Age might be in trouble

[promethean75]

Is this what we've come to? Critiquing page 70 of each other's philosophy papers?

Age please critique page 70 of Phil's paper and then he'll critique page 70 of yours. Fair?

[Age]

Is this what we've come to? Critiquing page 70 of each other's philosophy papers?

Age please critique page 70 of Phil's paper and then he'll critique page 70 of yours. Fair?

But, I have 'critiqued' it, already. By just spending one's own time formulating and presenting what is on page 70 was a complete and utter 'waste' of 'that one's own time'. For the very simple fact that it, by itself, is not showing nor proving nothing at all.

Every symbol means absolutely nothing unless what 'it' is representing is expressed, and known. However, even from 'this one's' OWN first page and first two sentences, 'this one' is not making sense and appears to have misconstrued what "plato" was referring to by the use of the 'dialetic' word. Which by the way is said to have come from the term, dialegesthai, meaning to converse or talk through.

Even "phil8659's" insistence that one of the most fundamental concepts you 'have to realize' is that "plato" was a grammar teacher, is nothing more than just a show of "phil8659's" admiration and belief in 'another one', and in now way shows nor proves that "plato's" 'teaching' of 'grammar' was in any way absolute, nor even actually Correct, Accurate, nor Right.

And, as I have been alluding to throughout this forum, it is people's 'current' beliefs, which interfere with, and/or twist and distort, the actual and irrefutable Truth of things.

Now, as can be very clearly seen, and proved absolutely True, "phil8659's" worshiping of 'another one' has affected its ability to see clearly, Correctly, and properly. Again, if absolutely any one would like to have a discussion to find out where the actual proof is, then let 'us' have a discussion. And, by the way 'this valuation and assessment' is just in relation to the first two sentences of the very first part of "phil8659's" writings in that 3,401 page link, which it wants me to 'critique'

[Zenita01]

The frustration is clear, but it kinda buries the actual critique in a lot of “meta” argument about belief and perception.

If the goal is to have a real discussion or challenge someone’s reading of Plato, it might help to just focus on one specific example where you think the interpretation goes wrong, and lay out why you see it differently, minus the personal digs

[Pistolero]

Socratic method used by an imbecile.

He is suffering form confirmation bias....he NEEDS the other to be wrong, but he cannot challenge them, so he questioning and then shits all over every answer.
He is a defender of the status quo - whatever the "experts say"
He uses uncertainty as evidence to reject.
Unless you prove, to him, that you are omniscience, you are wrong.

This is Mary's routine, a.k.a., iIamastupid
Everything that challenges popular beliefs is interrogated using extreme bias.....
If you cannot convince them then you are wrong....and they will never be convinced.

Asking questions is a way of finding errors....imperfections, anything they can use to piss on it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was asked to put the mark of the beast in the hands of man so that they comprehend judgment in their mind.

LOL

[FlashDangerpants]

Just quickly summoning Atla because I couldn't let him miss out on this epic news about the book of Revelations playing out on our little forum.

[Atla]

Just quickly summoning Atla because I couldn't let him miss out on this epic news about the book of Revelations playing out on our little forum.

Why are Phil and Age fighting? I thought the seven single greatest mind(s) had some sort of secret agreement that they avoid each other.

We average people are insignificant of course, all we can do is watch from the sidelines. We're neither the voice of the universe, nor have we been tasked by extraterrestials or whatever to save humanity.

By my own experience, our alien neighbors are a lot more advanced in ability than we may have ever imagined, which means, they have to, by biological fact, be a whole lot saner than we can imagine.

[Phil8659]

What a lame piece of reasoning.

If all life is composed of life support systems, whose job is it to use them? What is it that demands that any of them do their own work? It is simply a statement, If you want to live do your fucking job. That is what every life support system does. It either works or it does not. Your own body gives you the ultimatum every day. you want a better life, then make it.

But that is not what is going on here. What is going on is people are saying not doing our own work is easier, therefore, better. and that is why they are mean and miserable pricks. bull shit.

Do you actually think, that the other life support systems of your body spin yarns, talk to aliens or pookas, spin doctrines, as a reason for doing their own fucking job? Do you think that they can give some lame ass excuse for not working? Bull shit.
You work, or not work, simply because you are right or wrong, good or evil.
Aristotle learnt this from Plato. Every thing which has a function, exists for that function. A simple statement of fact. Even a dead radio, is not a radio until it is fixed.

[accelafine]

You would have been better off buying a monkey and training it to tap a keypad. That would have freed up your time to spend on gardening and cleaning.

