]

Age, because you can’t ask questions of dead philosophers, how are you ever to know what they said?

ASK 'them' BEFORE they, so-called, DIE, OBVIOUSLY.

And, just as OBVIOUS is it is TOO LATE to ASK 'them' AFTER. So, just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what they were ACTUALLY meaning or intending is, really, just a 'waste of time', as some would say.

If you asked questions of a philosopher before he died, then he would not be a dead philosopher to ask questions of, would he. Of course not. If you look more closely, and you can always look more closely, you will find that was the context of question asking.

Which, the OBVIOUS ABSURDITY of 'the context' of 'your question' here, I hope is, NOW, MORE OBVIOUS, to 'you' as was, ALL THE TIME, to 'us', here.

The context of question asking was not about understanding a live philosopher via questions. The context was about understanding a dead philosopher without the aid of questions.

And, HOPEFULLY, you are starting to understand that it is an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY to UNDERSTAND and KNOW, for sure, 'the context' of what a so-called "dead philosopher" was MEANING and/or INTENDING, EXACTLY.

And, no matter how much or how often you human beings go on 'discussing', arguing, bickering, or even fighting over 'what was intended or meant', you will NEVER EVER KNOW. For the VERY Fact that they are DEAD, now.

So, the One, and ONLY, True and GREAT LESSON to be taken from this here is - Do NOT WAIT to seek out and obtain actual CLARIFICATION, and thus actual CLARITY, from others, before it is, literally, TO LATE.

In other words SEEK, and FIND, OUT what another is actually MEANING, in what they are actually saying, and/or writing, BEFORE they are DEAD, and when it is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT way TO LATE.

If you require a live, question-answering philosopher in order to understand, then obviously you don’t understand all the philosophers who died before you were born because they are not available for questioning, and it’s likely that sampling is most of the philosophers and philosophies that ever there was.

ONCE AGAIN, this one has completely and utterly MISUNDERSTOOD and MISSED THE MARK, and THE POINT, here.

It is an absolutely FRUITLESS exercise just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what another IS MEANING. So, 'TRYING TO' GUESS what DEAD human beings ONCE meant is even MORE POINTLESS.

One only has to look at the how many absolute MISUNDERSTANDINGS have occured in this one philosophy forum, from you people just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what each other is meaning, INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING each other what each one is ACTUALLY MEANING.

And you can’t understand any of them because you can’t ask your questions.

WHICH WAS, and STILL IS, MY POINT.

you can NOT UNDERSTAND, FULLY, if you can NOT, and DO NOT, SEEK OUT, and OBTAIN, ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and thus ACTUAL CLARITY.

And, the best, and most quickest, simplest, and easiest way, to obtain actual clarity is through and by JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. However, and obviously ANSWERS need to be offered up, and Honestly, and OPENLY.

And, OBVIOUSLY,.this can only come from you ALIVE ones. Although getting OPEN and Honest ANSWERS out of you alive older ones can be a seeming IMPOSSIBLE exercise, as well.

So at this moment in time, without asking a question, do you understand?

Yes, but as you continue to SHOW, and PROVE ABSOLUTELY True, here, you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, YET.

[Fairy]

In other words, don't bother to learn how to communicate with others, just post the truth, because the truth is recognised by everyone who reads it.

...since when?

Since now.

Many authors appear but there is only ONE reader of stories that no one ever writ.

[Dubious]

In other words, don't bother to learn how to communicate with others, just post the truth, because the truth is recognised by everyone who reads it.

...since when?

Since now.

Many authors appear but there is only ONE reader of stories that no one ever writ.

How does it relate and what's that got to do with truth is recognised by everyone who reads it?

Put another way, if there's ONE reader of stories how does he or she manage to read one that was never writ?

Not least, if truth is recognised by everyone who reads it by what human faculty would that truth be identified among all the false perspectives surrounding it?

In short, what would make truth testify re its own validity merely upon reading it? If that were true, we could have annulled approximately 1500 years of absurd errors!

[Fairy]

...since when?

Since now.

Many authors appear but there is only ONE reader of stories that no one ever writ.

How does it relate and what's that got to do with truth is recognised by everyone who reads it?

Put another way, if there's ONE reader of stories how does he or she manage to read one that was never writ?

Not least, if truth is recognised by everyone who reads it by what human faculty would that truth be identified among all the false perspectives surrounding it?

In short, what would make truth testify re its own validity merely upon reading it? If that were true, we could have annulled approximately 1500 years of absurd errors!

Are you not reading these words right now? and making up your own mind about what's true and what's not true? When something read is not true, but is interpreted as false, then that false will be true, why, because true and false are known concepts by the reader, both true and false arise in the exact same moment of knowing, as they become manifest as and through the words read.

