Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 10:27 am
So, once again, I just ask one very simple and straightforward question, for clarification, and 'this one' just would not answer, and clarify.
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
New Discovery
Page 68 of 101
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 10:36 am
Again, what?Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:16 amTherefore we can say that garbage men, and everyone else, are doing what they have to do, whether or not what they must do is always to move towards greater satisfaction.
LOL 'This one' has, still, not yet comprehended and understood that what it believes is absolutely True, here, is actually absolutely False.
LOL Once more, 'this one' is completely and utterly lost, and confused, here.
LOL
LOL 'human nature'.
you, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue what 'it' is that actually separates you human beings from everything else.
And, to prove 'this claim', irrefutably True, what is what you call 'human nature', exactly, "walker", or, in other words, what separates you human beings from every other animal, exactly?
Even 'this' is absolutely False. But, do not let 'this' get in 'the way' of what you were 'taught' to believe, and still believe is absolutely true.
you are so far off track, here, "walker". And, proof of why you people, back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up'.
LOL
Once again, 'this one' shows and proves how its already believed assumptions and conclusions get absolutely in 'the way' of it hearing, seeing, and learning what the actual Truths, in Life, are, exactly.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:03 pm
I too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:01 pmI just ... I am amazed.
You could just look at what other people do, and do that.
Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.
What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.
I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:29 ampeacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 11:04 am1. Real simple...if satisfaction can always be greater than it is never enough thus what is greater satisfaction in one context is always less than the future. Effectively now is never enough.
IT IS MOVEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT NEVER ENOUGH, FINE. IF YOU ARE HUNGRY, YOU MOVE IN THE DIRECTION TO FIND SOMETHING TO EAT. YOU COULD CALL THAT NEVER ENOUGH. IF I AM UNCOMFORTABLE AND CHANGE POSITIONS IN THE DIRECTION TO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, YOU COULD CALL THAT NEVER ENOUGH IF YOU WANT TO.
2. Real simple: The past always exists as the pattern by which we filter "now".
THAT IS TRUE. BUT, IN REALITY, THE PAST DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT IN MEMORY. WE USE OUR MEMORIES FOR EVERYTHING, WHICH IS WHY THE FEAR OF LOSING OUR MEMORY IS VERY REAL.
3. See point 1. Dually if everyone is naturally moving towards greater satisfaction than naturally the book is not necessary.
NOT TRUE. Here is why.
When this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, attempting to gain at the expense of an individual or of an entire nation could never be a source of greater satisfaction. It will be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone — regardless of their political or religious affiliation — to receive satisfaction whatsoever from being excused for that of which the responsibility could never be denied or justified. Therefore, let me continue by asking the same question again: Of what value is having an army and police force when there is no possibility of war or crime? Can you think of anything more humorous or ironic? Now that we understand man’s will is not free, we know that nothing causes people to go to war unless they want to, and there is nothing that can make them want to once the tacit blame of armaments is removed. In the world of free will, we were justified because our lack of understanding created an atmosphere in which being different than we were would only have made matters worse; therefore, we had no choice. But with our understanding as to why man’s will is not free, mankind is able to veer in a different direction for satisfaction, removing the causes for which blame, punishment, and retaliation were previously necessary.
4. Punishment is an interpretation, a context. I have seen people view punishments as no punishment at all, and others a simple little necessary job as punishment.
I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE PUNISHED BY BEING PUT IN A JAIL CELL FOR LIFE. I THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE TORTURED AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WANT TO BE HELD HOSTAGE AS A FORM OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE. IF SOMEONE LIKES BEING BEATEN AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT FOR SOMETHING HE DID, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE PUNISHMENT TO HIM.
There are only effects of a cause as further cause, we know this as the natural act of distinction.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN "AS A NATURAL ACT OF DISTINCTION."
5. I am not saying they are evil. I said they love darkness/pain/fear/madness.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THEN?
Objectively, people are just centerpoints from which distinctions unfold.
YOUR WORDS ARE OBTUSE. PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR.
6. Your interpretation "just is"....one of innumerable that occur and then dissolve.
IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:35 pm
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:16 amYou are right in that our world puts money on top of everything, but that's what I'm talking about here. It's more fundamental.
