Mundane

[Phil8659]

by Age » Fri Aug 29, 2025 7:01 pm

Why do some people feel the need to express and share their most mundane daily experiences in a philosophy forum of all places?

One can understand why some people take photographs of, and tell the most mundane stories of, their daily life experiences on social media platforms, but in a 'philosophy forum'. What does these types of people think a 'philosophy forum' was actually set up for, exactly?

One can understand why some people take photographs of, and tell the most mundane stories of, their daily life experiences on social media platforms, but in a 'philosophy forum'. What does these types of people think a 'philosophy forum' was actually set up for, exactly?"

Why did Socrates and Plato always insist on using "mundane" examples?

Now, a thing is, as Plato and Aristotle repeated, composed of and defined by its two parts, which can never be physically separated but they can be intelligibly grasped separately, the noun and the verb, i.e. the limit, which is "exactly" and the verb which is relative or never exactly, but proportionally. One might notice that Age is always asking everyone to define their thingy using only one element of that thing, which is exactly simple arithmetic, because he is too stupid to grasp the relatives, or verbs. But that is a congenital defect, he did not make himself, so we should charge the parents with bringing a monster into the world, but then, we would have to first survive that confrontation with our own parents. I survived, kinda.

The correlative, as Plato would note, of the word mundane, would be super mundane, i.e. the supposed campground of the religious and religious fanatics; therefore, Age's philosophy is neither, which is "exactly" the sum total of his personal contributions to thought. If you only insist on one part of speech, you really have nothing to say.
I have never heard of anyone claiming that philosophy was not about reality, save crack pots, and those whose brains have seeped out of their ears.

There has always been a problem with philosopher wannabes as they actually believe that philosophy is not about the mundane, which is also called fucking reality.
The Philosopher has always been as noted not only in Genesis, but also by Confucius, Plato and actual philosophers, learning how to tell the truth, judgment, of mundane things.



.

[Age]

by Age » Fri Aug 29, 2025 7:01 pm

Why do some people feel the need to express and share their most mundane daily experiences in a philosophy forum of all places?

One can understand why some people take photographs of, and tell the most mundane stories of, their daily life experiences on social media platforms, but in a 'philosophy forum'. What does these types of people think a 'philosophy forum' was actually set up for, exactly?

One can understand why some people take photographs of, and tell the most mundane stories of, their daily life experiences on social media platforms, but in a 'philosophy forum'. What does these types of people think a 'philosophy forum' was actually set up for, exactly?"

Why did Socrates and Plato always insist on using "mundane" examples?

Was it to get to, or to prove, 'a point'?

Now, a thing is, as Plato and Aristotle repeated, composed of and defined by its two parts, which can never be physically separated but they can be intelligibly grasped separately, the noun and the verb, i.e. the limit, which is "exactly" and the verb which is relative or never exactly, but proportionally. One might notice that Age is always asking everyone to define their thingy using only one element of that thing, which is exactly simple arithmetic, because he is too stupid to grasp the relatives, or verbs. But that is a congenital defect, he did not make himself, so we should charge the parents with bringing a monster into the world, but then, we would have to first survive that confrontation with our own parents. I survived, kinda.

The correlative, as Plato would note, of the word mundane, would be super mundane, i.e. the supposed campground of the religious and religious fanatics; therefore, Age's philosophy is neither, which is "exactly" the sum total of his personal contributions to thought. If you only insist on one part of speech, you really have nothing to say.
I have never heard of anyone claiming that philosophy was not about reality, save crack pots, and those whose brains have seeped out of their ears.

There has always been a problem with philosopher wannabes as they actually believe that philosophy is not about the mundane, which is also called fucking reality.
The Philosopher has always been as noted not only in Genesis, but also by Confucius, Plato and actual philosophers, learning how to tell the truth, judgment, of mundane things.



.

Again, was there any actual 'point' that you were wanting to make, here?

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

[Walker]

Why did Socrates and Plato always insist on using "mundane" examples?

To teach inductive reasoning?
(mundane answer not as fancy as supramundane)

[Phil8659]

Why did Socrates and Plato always insist on using "mundane" examples?

To teach inductive reasoning?
(mundane answer not as fancy as supramundane)

Well, maybe I should masturbate while thinking about the two ways to spell one word, too.
It would keep me from thinking that we still have only two concepts we deal with and use for memory management. Maybe that would be the clever thing to do, while ignoring the fact that I am too pathetic to even notice it or to be constructive.

There is nothing complicated about the whole affair. We have two, and only two parts of speech, two and only two parts of anything and everything, Now, is it this simple definition of a thing the reason one cannot reason? Really? LMAO.

The fact we can say two sets of words, which denote one concept, such as the definition of a thing means the same as there is a standard (correlative) of behavior (relative). So How many ways can you say, it is because there is a standard of behavior, that I cannot standardize my own behavior. Who in the fuck is stupid enough to claim that? Oh, yes, I know, everybody.

Everybody is too stupid to write a Grammar Book, because it is derived from a standard of behavior which cannot be standardized, Really? And we are all claiming to be too stupid to recognize a self referential fallacy. Talk about philosophy that is not philosophy. Obviously, there is no end to the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Walker]

Such age’ed pettifogging is of no concern from the supramundane-perched witnessing.

[Phil8659]

Such age’ed pettifogging is of no concern from the supramundane-perched witnessing.

Oh, your majesty, I bless my poor vision, for otherwise, I would be struck blind, deaf and dumb, like all the gods.

[Walker]

There is nothing complicated about the whole affair. We have two, and only two parts of speech, two and only two parts of anything and everything, Now, is it this simple definition of a thing the reason one cannot reason? Really? LMAO.

Here's a bit of a complication.

Question: AI, what are the parts of speech?

AI answer:

Here is a breakdown of the traditional eight parts of speech:

Noun:
A word that names a person, place, thing, or idea (e.g., player, court, San Francisco, flowers, love).

Pronoun:
A word that replaces a noun (e.g., he, she, it, you).

Verb:
A word that shows action or a state of being (e.g., runs, was playing, seems).

Adjective:
A word that describes a noun or pronoun (e.g., brown dog, happy, last queen).

Adverb:
A word that modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb (e.g., quietly, fast).

Preposition:
A word that shows the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word in the sentence, often indicating location or direction (e.g., on, against, in).

Conjunction:
A word that connects words, phrases, or clauses (e.g., and, but).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg

Interjection:
A word that expresses strong emotion and is often followed by an exclamation mark (e.g., Wow!, Oops!).

The inclusion of determiners as a separate category is a more recent development in grammar, but both the eight-part system and the nine-part system are used.

Interesting. Houston, we have a conflict. 8 ≠ 2.

Is "only two parts of speech" the supramundane view?

[Walker]

Such age’ed pettifogging is of no concern from the supramundane-perched witnessing.

Oh, your majesty, I bless my poor vision, for otherwise, I would be struck blind, deaf and dumb, like all the gods.

Given your confession there could be another cause for those dulled senses.

[Phil8659]

Such age’ed pettifogging is of no concern from the supramundane-perched witnessing.

Oh, your majesty, I bless my poor vision, for otherwise, I would be struck blind, deaf and dumb, like all the gods.

Given your confession there could be another cause for those dulled senses.

Really? How stupid can one be to think that AI can tell you more than what a programmer told it to. And, is it not funny that since every computer uses binary to operate, since the definition of a thing is binary, anyone who believes that 2=8, because a an animated rock said 8, is nothing more than a pathetic idiot.