Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:35 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:17 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:00 pm

Should you ever find yourself wondering,we should be experiencing an ice age right now but CO2 is warming the climate more than the Milankovitch cycle is cooling us. That's how bad CO2 is right now.

Above is one of the best lectures I've ever seen on climate science.

Warmth during an ice age sounds like a good and not a bad, a gift from God in the nick of time.

Either that or God is bending over backwards dipping us into the cool end of a Milankovitch cycle to offset human greed. Also, depends upon how warm it's going to get I suppose.

After the next ice age folks will have more finger lakes and wineries for the good times to come, along with the sunshine and bounty of topsoil dragged into the Promised Land from Old Canada, by those glaciers that never seem to completely go away.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:32 am

The orchestra requires a maestro to make the vision real, which is the executive branch, which is one person. Committees such as Congress and The Supremes are there to execute the particulars of the vision. Decades of slippery slope require a flame thrower approach to clear space for new growth that will prevent fiscal landslides into the Ludicrous Zone. POTUS Trump wants to over-clear the brush and burn down some big, resource-draining, rotting old Agency-Structures before rebuilding according to the blueprint. This requires undoing decades in months. Good luck with that. The deep state has layers of protection, beginning with controlling the narrative of what’s happening now. This is why revolutions are often physically and mentally violent because plucking weeds one at time takes too long, and during that too long time the weeds will grow back where you've plucked before, perhaps with newly evolved defenses against plucking, naturally selected for survival within that species of weed.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:32 am

The orchestra requires a maestro to make the vision real, which is the executive branch, which is one person. Committees such as Congress and The Supremes are there to execute the particulars of the vision. Decades of slippery slope require a flame thrower approach to clear space for new growth that will prevent fiscal landslides into the Ludicrous Zone. POTUS Trump wants to over-clear the brush and burn down some big, resource-draining, rotting old Agency-Structures before rebuilding according to the blueprint.

The 'blueprint' being to 'its family's' continued and extended monetary wealth.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:58 am This requires undoing decades in months. Good luck with that. The deep state has layers of protection, beginning with controlling the narrative of what’s happening now. This is why revolutions are often physically and mentally violent because plucking weeds one at time takes too long, and during that too long time the weeds will grow back where you've plucked before, perhaps with newly evolved defenses against plucking, naturally selected for survival within that species of weed.

Some REALLY ARE BLIND, and CAN ONLY 'see' what they WANT TO SEE.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:08 pm

In the material world of duality, the master materialist should be the executive branch of the USA government. Some bum off the street full of excuses, or a self-serving politician, or a dunce, simply wouldn’t fit the bill of constitutional intent, which is what causes trouble. The maestro is the musician who knows all the music, not just parts of the score.

Blindness is in the eye of the beholder.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:08 pm

In the material world of duality, the master materialist should be the executive branch of the USA government.

LOL So, in the WHOLE 'material world', which is OBVIOUSLY as BIG as the Universe, Itself, 'this one', LAUGHINGLY, BELIEVES the so-called 'master materialist' should be some INSIGNIFICANT part of the Truly TINY INSIGNIFICANT government of the, laughingly called, "united states of america".

Some REALLY WERE SO NARROWED that they could NOT 'see' PAST what they WANT TO SEE.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:18 pm Some bum off the street full of excuses, or a self-serving politician, or a dunce, simply wouldn’t fit the bill of constitutional intent, which is what causes trouble. The maestro is the musician who knows all the music, not just parts of the score.

Blindness is in the eye of the beholder.

And, 'you' are NOT BLIND IN ANY WAY, AT ALL, here, correct, "walker"?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:26 pm

Well, I can tell you fur sure I'm neither the POTUS nor SCOTUS, nor VPOTUS.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:26 pm

Well, I can tell you fur sure I'm neither the POTUS nor SCOTUS, nor VPOTUS.

WHO CARES?

If you can NOT SEE who the HEROES ARE of the one who is 'your' HERO and LEADER, here, and who are the BIGGEST DICTATORS, in 'that world', in which you are living in when this is being written, then so be it.

A LOT OF others can SEE who the 'current' so-called "leader" of 'that tiny little insignificant country' called "united states of america" LOOKS UP TO, HAS BECOME ACQUAINTANCES and FRIENDS WITH, and WHO it WANTS TO BE JUST LIKE.

"your leader" LOOKS UP TO and WANT TO BE JUST LIKE 'those' who HAVE CONTROL OVER others and/or who START WARS, MURDER, and who BOMB other human beings, including children and babies TO DEATH.

And, ALL of those DICTATORS and RULERS STARTED OUT JUST LIKE "donald trump" PROMISING TO DO 'the best' FOR 'the country', and FOR 'the people'.

But, which the MAJORITY ALL WISH 'those ones' HAD NOT BECOME their so-called "leaders" AND "rulers".

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:43 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:35 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:26 pm

Well, I can tell you fur sure I'm neither the POTUS nor SCOTUS, nor VPOTUS.

WHO CARES?

Obvious you, because:

- You asked a question in seeking validation for your assumptions.

- I answered your question found in the words that preceded the appropriate, designating punctuation mark that you had to use.

Your inability to follow that answer, or other answers, likely lies beyond both of us during these times being made in the history of the world in which this highlights your very important example.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:43 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:35 pm
Well, I can tell you fur sure I'm neither the POTUS nor SCOTUS, nor VPOTUS.

WHO CARES?

