Love, Forgiveness, Acceptance & Appreciation

[Ben JS]

Is that supposed to be poetry, and if not why are you writing like that? With all that 'love' you allegedly have for others, you don't seem to mind annoying the f out of them.

I'm still an idiot. When in doubt, this is the answer.

But perhaps your participation in this thread is disingenuous -
maybe you only seek to dilute what I have said. (i hope not, friend)
To be shown one's own errors, could be considered an opportunity for growth.
If you're to be annoyed at anything, perhaps your capacity for falsely founded confidence?
Have you asked, where does this annoyance stem from?

I am not here to annoy you.
I did not know you would participate on the posting of this topic -
nor was it my intent to influence you to do so.

-

You wouldn't be quoting those people if they weren't idealised.

Wrong.

Why do I quote people?

This is a philosophy forum.
'love of wisdom'
The philosopher is the one who engages in philosophy -
i.e. loves wisdom, and seeks to attain it, (& ideally act with it).

Aligning oneself with truth, is wise.
Truth is the most steady, secure foundation.
It will not crumble beneath your feet.

If you wish to build into the skies,
you do not want the floor to crumble.
Better yet, you can design a foundation,
where components may be replaced if faulty,
without the entire structure collapsing.

Furthermore, even if you must build anew,
one can still salvage the gems of truth/wisdom within the debris -
as truth does not die or become damaged,
even in a fire or collapse.

If I believe one has expressed truth -
this truth is a tool to act more wisely.
And if I'm to act in the philosophic tradition,
I ought love and respect this truth.

Thus, I ought love and respect the quotes of others -
if they are refined truth.
And if I love wisdom,
and wish to share with others that love & seek wisdom,
then I ought share the truth of others.

And to repeat:
The truth exists beyond the one who speaks it.
It is not necessarily the people who have spoken truth that I admire,
rather, it is the truth I believe they have expressed - that is being admired.

-

...so your representation, friend, was wrong!
Don't be defeated, though - missteps are opportunity for learning.

Plus, preaching something and telling others how to behave and not following your own words makes that person a hypocrite.

Can a person speak to the risks of drinking alcohol,
then drink themselves to death?
Is there value in speaking truth to others,
even if one does not align with it?

I am an eternal idiot.
But the words spoken,
do not rely on my character at all.

Thus, to defend my character is a distraction.
I'd rather just say - 'yea, u right' to any personal accusation,
then get back to talking about what matters -
the quality of the arguments regarding what is / isn't true.

I mock others, but do not condemn them.
I wish the wellbeing of others, not their suffering.
Even to those who have literally raped and tortured me.

Wiki:

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

Google (AI Summary):

The paradox of tolerance, articulated by philosopher Karl Popper, suggests that unlimited tolerance must inevitably lead to the disappearance of tolerance. This is because a society that tolerates intolerance risks enabling the intolerant to suppress the tolerant, ultimately undermining the very principle of tolerance it strives to uphold.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

The Core Idea:
Popper argued that while it's essential to be tolerant of diverse viewpoints, there must be limits to what a tolerant society will accept. If a society tolerates ideologies or actions that are inherently intolerant, it risks allowing those intolerant forces to gain power and eventually eliminate tolerance for all.

Self-Defeating Tolerance:
The paradox highlights the potential for a society to become self-defeating by extending tolerance too broadly. By tolerating those who are intolerant, it risks allowing them to exploit that tolerance to establish a new form of intolerance.

Justification for Intolerance of Intolerance:
The paradox is often used to justify certain restrictions on speech or actions that are considered to be inherently intolerant or harmful. The argument is that a society must sometimes be intolerant of intolerance in order to protect its own values and principles, and even its survival.

Real-World Examples:
The paradox is often invoked in discussions about hate speech, hate crimes, and other issues where the line between free speech and intolerance is debated. For example, some argue that while free speech is a fundamental right, it should not extend to hate speech that incites violence or discrimination against marginalized groups.

Balancing Tolerance and Self-Defense:
The paradox raises the important question of how to balance the principles of tolerance and self-defense. A society must strive to be inclusive and accepting of diverse viewpoints, but it must also be vigilant in protecting itself from those who would undermine its fundamental values and principles, according to the paradox.

It is not the people, we must be intolerant of, if we are to defend the principles of tolerance -
but the ideas and the actions of the person.

We need not condemn the person to condemn their behavior or ideas.

Ignorance and unhealthy trajectories must be be challenged.

Some only understand aggression,
only respect aggression -
sometimes an effective initial step,
is a display of force..
not because this is how we want all interactions to be,
but because this is the way to break through the barriers of certain ignorances.