[Age]

The frustration is clear, but it kinda buries the actual critique in a lot of “meta” argument about belief and perception.

If the goal is to have a real discussion or challenge someone’s reading of Plato, it might help to just focus on one specific example where you think the interpretation goes wrong, and lay out why you see it differently, minus the personal digs

But, the discussing and/or challenging of someone's reading of 'another', which some call 'philosophy' and which is what commonly happenings in so-called 'philosophy classes', is, more or less, just an absolute waste of 'time'.

If one is not have a discussion with, or challenging or questioning the actual writer, them self, then everyone else's 'reading' are just completely based on assumptions, alone. Which 'we' all know where that can and does lead to.

[Age]

Socratic method used by an imbecile.

He is suffering form confirmation bias....he NEEDS the other to be wrong, but he cannot challenge them, so he questioning and then shits all over every answer.

Now, if 'we' were to imagine 'who', exactly, 'this one' is referring to, then asking 'this one' to just say and write 'who', exactly, the so-called "imbecile" is actually, and then 'we' ask 'this one' to provide the actual proof that 'this one' has, which backs up and supports 'this one's' claim that the "imbecile" can not challenge others, like "itself", then 'we' will see if 'this one' can even recognize being 'challenged', through questions.

'This one' has, so far, shown and proved that it can not yet recognize when it is actually being challenged. Or, if it can, then it has been showing and proving that it can not take up the 'challenges', as it is yet to back up and support its claims.

He is a defender of the status quo - whatever the "experts say"

'I' really do wonder 'who', exactly, 'this one' is referring to, here.

He uses uncertainty as evidence to reject.
Unless you prove, to him, that you are omniscience, you are wrong.

All of these made up accusations and claims are nothing more than 'this one's' own opinions, views, presumptions, or beliefs.

Or, that is until it provides actual proof for its beliefs and claims, here.

This is Mary's routine, a.k.a., iIamastupid
Everything that challenges popular beliefs is interrogated using extreme bias.....
If you cannot convince them then you are wrong....and they will never be convinced.

Asking questions is a way of finding errors....imperfections, anything they can use to piss on it.

Well if 'it' can be 'pissed on', then it is not worthy of even being, here.

In other words if there are errors in your writing and thinking, then Correct them when they have been pointed out, to you. After all 'you' are in a 'philosophy forum', here, "pistolero".

[Age]

Just quickly summoning Atla because I couldn't let him miss out on this epic news about the book of Revelations playing out on our little forum.

Why are Phil and Age fighting? I thought the seven single greatest mind(s) had some sort of secret agreement that they avoid each other.

Once more, for the very slow of learning, there is only One Mind. As has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

We average people are insignificant of course, all we can do is watch from the sidelines. We're neither the voice of the universe, nor have we been tasked by extraterrestials or whatever to save humanity.

Once again 'this' is False and Wrong. But, where, when, how, why, and what, exactly, will be revealed through seeking out clarification.

By my own experience, our alien neighbors are a lot more advanced in ability than we may have ever imagined, which means, they have to, by biological fact, be a whole lot saner than we can imagine.

[/quote]

[Age]

What a lame piece of reasoning.

If all life is composed of life support systems, whose job is it to use them? What is it that demands that any of them do their own work? It is simply a statement, If you want to live do your fucking job. That is what every life support system does. It either works or it does not. Your own body gives you the ultimatum every day. you want a better life, then make it.

But that is not what is going on here. What is going on is people are saying not doing our own work is easier, therefore, better. and that is why they are mean and miserable pricks. bull shit.

Do you actually think, that the other life support systems of your body spin yarns, talk to aliens or pookas, spin doctrines, as a reason for doing their own fucking job? Do you think that they can give some lame ass excuse for not working? Bull shit.
You work, or not work, simply because you are right or wrong, good or evil.
Aristotle learnt this from Plato. Every thing which has a function, exists for that function. A simple statement of fact. Even a dead radio, is not a radio until it is fixed.

Obviously every thing, which has a function, exists for 'that function'. But, you are yet to explain if 'you' and/or 'you human beings', have 'a function' and if 'you' do, then what is 'your function', exactly?

Once again, you keep making claims, here, now either back them up, or do not.

But, certainly do not expect to be listened to, and heard, if you do not back up and support 'your claims', here.

[Phil8659]

You would have been better off buying a monkey and training it to tap a keypad. That would have freed up your time to spend on gardening and cleaning.

Is this a quit notice? Sorry to see you go.

[accelafine]

I bet it would have come up with something a lot more intelligent and coherent (not to mention sane).