Dear God!

[Age]

I can't read 95% of the lounge, some threads 100%, as I've had to foe 80% of the contributors. The Center for Inquiry has the same problem, with marginally better quality.

How long before Philosophy Now has to abandon the Forum as has Richard Dawkins?

I believe that this site has a sponsor for a virtual home for the criminally insane.

Some passerby's stop by believing that it is just a zoo, and they have a spot of fun.

And lastly, an occasional researcher just wants to run some testing.

It is multifunctional.
When Socrates was asked why he married the meanest woman in Athens, he told a parable about horses. One learns to be good at it by starting with the wild ones.

Every thing can be put to some use. For example, printed versions of what is on here can be used to make punk Origami.

Seriously, though, I tried to open up a dialog with the person who runs this site, turn it into a real philosophy forum, by he said he was not interested, i.e., a typical corporate mentality, cash first, all other concerns secondary, or non-existent.

But, why could 'that one' just not be 'not interested' in 'your writings'. Obviously, no one else, here, is interested in 'your writings', here. So, why can you just not 'see' this? Why does there always have to be some 'other excuse' other than 'just not interested' in 'your writings'?

Even the so-called "experts" have informed you, 'All together the article in the given version is not understandable.'

The very reason no one is 'interested' in 'your writings, article, and work' is because in its 'current version' it is 'not understandable'. Can you really not just comprehend and understand this Fact'?

Personally, I believe in what Plato stated.

Of course you do, this is as blatantly obvious as the sun shines light. And, just like you believe in what that one human being stated, and so worship 'that one', so to do many people believe in what others state, because those people worship 'those ones', as well. For example some believe in what "jesus christ" stated, because 'that one' is worshiped. The two 'believing in' and 'worshiping' go 'hand in hand', as some would say. And, just like those people believe in what "albert einstein" stated, again because those people worship 'that one'.

See, a lot of you adult human beings will just 'believe in' what 'another' states, without ever question what was stated, for the sole reason that 'that one' is 'worshiped'.

The job of a philosopher was Dialectic, which he defined as binary information processing as applied to human behavior, what Confucius called the Superior Man, One can say, Homo Superior: a type of human outlined in the Bible, a human that is mentally functional.

But, 'this' is only your own interpretation, only, for if you were ever to 'look up', and 'check', it is stated that "plato" defined 'dialectic' differently. But, you are not open to 'this' at all, correct?

If I were not a poor man, I would fund such a forum myself.

Excuses, excuses.

If you paraphrase a quote of Xenophon of Socrates, A standard of human behavior recognized by all mankind would put an end to the division of humanity, which is exactly the same point made by the Bible, and rationally, by biological fact.

I was once asked to express that standard, and I do. Now it only remains to show how to apply it. By our own hand we can learn to become rational.

So, when are 'you' going to become 'rational', here?

And, just 'expressing a standard' without ever elaborating on 'that standard' nor even just explaining what 'that standard' is, exactly, and how 'that standard' actually works, or behaves, and what is 'that standard' in relation to, and/or even for, exactly, is, really, not the most 'rational' things, at all, let alone the wisest of things to do.

[Age]

Maybe because you assume my intentions.

More likely that I didn't like your tone, Sir. But not in the above.

You have never realized that in any written environment, it is the reader, not the writer, that sets the tone. There was one important founder of our country that realized this, and he actually hired a person to read things for him in a monotone so as to not infer his own prejudices. Take another example, Genesis in the Bible, there are actually 3 stories of creation, one looks good, one looks bad, and the third, neither.
Judge not by appearance by by rightful judgment.
Words, names, in of themselves have no meaning.

Some things you say and claim are very 'good', but then you go and ruin them with the likes of your next sentence below.

One can either adhere to a convention of purpose of grammar, or not.

This claim, here, is about one of the most foolish, absurd, irrational, and illogical claims one could make.

1. What is the actual 'convention of purpose' of 'grammar', which you would like to propose, here, exactly?

2. What is the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct 'grammar', exactly, which one would be best following, and abiding by, to keep 'aligned' with A 'convention of purpose', fully, and Accurately?

The whole world is my foe, and always has been. That is what drives evolution.

'Evolution', itself, is, obviously, not driven by 'your foe'.
The 'whole world' is not driven by 'your foe'. And,
'you' have not been around, for 'always'.

you really do say and 'try to' claim some of the most absurd and outrageous Untruths, here, "phil8659".

When I was a child, I called it subjective identification with reality, and asked about it in a lucid dream-state.

Who, here, cares?

The answer I got, was a sudden blinding light, so bright, I could not even close my eyes to block it out, the light gradually dimmed, and then I could see a field of flowers.

Were you not yet aware that when people speak of 'light', in the sense of realization, knowing, epiphanies, and in-sight and en-light-enment, that they are talking about and referring to 'knowedge' 'coming-to-light' and not about a literal 'light' from outside of the body?