If a person has a tumor,
sometimes the crude solution is best -
as there's very few alternatives.
Cutting people open isn't the ideal.

In the future,
we can exercise prevention,
and education on what causes tumors.
Our approach for the future,
can appear different than our approach for the present.

-

Now, what constitutes unhealthy behavior and views is up for much debate -
and likely an ever evolving concept, with the culture, standards & understandings of the time.

But, there are some pretty evidently dangerous ones.
Like for example,
The ones that led the entire planet to engage in war.

Wouldn't you know it -
When the entire world was at war,
some people started to ask:
how the fuck did this happen?
and if we survive this,
how do we stop it from never happening again?

They came up with some good answers -
spawned from the utter misery of the conditions they lived.
How to protect the future, from the pitfalls of our ignorances.

[accelafine]

Another narcissistic, attention-seeking, mentally ill forum member who makes threads that he doesn't want anyone to comment on except himself. There are a few of those on here. All men of course

Carry on with your completely insane 'poetic' writing dear. I will tip-toe out and leave you to it. Don't lock the door though--nursie will be coming with your meds soon......

[Ben JS]

I welcome your participation here, accelafine.
You are accepted.

I did not create this thread, specifically with the intent to influence specifically & solely you, accelafine, to participate.
I'm glad you did, though. It means I can spew on you - a personal fetish of mine. Sorry... (not sorry )

All men of course

Apologies for my lowly sex, superior one.

Carry on with your completely insane 'poetic' writing dear.

Hey, you called me dear. That means you care. I'll do my best to remember.. despite your scathing attacks on my person.

I will tip-toe out and leave you to it.

That's fair. Stop by any time - I bear no grudge.
Also, sorry for making you feel unappreciated.

Is that supposed to be poetry, and if not why are you writing like that?

I think splitting up words into small chunks is easier for processing -
at least for me.

Blocks of text are more space efficient,
and made sense when writing on paper -
but perhaps when communicating,
whatever this abomination is -
helps in reading comprehension.

Again, it does for me -
but I have ASD.

I was in hospital for being suicidal/homicidal to abusers,
(note the childhood trauma) -
not for being insane.

You've made lots of accusations, dear accelafine,
but can you think of something nice to say?
Or is your participation here a procession of character assassinations?
Perhaps this is the only way you know how to show you care -
through guarded attacks...

If so, that's OK too.
I'm a willing target,
punch away!

[Ben JS]

practice dummy (2021)
-

Here’s my heart.
Use it as a stress ball.
When you treat things well,
I’ll leave to meet another.
I’ll hand them the toy,
to practice being well.

EDIT:

Can one heal?
Can one's future be different than one's past?

I think I've effectively donned my reputation,
and rolled around in the mud of history.

[...]
My biggest hurdle is self abuse.
I continually punish myself,
and restrict happiness / love.
I could let people love me,
but I don’t.

I think there’s still room for growth and acceptance within.
I have not found complete resolution of my past.
Until that time, I refuse to let others too close.
They say you can grow with others,
but perhaps I’ve never risked letting others grow with me.

Perhaps in my heart,
I’m still making the case that I’m not a monster.
That there’s worth within,
that another would be happy to share with me.

To share one’s life with another.
To say, your life makes mine richer.
It is a privilege to be beside you.
And for them, to feel the same.

Grateful, and joyful -
for the opportunity to share our hearts,
and for them to merge and shine together.

One day, perhaps.

Not this day, suckers -
you'll never take me alive!

Narrator: "...alive!", shouted the insane man to the void. It was not very effective, or necessary.

[Age]

“I knew as well as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed.
A man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred,
he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. […]
The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.” - Nelson Mandela

“You must not hate those who do wrong or harmful things;
but with compassion, you must do what you can to stop them —
for they are harming themselves, as well as those who suffer from their actions.” - Dalai Lama

They suffer, by not nurturing the light of compassion and unconditional love -
that it doesn’t permeate their being.
To look upon existence, in all it's shades, with open heart and say,
'I accept, and hold it to my chest.
I am grateful to be - and grateful to be amongst & with you'.
To genuinely accept all without hatred - to nurture loving-kindness.
To seek the health, wellbeing, empowerment and flourishing of all -
that their happiness, is your happiness.
To wake each day, believing and living, in accord with life being a gift.

Those without love, deprive themselves of unity with the sublime -
which is the greatest injustice that falls upon them.

But compassion & love says, we don’t want this for them.
We don’t wish their suffering, but if they are without love, suffer they will.

'Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues,
but the parent of all others.' - Cicero

-

To embrace it all.
To accept all of existence,
and not curse the heavens for any of it.
It all had to be -
it's a package deal.