Obvious you, because:

- You asked a question in seeking validation for your assumptions.

1. What are MY, ALLEGED and SUPPOSED 'assumptions', here.

2. I HAVE NEVER ASKED ANY QUESTION IN SEEKING VALIDATION FOR 'my assumptions'.

3. Through you, it WILL SOON BE PROVED that even if I had ASSUMPTIONS, here, that I HAVE NEVER SOUGHT OUT VALIDATION FOR them.

4. WILL you LIST what you BELIEVE ARE 'my assumptions'?

If no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:56 pm - I answered your question found in the words that preceded the appropriate, designating punctuation mark that you had to use.

If you SAY SO.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 12:56 pm Your inability to follow that answer, or other answers, likely lies beyond both of us during these times being made in the history of the world in which this highlights your very important example.

Okay.

Also, and by the way, do you NOTICE that you do NOT QUOTE the ACTUAL WORDS, which I ACTUALLY USE?

So, what you are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, can NOT BE SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY TRACED BACK, as it COULD WELL BE.

Age: The answers to the nature of your questions almost always implicitly precede the questions you ask, and seeking answers from others rather than just opportunities for more questions, first requires grokking that.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:09 pm Age: The answers to the nature of your questions almost always implicitly precede the questions you ask, and seeking answers from others rather than just opportunities for more questions, first requires grokking that.

If you SAY and ALLEGE SO. But, OBVIOUSLY, because you are NOT being SPECIFIC in regards to ANY ACTUAL thing, and are just being VERY ALLUSIVE, what you are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, could all well be in your OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY. For ALL 'we' KNOW.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:14 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:09 pm Age: The answers to the nature of your questions almost always implicitly precede the questions you ask, and seeking answers from others rather than just opportunities for more questions, first requires grokking that.

If you SAY and ALLEGE SO. But, OBVIOUSLY, because you are NOT being SPECIFIC in regards to ANY ACTUAL thing, and are just being VERY ALLUSIVE, what you are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, could all well be in your OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY. For ALL 'we' KNOW.

Principles exist beyond the specific and yet encompass the specific. It's that old Eleanor Roosevelt thing about the natural, class-structured intellectual hierarchy concerning focus and attention upon people, events, or the concepts that apply to all, the root concepts. If your brain is clamouring for specifics, step into the philosophical realm of ideas before AI tells you what to think.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:14 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:09 pm Age: The answers to the nature of your questions almost always implicitly precede the questions you ask, and seeking answers from others rather than just opportunities for more questions, first requires grokking that.

If you SAY and ALLEGE SO. But, OBVIOUSLY, because you are NOT being SPECIFIC in regards to ANY ACTUAL thing, and are just being VERY ALLUSIVE, what you are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, could all well be in your OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY. For ALL 'we' KNOW.

Principles exist beyond the specific and yet encompass the specific. It's that old Eleanor Roosevelt thing about the natural, class-structured intellectual hierarchy concerning focus and attention upon people, events, or the concepts that apply to all, the root concepts. If your brain is clamouring for specifics, step into the philosophical realm of ideas before AI tells you what to think.

AGAIN, you are NOT YET ABLE to be SPECIFIC, because you do NOT YET, FULLY, KNOW what you are talking ABOUT, here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:50 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:14 pm

If you SAY and ALLEGE SO. But, OBVIOUSLY, because you are NOT being SPECIFIC in regards to ANY ACTUAL thing, and are just being VERY ALLUSIVE, what you are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, could all well be in your OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY. For ALL 'we' KNOW.

Principles exist beyond the specific and yet encompass the specific. It's that old Eleanor Roosevelt thing about the natural, class-structured intellectual hierarchy concerning focus and attention upon people, events, or the concepts that apply to all, the root concepts. If your brain is clamouring for specifics, step into the philosophical realm of ideas before AI tells you what to think.

AGAIN, you are NOT YET ABLE to be SPECIFIC, because you do NOT YET, FULLY, KNOW what you are talking ABOUT, here.

Well lad, I can say with fair certainty that you certainly don't understand, if it's people and events you're after.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:50 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 10:43 pm
Principles exist beyond the specific and yet encompass the specific. It's that old Eleanor Roosevelt thing about the natural, class-structured intellectual hierarchy concerning focus and attention upon people, events, or the concepts that apply to all, the root concepts. If your brain is clamouring for specifics, step into the philosophical realm of ideas before AI tells you what to think.

AGAIN, you are NOT YET ABLE to be SPECIFIC, because you do NOT YET, FULLY, KNOW what you are talking ABOUT, here.

Well lad, I can say with fair certainty that you certainly don't understand, if it's people and events you're after.

What do you mean by 'after', exactly?

I am CERTAINLY NOT 'after people and events'.

Also, besides getting 'this' ALL MIXED UP, AS WELL, you just CLAIMING to have A 'fair certainty' of some thing, NEVER MEANS that you ACTUALLY DO.

Now, if you have ANY ABILITY TO back up and support YOUR CLAIM that 'I certainly do not understand ...[whatever it is, exactly], THEN,

1. EXPLAIN what you say, with, supposed, fair certainty, what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that I, supposedly, CERTAINLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, here, EXACTLY. AND THEN,

2. PROVIDE the VERY THINGS that LED you to HAVING 'fair certainty', here.

However, if you do NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO 'these', then you WILL JUST REMAIN QUIET, and SILENT, here.