Every one, same one, can read these words appearing right now on this computer screen. And every one, same one, will see the exact same words. The author of a word is also a word. Now, while the reader cannot be known or seen, except in it's conception, the concepts are known and seen as and through the words.

The author of the reader is the same one. And when one truth is known, all truths are known. When one thing is known, all things are known. The truth can only be known via the word. . . No words, no truth. Even the word 'truth' is a word known, read by every one, same one.

Even a false statement is true, even an error is truth without doubt or error. In knowing, the conception of any word is known by the same one reader to be interpreted as either false or true, and both would be right, both would be truth in their concept known. There is only truth, and you are truth.

So who is this You, who is the reader?

''You'' does not exist as a concept known: ie as a concept known as ''You''.

Concepts known, know nothing of their existence. All written words are appearances of the unwritten, unknown. Every story read is known, and even the known is unknown.

Sorry if all that is hard to grasp mentally, I cannot put it any other way. I being a known concept in this conception, read by every one, same one.

[Dubious]

Since now.

Many authors appear but there is only ONE reader of stories that no one ever writ.

How does it relate and what's that got to do with truth is recognised by everyone who reads it?

Put another way, if there's ONE reader of stories how does he or she manage to read one that was never writ?

Not least, if truth is recognised by everyone who reads it by what human faculty would that truth be identified among all the false perspectives surrounding it?

In short, what would make truth testify re its own validity merely upon reading it? If that were true, we could have annulled approximately 1500 years of absurd errors!

Are you not reading these words right now? and making up your own mind about what's true and what's not true? When something read is not true, but is interpreted as false, then that false will be true, why, because true and false are known concepts by the reader, both true and false arise in the exact same moment of knowing, as they become manifest as and through the words read.

Every one, same one, can read these words appearing right now on this computer screen. And every one, same one, will see the exact same words. The author of a word is also a word. Now, while the reader cannot be known or seen, except in it's conception, the concepts are known and seen as and through the words.

The author of the reader is the same one. And when one truth is known, all truths are known. When one thing is known, all things are known. The truth can only be known via the word. . . No words, no truth. Even the word 'truth' is a word known, read by every one, same one.

Even a false statement is true, even an error is truth without doubt or error. In knowing, the conception of any word is known by the same one reader to be interpreted as either false or true, and both would be right, both would be truth in their concept known. There is only truth, and you are truth.

So who is this You, who is the reader?

''You'' does not exist as a concept known: ie as a concept known as ''You''.

Concepts known, know nothing of their existence. All written words are appearances of the unwritten, unknown. Every story read is known, and even the known is unknown.

Sorry if all that is hard to grasp mentally, I cannot put it any other way. I being a known concept in this conception, read by every one, same one.

Whatever you say! Even if false, it must be true. If everything is true, why bother arguing with anything patently false!

You, in fact, remind me of someone who used to post here employing the same sense of convoluted logic to maintain and uphold the forever incomprehensible.

[Age]

...since when?

Since now.

Many authors appear but there is only ONE reader of stories that no one ever writ.

How does it relate and what's that got to do with truth is recognised by everyone who reads it?

Put another way, if there's ONE reader of stories how does he or she manage to read one that was never writ?

Not least, if truth is recognised by everyone who reads it by what human faculty would that truth be identified among all the false perspectives surrounding it?

I know you are asking "fairy" here, but the answer is 'agreement', and specifically 'agreement, by and with all'.

In short, what would make truth testify re its own validity merely upon reading it?

'Knowing', and specifically 'knowing that all could be in agreement'.

If that were true, we could have annulled approximately 1500 years of absurd errors!

I agree, wholeheartedly.

However, human beings were not created, through and be evolution, instantly consciously knowing the answers to 'Life'. Like all things, 'conscious knowledge and knowing' is a gradual evolving process.

One of the best ways human beings learn is from 'their mistakes', individually and collectively. So, as human beings, collectively, continually learn, then they can also continue to annual previous and/or future absurd errors. Which, in essence, means the more and bigger the mistakes made, then the more and greater the improvements that can be made, and corrected.

[Age]

How does it relate and what's that got to do with truth is recognised by everyone who reads it?

Put another way, if there's ONE reader of stories how does he or she manage to read one that was never writ?

Not least, if truth is recognised by everyone who reads it by what human faculty would that truth be identified among all the false perspectives surrounding it?

In short, what would make truth testify re its own validity merely upon reading it? If that were true, we could have annulled approximately 1500 years of absurd errors!