=

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom,
I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison. […]
For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains,
but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. - Mandela

Compassion is the wish to see others free from suffering. - Dalai Lama

I can do no other than be reverent before everything that is called life.
I can do no other than to have compassion for all that is called life.
That is the beginning and the foundation of all ethics. - Schweitzer

If you have any sense my friend, don’t plant anything but Love. - Rumi

To love is not to ask anything in return,
not even to feel that you are giving something-
and it is only such love that can know freedom. - Krishnamurti

We are one, after all, you and I,
together we suffer, together exist
and forever will recreate each other. - Teilhard de Chardin

-

To confront oneself with truth’s severity,
builds a resilience to complacency or entitlement.
It also provides the soil for appreciation -
as each moment may be contrasted by it’s lack,
by it’s own transience.

ChatGPT

Q (me): Is a wilting flower not as poignant as in bloom?

A: Yes, a wilting flower can be seen as poignant in its own unique way.
While a blooming flower represents vitality, beauty, and growth,
a wilting flower carries a sense of fragility, impermanence, and the passage of time.
It can evoke emotions such as nostalgia, melancholy,
or even empathy for the fleeting nature of life and its transient moments of beauty.
The contrast between a wilting flower and one in full bloom can
highlight the cycles of life and serve as a reminder
to appreciate the present moment before it fades away.

-

'Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it.
Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it.
Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.' - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hate is a poison, and love the antidote.

Nothing has, nor will, change while you adult human beings have the most distorted and twisted belief that children should/must love their parents.

All children do is 'love', but all children grow up learning to 'hate'.

A person is too complicated to hate.
Hate a person, and you'll learn to hate people.
Your enemy's heart is a mirror of your own -
and of anyone you love.
Hate can only get you so far.

If hate were enough, why would we love at all?

[Age]

Examine what is spoken, not he who speaks.

PERFECT.

-

If gravity is true, then it remains true regardless of who speaks it.
Assassinating the character of someone who speaks of gravity,
does not affect or relate to the principles of gravity.

One can learn from anyone, if one keeps a sharp eye.

While one is 'open' one cannot not learn.

That you think character assassination means anything in the context of establishing truth,
is very telling of your capacity to think critically and differentiate between significance, and insignificance.

An admirable effort, though.
Don't be defeated - missteps are an opportunity for learning.

[Age]

Examine what is spoken, not he who speaks.

-

If gravity is true, then it remains true regardless of who speaks it.
Assassinating the character of someone who speaks of gravity,
does not affect or relate to the principles of gravity.

One can learn from anyone, if one keeps a sharp eye.

That you think character assassination means anything in the context of establishing truth,
is very telling of your capacity to think critically and differentiate between significance, and insignificance.

An admirable effort, though.
Don't be defeated - missteps are an opportunity for learning.

It's the idealising of these people I take issue with.

So then 'just do not do it'.

And, you do not take issue with hating and/or ridiculing others, instead, correct?

Just because you have 'an issue' with 'idealizing' any one does not automatically mean that you have to 'hate' any one.

I thought I made that clear. Plus, preaching something and telling others how to behave and not following your own words makes that person a hypocrite.

you speak as though you are perfect and do not do this very thing "yourself".

Is this correct?

You wouldn't be quoting those people if they weren't idealised.

Good point.

Why not just quote 'the words', alone, for 'the words' themselves, alone, "ben js"?

It's not as if the quotes are THAT earth-shattering. No one is going to quote Hitler or Stalin, even if they happened to say something that was true

Do not be so sure.

[Age]

It's the idealising of these people I take issue with. I thought I made that clear.

One can learn from anyone, if one keeps a sharp eye.

I quote them because they're influential -
but primarily because I think they're right.

But, 'who' says some thing is of no importance at all compared to 'the words', themselves.

Focusing on, or judging, 'the person/people', themselves, takes away from 'the word/s', or 'messages', themselves.

And, focusing/judging 'people' in either 'good' or 'bad' can be as destructive or unproductive as each other. 'Idealizing/idolizing' one or some over others, and/or 'hating/loathing' one or some over others, can cause as just as much damage and/or harm as the 'other one'.

Plus, preaching something and telling others how to behave and not following your own words makes that person a hypocrite.

I act the asshole.
When I act like an asshole, and insult people -
It's usually a small grain of truth exaggerated for effect.

I do it because I think it's the most effective way to get under particular people's skin,
such that my words will sit with them longer [when they're not receptive to other approaches].
This is the strategy I've adopted.

It destroys my credibility and reputation.
Fortunately for me,
I was never here to establish credibility or reputation.

