Philosophy Now Forum

OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.

Everything is rave and babble.

Can you be specific? Can you unpack how a specific phrase is babble?

HexHammer wrote:OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.

Everything is rave and babble.

OP? What is OP?

Can you tell me how or what specifically in my essay is unsound?

Ginkgo wrote:

lancek4 wrote:At risk of exposing my density - I just saw that if one reads this part 2 by itself, it does seem like a political philosophy type. . It seems people are reading it, but saying nothing.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I just read the bit you posted and I assumed it was political philosophy. Perhaps I also should have read the other chapters as well.

I would imagine that your idea of significant event is a type of awareness that somehow transforms the individual in some way. However, I'm not sure about the role of "veto" and how it fits in with significant events.

Perhaps I am speaking of a transformation, but I am not sure if such a transformation ever occurs. This is part if the issue I address.

.



....................................OP = Original Poster




.

lancek4 wrote:

HexHammer wrote:OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.

Everything is rave and babble.

OP? What is OP?

Can you tell me how or what specifically in my essay is unsound?

The instrumentality of reality is faith;

This quote alone shows:
- you don't understand the concept of relevance.
- you waste time on irrelevant things.
- you say things in a too weird way, that has nothing to do with how intelligent people should precieve things.
- faith has nothing to do with reality in itself.
- this is supersticious nonsense and babble.
- anyone writing such babble wouldn't be hired in any seious buisness, or fired right away as it would scare away customers and investors.

..what kind of job does one such as you have?

all forms of veto stem from the resistance, innate to the individual, to have reality find solution. The condition of reality thereby posits no solution but through faith, which I call ‘conventional faith’, and this insolute situation that requires faith is founded upon the True Object. The True Object is the basis of having reality, and the motion of reality, called progress, is toward the absolutely True object. Reality thereby determines that the individual human being should find the Truth through the terms of reality, and this is to say that the terms are seen to reflect or otherwise show what the True object may be and thus presents the route or method by which the individual may find solution; the solution found through conventional faith is called identity.

..rest is also completely incoherent babble and nonsense.

HH: there are many ideas in your reply that have loose meaning. Perhaps you can pick one term or idea you disagree with then we can find out if I am incorrect. For as it is, you are proving to me I am correct by your response.

lancek4 wrote:HH: there are many ideas in your reply that have loose meaning. Perhaps you can pick one term or idea you disagree with then we can find out if I am incorrect. For as it is, you are proving to me I am correct by your response.

I've already given ample feedback.

If one in the first place doesn't have sufficient cognitive abilities one would babble and rave, when that happen it's a sign that one will never comprehend the feedback, as it's very evidently here.

So the general thesis has been verified by the obviously offended response from HH. Thank you for your valuable input HH. I appreciate your effort.

I'm sure there are others in this forum who might have a more sensible and rational approach to philosophical critique and interactive learning, a manner that involves discussion over proclaimation.

.




Look, we've given you a critique. We have given our opinions. Take them.

Ingrain them into you & rewrite your article.

You may have a very good & interesting philosophical point...but now, your writing does not reflect that.




If you would...tell me, in one sentence, what is the point of your article in question? Just that article.


What would you want me to take from it?




.

Thanks Bill for what OP means.
And thanks for the prompt.

Maybe my response here to HH might help toward your suggestion.

(Please excuse my not using the PN formatting for the quote; I wrote this reply on a separate app)

Maybe I'm being as obstinate as HH; so I will address his comments.

L4:
" The instrumentality of reality is faith;"

HH:

This quote alone shows:
- you don't understand the concept of relevance.
- you waste time on irrelevant things.

L:
I don't understand relevance, but you are telling me about something I supposedly don't understand using a term I likewise don't understand by your statement.

I have to ask if philosophy for you is about demanding your proper truth. For me, philosophy is about communicating and discussing. By your statement here it appears you are concerned with neither. You withhold your meaning as if from a mighty height, proclaiming upon me your righteousness. In what way is such a position not of faith?

I propose that you cannot dismiss yourself from what you know is true. I call this faith. The relevance here is in the attempt to counter one such self righteousness about reality, for that is what historically and socially represents the basis of all problem in the world and specifically, as Paulo Freire might say, the instrument of oppression.

If one person cannot see validity in the mere presence of another person, then they exist in and of an oppressive state of reality. This reality, by virtue of the self righteousness that proclaims as propriety as representing the absolute route to truth, is not mine, and I would have to say, is a reality that must be addressed as false.


HH: - you say things in a too weird way, that has nothing to do with how intelligent people should precieve things.

L:

Current education theory that is presently being developed into practice to be applied into curriculum, involves the idea that human beings have different intelligences. If there is a way that all intelligent people should perceive things, then this is again an assertion of a One proper reality.

HH: - faith has nothing to do with reality in itself.



L: I just described to you how your statement here is invalid.


HH: - this is supersticious nonsense and babble.


L: what is beyond what is true for such a one invested in a denial of what is actually occurring in the world so far as society and human relations, is indeed superstition, real faith.


HH: - anyone writing such babble wouldn't be hired in any seious buisness, or fired right away as it would scare away customers and investors.

..what kind of job does one such as you have?


L4: Did you really just put that as a serious reply in a philosophical forum? I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood.

.




Maybe my response here to HH might help toward your suggestion.


No. Actually your response didn't help at all.


The more I see how your mind works, the more I understand how your inability to write and your naturally occurring thought process undermines any possible insight you may possess.


Good luck with your daily life. I imagine the bumps in the road that you must continually experience deserve your complete attention. Much more so than any type of writing you may want to develop.



This is what I actually said:

Look, we've given you a critique. We have given our opinions. Take them.

Ingrain them into you & rewrite your article.

You may have a very good & interesting philosophical point...but now, your writing does not reflect that.




If you would...tell me, in one sentence, what is the point of your article in question? Just that article.


What would you want me to take from it?






I feel nothing but sorrow and empathy for you. Sincerely.

.

Well, he doesn't make any less sense than the esteemed Guattari and Deleuze:

'We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.'

'In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.'

Have fun making sense of that pile of dog poop.

Lol. D was a bit 'deluz-insal'. But no less than Hex babble.

Well it's as I thought. But i Thot I give it a try and see if anyone is interested in more that their own belief systems.

Have fun repeating yourselves.

Ah - please indulge me and answer me this:

is there a One reality?