Therefore we can say that garbage men, and everyone else, are doing what they have to do, whether or not what they must do is always to move towards greater satisfaction. The proof of necessity is the doing, but doing isn't the proof of satisfaction.
[quote="peacegirl" It is still in the direction of greater satisfaction because they have no better choice of the options available. It becomes the lesser of two evils.
Why else would anyone wake up in the morning for an unsatisfying day of lugging garbage, unless they had to? And why would anyone choose to do that, unless they had no other choice (which is no choice at all).
(continued)
Folks dream of luxuries which is why capitalism correlates with human nature. Dreams are the mother of invention and invention is the mother of necessity. The success of Starbuck’s is, everyone deserves a little luxury.
Socialism says everyone deserves the necessities. Gee, way to dream big, socialism.
peacegirl wrote:This is not about capitalism. This is about fairness regardless of what economic stance is held.That it is why it is all inclusive.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:52 pm
This is not about socialism or capitalism. It is about the ability to improve one's standard of living, not just be stagnant with no chance to improve. Who could disapprove of this unless they don't want others to be as well off as they are.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:16 amTherefore we can say that garbage men, and everyone else, are doing what they have to do, whether or not what they must do is always to move towards greater satisfaction. The proof of necessity is the doing, but doing isn't the proof of satisfaction.
Why else would anyone wake up in the morning for an unsatisfying day of lugging garbage, unless they had to? And why would anyone choose to do that, unless they had no other choice (which is no choice at all).
(continued)
Folks dream of luxuries which is why capitalism correlates with human nature. Dreams are the mother of invention and invention is the mother of necessity. The success of Starbuck’s is, everyone deserves a little luxury.
Socialism says everyone deserves the necessities. Gee, way to dream big, socialism.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:55 pm
Thanks Belinda. Maybe we are both considered stupid. At least now I'm not alone.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:03 pmI too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:01 pmI just ... I am amazed.
You could just look at what other people do, and do that.
Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.
What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.
I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 3:38 pm
Tag is just the word for the thing that indicates some text is colourful by wrapping it with [color=red] and [/color], or a quote using [quote=blah] [/quote] and so on... the first was an opening tag and the second a closing tag.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:03 pmI too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:01 pmI just ... I am amazed.
You could just look at what other people do, and do that.
Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.
What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.
I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?
Normally you work perfectly well without knowing that they are called tags, and maybe even without knowing that for every opening tag there needs to be a closing tag. That seems to be because normally the person you are quoting will have left the post in a quotable state so you don't need to be an expert to fix anything.
This whole page is full of replies to peacegirl that look as if the person is just quoting peacegirl. That is because they are inheriting an unclosed quote tag from every post peacegirl makes. Anybody who hopes to write a legible post that correctly attributes words to their actual author must begin by locating which tag pg fucked up and close it themselves, often followed by fixing the other harm that this action causes.
Then you have decide if you want to fix the seperate matter that her most recent comments are made by her to look like a quote from 3 days ago instead of what she is writing now. I expect people have actually been missing half of what she writes because she accidentally stages it as old news.
Her instinct is to just open new tags all the time, she needs to reverse that and to close tags instead. You normally don't need to worry, yours is to close them, same as everyone else. Your thing works on the whole because you aren't quoting peacegirl most of the time.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:12 pm
Question:
AI, what is Socialism?
AI Answer:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy defined by social ownership and control of the means of production, such as factories, land, and natural resources. The core idea is that society, rather than private individuals, should own or regulate property and resources for the benefit of all its members.
*
Question:
AI, what is Capitalism?
AI Answer:
Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, with investments and pricing primarily determined by market forces (supply and demand) rather than government planning.
*
Question:
AI, does standard of living depend on economics?
AI Answer:
Yes, standard of living is heavily dependent on economics, but it is not the only factor.
*
Conclusion:
Because this is neither about capitalism nor socialism, what this is about must be “the other factors,” referenced by AI, that perhaps are named in the first three chapters that have been recommended in this here thread.
Is another factor in standard of living, the motivating force that is generated by dreaming of luxuries rather than just dreaming of bread, gruel, and a hovel?