I want to influence what I consider positive change,
and I'll readily put on the devil's advocate mask.

I don't think I should do it -
it's not respectful or being forthright.
I don't hold ill will towards anyone,
but I do act the idiot -
because I am an idiot.

An idiot makes do.

I confess, though -
especially in my ILP days,
I've lost my cool and genuinely acted the fool.

...

But guess what,
the message of this thread doesn't rely on my character,
just as the message of this thread doesn't rely on any character.
I ought act more accord with these words, right?
You think so?

Or that I'm hypocrite,
and the thread is also unfounded nonsense?

===

Walker,
That's a lovely song, friend.

[Age]

Good talk, friend.

The words still stand beyond your misgivings regarding them.

And to speak further to my awful character,
everything in the OP is cut & pasted from my past posts -
so I'm just regurgitating old thoughts..

But it speaks to the fact I still act awfully,
even after having recognizing the OP's contents.

There it is. What do you mean, 'speak to'? That makes no sense.

By saying and writing, 'There it is', and then going on to what you do, is showing and revealing that you are just 'looking for' and are after some 'very particular things', only, from 'others', here.

[Age]

Come to think of it, most of the few sane people on this forum have been women. What is it about 'philosophy' that attracts the insane?

you inner absolute belief and hatred, here, just never stops coming through.

Will you ever 'look at' things from a 'different perspective'?

The thread title is: - Love, Forgiveness, Acceptance & Appreciation.

Yet, here you are just displaying 'your unforgiving, non-accepting, and unappreciative hate', once more.

[Age]

Only children deserve love.

If you can not see the absolute absurdity of this claim, then you are more blind than I first thought.

[Age]

Who ordained that?

Who ordained 'what', exactly?

Children can't survive without it.

This implies that you know what 'love' is, exactly?

So, what even is 'love', exactly, to you, "accelafine"?

That's a fact, not airy fairy, new-age bs.

Yet, here you are showing and proving how you do not provide children with what you say and claim 'they deserve'.

It 'this' being a "hypocrite" as well? Or, when you are preaching something and telling others how to behave and not following your own words different from when others do the exact same thing?

[Age]

Why do I quote people?

This is a philosophy forum.
'love of wisdom'
The philosopher is the one who engages in philosophy -
i.e. loves wisdom, and seeks to attain it, (& ideally act with it).

Which every new born and very young child 'does', and thus 'are' the True "philosophers'" in Life.

'They', however, are not 'seeking wisdom', 'they' are just 'naturally learning, and thus attaining, more and anew' just about always.

The exact opposite can be said of 'older human beings' who assume and/or believe that 'they' already know things. Which is even 'worse' when in fact that 'they' do not even 'know' but only think, assume, or believe that 'they know'.

Aligning oneself with truth, is wise.
Truth is the most steady, secure foundation.
It will not crumble beneath your feet.

If you wish to build into the skies,
you do not want the floor to crumble.
Better yet, you can design a foundation,
where components may be replaced if faulty,
without the entire structure collapsing.

Furthermore, even if you must build anew,
one can still salvage the gems of truth/wisdom within the debris -
as truth does not die or become damaged,
even in a fire or collapse.

If I believe one has expressed truth -
this truth is a tool to act more wisely.
And if I'm to act in the philosophic tradition,
I ought love and respect this truth.

Thus, I ought love and respect the quotes of others -
if they are refined truth.
And if I love wisdom,
and wish to share with others that love & seek wisdom,
then I ought share the truth of others.

And to repeat:
The truth exists beyond the one who speaks it.
It is not necessarily the people who have spoken truth that I admire,
rather, it is the truth I believe they have expressed - that is being admired.

-

...so your representation, friend, was wrong!
Don't be defeated, though - missteps are opportunity for learning.

[Age]

Is that supposed to be poetry, and if not why are you writing like that? With all that 'love' you allegedly have for others, you don't seem to mind annoying the f out of them.

Who is 'them', exactly?

[Age]

Is that supposed to be poetry, and if not why are you writing like that? With all that 'love' you allegedly have for others, you don't seem to mind annoying the f out of them.

I'm still an idiot. When in doubt, this is the answer.

But perhaps your participation in this thread is disingenuous -
maybe you only seek to dilute what I have said. (i hope not, friend)
To be shown one's own errors, could be considered an opportunity for growth.

'I' THRIVE in being shown not just 'my errors' but also being shown the exact reason/s of 'why' they 'are errors'.

Unfortunately though the people, in the days when this is being written anyway, did not have 'the time' nor 'the patience' to do these things, in a Truly open and honest discussion format.