Maybe you can see the answer in the metaphor, as I did.

What even was 'the question', exactly?

If you have a hard time with the metaphor, have you ever been snow blind? It works both ways.
Plato put the same metaphor in the Allegory of the Cave, and you may know how much bull-shit ideas that spawned.

Are you aware of just how often, and how much, you 'allude' to 'some thing', but never ever get around to informing any one of what 'the thing' even is, itself?

Apply it to the perceptible and intelligible, whose voice do you listen to most?

1. Apply 'what', exactly, to the perceptible and intelligible?

2. And, whose voice do you adult human beings listen to the most are obviously your own Assumptions, which are based upon your own Past Experiences, or what I like to call APE-thinking.

you adult human beings mostly listen to the APE thinking, within. Whereas,

Babies only listen to the 'Knowing', with-in.

But, listening to 'Knowing' only, and replacing 'that' within listening to 'thinking' only happens and occurred in the olden days when this was being written.

It then often becomes painful to learn how to listen to someone else.

Apply it to evolution. You know what is happening now, all the time, it makes it hard to listen so that you know where history is going.;

Self-control. Both Plato and the Bible tells us how to master snow blindness, or near sightedness, the art of mensuration, which geometry does perfectly.

Yet here is "phil8659" presenting prime examples of one who is being absolutely blind, and closed, at most times, here.

[Phil8659]

I think it is hilarious, Age always playing the Anti-Personnel Mime.
Did he get the idea from Marvel Agents of Shield?

[Age]

I think it is hilarious, Age always playing the Anti-Personnel Mime.

Okay.

Some also observe your inabilities, and your inconsistencies and contradictions, here, as being funny as well.

Did he get the idea from Marvel Agents of Shield?

Is there any one 'you' are asking 'this question' to, exactly?

Oh, and by the way, why do you continually 'try to' attack, ridicule, and/or humiliate 'the other', here, instead of just remaining focused on 'the words', only and trying to refute or counter 'them' only?

Also, what is the reason you do not just back up and support 'your own words and claims', here? Again, why do 'you' 'try to' make "yourself" look superior, here?

[Phil8659]

Boom! another explosion of bull shit. It is so easy to set him off.

[Age]

Boom! another explosion of bull shit. It is so easy to set him off.

It is very, very easy to say and claim, 'There is bull shit', and/or 'claim anything else', but never ever actually prove any thing.

[Phil8659]

Yup jack, I just spent all afternoon trying to prove that that I gave a white Lilly to this blind guy, did not work. He ended up by eating it, saying it was the best hamburger he ever had.
I spent forty eight dollars for that plant and the guy had the nerve to ask me if I had anything to drink with it!

[Age]

Yup jack, I just spent all afternoon trying to prove that that I gave a white Lilly to this blind guy, did not work. He ended up by eating it, saying it was the best hamburger he ever had.
I spent forty eight dollars for that plant and the guy had the nerve to ask me if I had anything to drink with it!

So what?

The reason you can not get any one, other than "your" own 'self' to publish 'your work' is because it does not make sense to any one, here.

If you, really, want to be heard, and/or listened to, then just say what 'it' is, exactly, that you want to accomplish, or achieve, with and by 'your work', and thus just present the 'actual proofs', which will obviously be needed.

What is so hard, or complex, for you to keep missing and/or misunderstanding, here, exactly?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I can't help wondering cui bono? How does PN benefit from this appalling morass? I suppose it doesn't not benefit; it's a cheap pus vent on the essential website, and creates a fascinating repository of cognitive pathology. Mine own included of course. A terabyte of cloud storage? $100 pa?

[Phil8659]

I can't help wondering cui bono? How does PN benefit from this appalling morass? I suppose it doesn't not benefit; it's a cost free pus vent on the website, and creates a fascinating repository of cognitive pathology. Mine own included of course.

A long long time ago, was a dwarf who ask questions just like that. Finding a hostile world, he built a home under a mountain and tunnels by which he could come and go, and search for his answers. Over the centuries, his little home became furnished with modern technology, computers, monitors, data collection, which the little dwarf could study.
Ya know, he ain't figured it out yet himself, but at least he can watch reruns of I Love Lucy.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I can't help wondering cui bono? How does PN benefit from this appalling morass? I suppose it doesn't not benefit; it's a cost free pus vent on the website, and creates a fascinating repository of cognitive pathology. Mine own included of course.

A long long time ago, was a dwarf who ask questions just like that. Finding a hostile world, he built a home under a mountain and tunnels by which he could come and go, and search for his answers. Over the centuries, his little home became furnished with modern technology, computers, monitors, data collection, which the little dwarf could study.
Ya know, he ain't figured it out yet himself, but at least he can watch reruns of I Love Lucy.

That's the spirit : )

PS What's the Hatstand score here? British Commonwealth vs. the rest (i.e. US)? A £ to a $ it's disproportionately American I'd guess.