Philosophical Fiddling...

[Martin Peter Clarke]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

[Age]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

you say and claim, here, that you will value 'philosophy', but what even is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

Now, if you do not provide a specific definition, here, then no one knows what 'it' is, exactly, which you claim, 'you will value'.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

you say and claim, here, that you will value 'philosophy', but what even is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

Now, if you do not provide a specific definition, here, then no one knows what 'it' is, exactly, which you claim, 'you will value'.

If you have to ask, you can't know.

[Age]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

you say and claim, here, that you will value 'philosophy', but what even is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

Now, if you do not provide a specific definition, here, then no one knows what 'it' is, exactly, which you claim, 'you will value'.

If you have to ask, you can't know.

Once again, I have just presented another prime example, through these posters, here, of how often they make claims, here, but fail, absolutely, to present absolutely any thing that could even begin to back up and support 'their claims'.

Obviously 'this one' does not just present a definition for the 'philosophy' word because it has never ever questioned it nor thought about its definition before. And, obviously when questioned 'now', 'this one' has no actual clue nor idea at all what it claims it 'will value'.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

you say and claim, here, that you will value 'philosophy', but what even is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

Now, if you do not provide a specific definition, here, then no one knows what 'it' is, exactly, which you claim, 'you will value'.

If you have to ask, you can't know.

Once again, I have just presented another prime example, through these posters, here, of how often they make claims, here, but fail, absolutely, to present absolutely any thing that could even begin to back up and support 'their claims'.

Obviously 'this one' does not just present a definition for the 'philosophy' word because it has never ever questioned it nor thought about its definition before. And, obviously when questioned 'now', 'this one' has no actual clue nor idea at all what it claims it 'will value'.

Once again you are asking yourself and have no answer.

[Age]

If you have to ask, you can't know.

Once again, I have just presented another prime example, through these posters, here, of how often they make claims, here, but fail, absolutely, to present absolutely any thing that could even begin to back up and support 'their claims'.

Obviously 'this one' does not just present a definition for the 'philosophy' word because it has never ever questioned it nor thought about its definition before. And, obviously when questioned 'now', 'this one' has no actual clue nor idea at all what it claims it 'will value'.

Once again you are asking yourself and have no answer.

What a Truly absurd and ridiculous thing to even begin 'try to' claim is true and right.

Unlike you I have already defined the 'philosophy' word throughout this forum. And, also unlike you I was never even asked to.

So, you not being able to do it, even when politely asked to, shows and proves just how little thought you have put into this thread.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum of all places, claiming that you 'will value philosophy', but still yet had never actually thoroughly considered what 'it' was, exactly, what you were claiming you 'will value'?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Once again, I have just presented another prime example, through these posters, here, of how often they make claims, here, but fail, absolutely, to present absolutely any thing that could even begin to back up and support 'their claims'.

Obviously 'this one' does not just present a definition for the 'philosophy' word because it has never ever questioned it nor thought about its definition before. And, obviously when questioned 'now', 'this one' has no actual clue nor idea at all what it claims it 'will value'.

Once again you are asking yourself and have no answer.

What a Truly absurd and ridiculous thing to even begin 'try to' claim is true and right.

Unlike you I have already defined the 'philosophy' word throughout this forum. And, also unlike you I was never even asked to.

So, you not being able to do it, even when politely asked to, shows and proves just how little thought you have put into this thread.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum of all places, claiming that you 'will value philosophy', but still yet had never actually thoroughly considered what 'it' was, exactly, what you were claiming you 'will value'?

Answer yourself. And there is no closed definition of philosophy.

[Impenitent]

existential rosin...

-Imp

[Age]

Once again you are asking yourself and have no answer.

What a Truly absurd and ridiculous thing to even begin 'try to' claim is true and right.

Unlike you I have already defined the 'philosophy' word throughout this forum. And, also unlike you I was never even asked to.

So, you not being able to do it, even when politely asked to, shows and proves just how little thought you have put into this thread.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum of all places, claiming that you 'will value philosophy', but still yet had never actually thoroughly considered what 'it' was, exactly, what you were claiming you 'will value'?

Answer yourself.

What an absolute joke 'this comment' is, here.