Are you not reading these words right now? and making up your own mind about what's true and what's not true? When something read is not true, but is interpreted as false, then that false will be true, why, because true and false are known concepts by the reader, both true and false arise in the exact same moment of knowing, as they become manifest as and through the words read.

Every one, same one, can read these words appearing right now on this computer screen. And every one, same one, will see the exact same words. The author of a word is also a word. Now, while the reader cannot be known or seen, except in it's conception, the concepts are known and seen as and through the words.

The author of the reader is the same one. And when one truth is known, all truths are known. When one thing is known, all things are known. The truth can only be known via the word. . . No words, no truth. Even the word 'truth' is a word known, read by every one, same one.

Even a false statement is true, even an error is truth without doubt or error. In knowing, the conception of any word is known by the same one reader to be interpreted as either false or true, and both would be right, both would be truth in their concept known. There is only truth, and you are truth.

So who is this You, who is the reader?

''You'' does not exist as a concept known: ie as a concept known as ''You''.

Concepts known, know nothing of their existence. All written words are appearances of the unwritten, unknown. Every story read is known, and even the known is unknown.

Sorry if all that is hard to grasp mentally, I cannot put it any other way. I being a known concept in this conception, read by every one, same one.

Whatever you say! Even if false, it must be true. If everything is true, why bother arguing with anything patently false!

You, in fact, remind me of someone who used to post here employing the same sense of convoluted logic to maintain and uphold the forever incomprehensible.

This is because it is the same one, just 'now' with a different label/name.

[Fairy]

Whatever you say! Even if false, it must be true. If everything is true, why bother arguing with anything patently false!

Well because in the realm of known conceptual language, there appears to be a duality.
But behind all conceptual language lies hidden in full sight, a silent nondual reality, which is another word for Oneness, which has no actual argument with itself, for there is no other one to argue with...except with its one same self of course.

So even though arguing does apparently arise within the human mind, as attachment to thought dictates, that duality is only possible within the dream of separation, where the duality of otherness seems to exist, therefore the concept of duality, will by definition, unavoidably so, appear as though there is an opposition, even though opposition is illusory. As there is only here, and never not here, only one thing, arguing with itself.

Within the dream of separation, it seems arguing with imagined / separate others, cannot be preventable, because as Oneness, nothing isn’t preventable, nothing’s happening. Seems like some thing is happening, but nothing’s happening. There’s no separation, no self or selves.

You, in fact, remind me of someone who used to post here employing the same sense of convoluted logic to maintain and uphold the forever incomprehensible.

Yes I understand. I have no argument with that statement, because as I personally perceive reality, I see no division, no other, no separation. So how could one thing possibly exist? and yet one thing does exist, I cannot deny, or experience the absence of my personal beingness, it's apparent without doubt or error, and yet, I have no comprehension of what that beingness is, except as secondary thing, which would be incomprehensible, since as one single unitary being, I have no experience of there being two of me, there is only the experience of one of me.

[Walker]

And, just as OBVIOUS is it is TOO LATE to ASK 'them' AFTER. So, just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what they were ACTUALLY meaning or intending is, really, just a 'waste of time', as some would say.

Why Age. You've just invalidated the study of philosophy. I hope you're happy with what you've done.

Let’s say you read some old-timey philosopher who died long ago, and you don’t understand something that he wrote. In fact, let’s say you don’t have a clue as to the meaning. What are you going to do if you can’t ask him to clarify? Who you gonna call in order to understand? Ghostbusters?

[Age]

And, just as OBVIOUS is it is TOO LATE to ASK 'them' AFTER. So, just 'TRYING TO' GUESS what they were ACTUALLY meaning or intending is, really, just a 'waste of time', as some would say.

Why Age. You've just invalidated the study of philosophy. I hope you're happy with what you've done.

1. one cannot and does not 'study' 'philosophy'.

2. you human beings, however, can 'guess' what so-called "philosophers", and/or others, have meant in what they have said or written, while calling that 'guessing', 'studying'. But, 'guessing' or 'presuming' is NOT 'studying'.

Let’s say you read some old-timey philosopher who died long ago, and you don’t understand something that he wrote. In fact, let’s say you don’t have a clue as to the meaning. What are you going to do if you can’t ask him to clarify?

I am certainly NOT going to make a 'guess' nor an 'assumption'. In fact I would not really do ANY thing.

Who you gonna call in order to understand? Ghostbusters?

LOL AGAIN, there is absolutely NO one to so-call 'call' BECAUSE the ONLY one who knows is, ONCE AGAIN, DEAD.

Is there another one of you human beings who you would 'call up', here, in order for you to understand, "walker"?

If yes, then who is that, exactly?