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:13 pm
Could you give me an example of what you mean by a passive-aggressive technique? Most people say I'm sorry because they are truly sorry for something they did. It's hard for some people to apologize but, once again, we are talking about a world in which there are many things to be sorry for. In the new world, there won't be, because much of the hurt in human relations will be prevented, eliminating the need to say I'm sorry.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:24 amSaying sorry is also a popular passive-aggressive technique.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 11:21 am I added a comment to this post.
Nice song. Saying "I'm sorry" is a normal reaction if you did something that hurt someone. For example, in sports you may have thrown a ball which hit someone in the head. Saying "I'm sorry" would be a very nice thing to say (even though the person hurt would already know you're sorry and would never question your intent). That being said, there would be far less reason to say "I'm sorry" --- in the new world --- when there would be nothing to be sorry for.Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 12:32 pm
I imagine that here tune would either not exist, or exist only as a parody ... but what a voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLR25E ... rt_radio=1
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:18 pm
Well excuse me for not being clear the first time, I'll try to live up to your high standards. Sorry!peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:13 pmCould you give me an example of what you mean by a passive-aggressive technique?Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 9:24 amSaying sorry is also a popular passive-aggressive technique.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 11:21 am I added a comment to this post.
Nice song. Saying "I'm sorry" is a normal reaction if you did something that hurt someone. For example, in sports you may have thrown a ball which hit someone in the head. Saying "I'm sorry" would be a very nice thing to say (even though the person hurt would already know you're sorry and would never question your intent). That being said, there would be far less reason to say "I'm sorry" --- in the new world --- when there would be nothing to be sorry for.
I'm sorry you had to be offended by what I wrote.
I'm sorry you chose to be offended by what I wrote.
(Examples)
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 5:09 pm
The other factor is the ability to improve one's standard of living so that one can achieve more than just the very basic sustenance, although having a basic standard will keep those who do not have a stable job at the beginning of the transition, afloat. This is not in the first three chapters but because you seem sincerely interested, I will post the following, which I am sure will create more questions. It's impossible to get into how the economic system works in a no blame world without understanding why an individual cannot desire to hurt anyone (the free will that he does not have) under the changed conditions.Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:12 pmQuestion:
AI, what is Socialism?
AI Answer:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy defined by social ownership and control of the means of production, such as factories, land, and natural resources. The core idea is that society, rather than private individuals, should own or regulate property and resources for the benefit of all its members.
*
Question:
AI, what is Capitalism?
AI Answer:
Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production, with investments and pricing primarily determined by market forces (supply and demand) rather than government planning.
*
Question:
AI, does standard of living depend on economics?
AI Answer:
Yes, standard of living is heavily dependent on economics, but it is not the only factor.
*
Conclusion:
Because this is neither about capitalism nor socialism, what this is about must be “the other factors,” referenced by AI, that perhaps are named in the first three chapters that have been recommended in this here thread.
Is another factor in standard of living, the motivating force that is generated by dreaming of luxuries rather than just dreaming of bread, gruel, and a hovel?
CHAPTER SIX: THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD
“Does this mean when people aren’t making as much profit, that’s when taxes will be greater? That doesn’t seem right.”
That is only because the deeper relations have not been perceived. Since prices can never be increased, and since there will be more labor available than ever before, competition will be unusually keen, and prices must go down. Consequently, it won’t take long before millions of people are saturated with material things, which will definitely slow up production causing millions of workers to be laid off with their guaranteed salary. However, when you can’t spend your money on material things others need for their employment, what difference does it make to you if they get this amount in taxes? If you spend it, they receive it in the form of a salary, and if you don’t spend it, they get it in the form of unemployment compensation. How they get it is entirely up to you. This does not mean that you are free to spend your tax dollars, although you can if you want to. Once you fully realize that not to pay your share of the taxes would be stealing from the people who would be compelled to pick up the difference but who would never blame you for this, even if they knew what you were doing, how would it be possible for you to desire moving in that direction for greater satisfaction when YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING SINCE YOU CAN NO LONGER LIE TO YOURSELF BY SHIFTING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY?