'This one' comes, here, claiming that it 'will value philosophy', yet will not inform anyone, here, what 'philosophy' is, to it, exactly, although it was asked, politely, to clarify what 'philosophy' even means to it, and then, laughingly, tells me to answer, for it.

So, 'I' will now answer that the word 'philosophy', to 'this one', means, 'an education course in the study of past writers' works'.

Which then means that 'this one' has claimed that it 'will value the study of past writers' works', here.

And there is no closed definition of philosophy.

Obviously, which is, exactly, why I just asked you a question, politely, and for clarity sake, of how you are defining the 'philosophy' word, here, exactly.

it would have been much simpler, easier, quicker, and far, far more accurate, to have just expressly written how you are defining 'that word', here, exactly, in 'this thread'.

But, for 'now', 'we' will have to use the 'an education course in the study of past writers' works', only.

[Age]

It is these types of 'back and forth communication' why just uncovering and finding out what the actual Truth of things took 'these people' so, so, so long, if ever.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What a Truly absurd and ridiculous thing to even begin 'try to' claim is true and right.

Unlike you I have already defined the 'philosophy' word throughout this forum. And, also unlike you I was never even asked to.

So, you not being able to do it, even when politely asked to, shows and proves just how little thought you have put into this thread.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum of all places, claiming that you 'will value philosophy', but still yet had never actually thoroughly considered what 'it' was, exactly, what you were claiming you 'will value'?

Answer yourself.

What an absolute joke 'this comment' is, here.

'This one' comes, here, claiming that it 'will value philosophy', yet will not inform anyone, here, what 'philosophy' is, to it, exactly, although it was asked, politely, to clarify what 'philosophy' even means to it, and then, laughingly, tells me to answer, for it.

So, 'I' will now answer that the word 'philosophy', to 'this one', means, 'an education course in the study of past writers' works'.

Which then means that 'this one' has claimed that it 'will value the study of past writers' works', here.

And there is no closed definition of philosophy.

Obviously, which is, exactly, why I just asked you a question, politely, and for clarity sake, of how you are defining the 'philosophy' word, here, exactly.

it would have been much simpler, easier, quicker, and far, far more accurate, to have just expressly written how you are defining 'that word', here, exactly, in 'this thread'.

But, for 'now', 'we' will have to use the 'an education course in the study of past writers' works', only.

I didn't ask.

[Fairy]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

Can't illuminate Light. Already is so Bright.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

... while Reform Consumes England.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8478zp085o

How safe are our Ivory Tower lives? As safe as ever, unconnected to the reality of the masses as they always were? Who'd have thought things could be worse than Thatcher or Blair? Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak? The race to the bottom continues. Throughout the West.

What price philosophy?

I will value it, more than ever, but it is increasingly private, personal. And there are some bright stoical lights here in the dismal swamp.

Can't illuminate Light. Already is so Bright.

I have recent photographs that demonstrate that one arguably can. Even from black surfaces. Nice rhyme.

[Age]

Answer yourself.

What an absolute joke 'this comment' is, here.

'This one' comes, here, claiming that it 'will value philosophy', yet will not inform anyone, here, what 'philosophy' is, to it, exactly, although it was asked, politely, to clarify what 'philosophy' even means to it, and then, laughingly, tells me to answer, for it.

So, 'I' will now answer that the word 'philosophy', to 'this one', means, 'an education course in the study of past writers' works'.

Which then means that 'this one' has claimed that it 'will value the study of past writers' works', here.

And there is no closed definition of philosophy.

Obviously, which is, exactly, why I just asked you a question, politely, and for clarity sake, of how you are defining the 'philosophy' word, here, exactly.

it would have been much simpler, easier, quicker, and far, far more accurate, to have just expressly written how you are defining 'that word', here, exactly, in 'this thread'.

But, for 'now', 'we' will have to use the 'an education course in the study of past writers' works', only.

I didn't ask.

I know, obviously 'I' did. And, just as obvious is 'you' did not just answer, and clarify, 'your view', here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

existential rosin...

-Imp

It's such a comfort, isn't it? To play sweet airs of meaningless meaning in the terminal horror. The terrible beauty of Doré's L'Enigme https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/artworks/lenigme-9152 I was at a Gavin Bryars concert last night. Genius. All because we were once fish.