If someone is laid off who is accustomed to earning $25,000 a year, and this amount is his guaranteed income, but no matter how hard he tries he can’t spend his weekly portion, he will simply draw from the Bureau only the amount he spends. If his weekly salary is $500, but all he could spend was $300 that week, then he only receives $300 in unemployment compensation. Bear in mind that just as long as you are not drawing unemployment compensation, what you do with your money is your business, but when your income is guaranteed never to stop or decrease, the previous need to save for a rainy day, the day when you might not have an income has no further value, forcing everybody, even the millionaires, to spend like they never spent before. Money has absolutely no value unless it can be spent or invested. There will be the greatest investment opportunity ever dreamed of for the millionaires who want to invest. Nothing is stopping them from building schools (since there will be no more government), superhighways, bridges, firefighting equipment, for the sole purpose of making huge profits — which will be entirely their business. They will set their prices according to market demand, just as it is in today’s world. In a very short while the smallest income will have a purchasing power unbelievably high because prices have got to come down. Would it disturb you (think very carefully before answering) if the janitor also had steak for dinner just as long as this does not take away from your own purchasing power? The purchasing power of many will always be greater or less than others, while the lowest level of mankind will be raised enormously. The millionaires are going to be given an opportunity to become billionaires and those that want to become millionaires will have this opportunity, and the poor people will have a chance to become wealthy. Now once again be perfectly honest. If I can show you how to invest your money (and labor) so that it will put to shame any investments you now have, and guarantee a fabulous return, would you be interested? Am I giving you a choice? Wouldn’t you like to double and triple the value of your money and labor so that you can buy many of the luxuries you have only been dreaming about? Remember, the solution to this problem requires that every person on the planet be satisfied; otherwise, it is obvious that God is showing partiality.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 5:17 pm
I get it. The person isn't really sorry. He's using sarcasm. Thanks, Walker, for explaining what you meant.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 5:53 pm
Thank you for taking the trouble Flash. I think I understand the term now.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 3:38 pmTag is just the word for the thing that indicates some text is colourful by wrapping it with [color=red] and [/color], or a quote using [quote=blah] [/quote] and so on... the first was an opening tag and the second a closing tag.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:03 pmI too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:01 pm
I just ... I am amazed.
You could just look at what other people do, and do that.
Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.
What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.
I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?
Normally you work perfectly well without knowing that they are called tags, and maybe even without knowing that for every opening tag there needs to be a closing tag. That seems to be because normally the person you are quoting will have left the post in a quotable state so you don't need to be an expert to fix anything.
This whole page is full of replies to peacegirl that look as if the person is just quoting peacegirl. That is because they are inheriting an unclosed quote tag from every post peacegirl makes. Anybody who hopes to write a legible post that correctly attributes words to their actual author must begin by locating which tag pg fucked up and close it themselves, often followed by fixing the other harm that this action causes.
Then you have decide if you want to fix the seperate matter that her most recent comments are made by her to look like a quote from 3 days ago instead of what she is writing now. I expect people have actually been missing half of what she writes because she accidentally stages it as old news.
Her instinct is to just open new tags all the time, she needs to reverse that and to close tags instead. You normally don't need to worry, yours is to close them, same as everyone else. Your thing works on the whole because you aren't quoting peacegirl most of the time.
Re: New Discovery
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2025 5:56 pm
Stupidity takes different forms. I could tell you some inglorious facts about me, but I won't.peacegirl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:55 pmThanks Belinda. Maybe we are both considered stupid. At least now I'm not alone.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:03 pmI too need a little instruction about replying, quoting, and replying without quoting.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:01 pm
I just ... I am amazed.
You could just look at what other people do, and do that.
Or you could scroll all the way to the bottom of the post and simply write a coherent response to the entire post because chopping things up takes a skill that normal people master without any difficulty but you just can't seem to get.
What I am writing here in this post is not enclosed in any tag at all. The current post you are writing does not need a tag. Close all open tags prior to the current writing. Don't put a new [quote=peacegirl] tag in front of stuff you are writing now, just close the open tags.
I am not quoting myself as I write this. I don't need to format this text as a quote, that is confusing to readers and creates nesting issues that result in blocks of text going missing when people are trying to quote the last thing you wrote at them. So don't put the current text inside ANY tags at all, unless you want to add colour, underlines, or italics.
To begin with: What is a "tag" ?