Philosophy Now Forum

I cannot say it more clearly than this: accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, and on the basis of what's true - do what's necessary to survive.

homegrown wrote:I cannot say it more clearly than this: accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, and on the basis of what's true - do what's necessary to survive.

No, you misunderstood my meaning, which I thought contextually you would have understood, so I'll rephrase: why do you impart it here, what do you hope to accomplish?

You: Lets take it step by step for those viewing, that may be having problems understanding. What the hell is this, so called, knowledge of yours for anyway?

me: I cannot say it more clearly than this: accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, and on the basis of what's true - do what's necessary to survive.

You: No, you misunderstood my meaning, which I thought contextually you would have understood, so I'll rephrase: why do you impart it here, what do you hope to accomplish?

me: fuck off dickhead!

homegrown wrote:You: Lets take it step by step for those viewing, that may be having problems understanding. What the hell is this, so called, knowledge of yours for anyway?

me: I cannot say it more clearly than this: accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, and on the basis of what's true - do what's necessary to survive.

You: No, you misunderstood my meaning, which I thought contextually you would have understood, so I'll rephrase: why do you impart it here, what do you hope to accomplish?

me: fuck off dickhead!

PUSSY! Let me know if you ever want to play with the big boys, you little whelp.

The fear runs deep in this one, afraid to look at the camera, yes it's all too clear. Just here to experience the bravery of being out of range. Yes this is largely what newbies find in the internet. Ones attitude speaks volumes as to their intent.

"If a flower is to propagate, to sail the winds of time, does it edify with acid rain droplets, or the sweetness of nectar, divine."

It would seem your argument undermines your argument.
In not keeping with what it is in being human, you thus shall fall by the wayside, not being an effectual entity. That which does not conform to the reality of nature, shall surely perish.

It would seem, you fail to fully grasp, that, which you preach.


At least in Practice!

Sob, you think you big boy but not big enough to be civil, or to read and infer intent from context. Beeing a fuck don't make you big. Being yrue to yourself does.

homegrown wrote:Sob, you think you big boy but not big enough to be civil, or to read and infer intent from context. Beeing a fuck don't make you big. Being yrue to yourself does.

No, I don't think I'm actually a big boy, of mind, just over dramatizing the fact that you run and hide when faced with your errors.
Define civil, as you believe it pertains to our particular exchange.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say!
Your fear sees fucks everywhere, I'm sure.
Incorrect!!! Being true to yourself is selfish, and is at the core, as the causal, of that which your argument fights. Being true to nature, the actuality of existence, of the universal truth, is what everyone must be true to, I told you, I AGREE WITH YOUR SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, but it would seem that you see it for everyone but yourself. THERE IS a science to spread ones words, to be effectual in it's delivery, so as to affect this change of which you speak. While you can see the truth of your argument from a universal perspective, you fail to see the truth of your delivery, from a universal perspective. My point is that simple, and mark my words you shall be largely ineffectual, unless you change your attitude during your arguments, meant to spread your words, to affect change, I'm assuming.

And don't reference me as example, in argument to my point, as I admittedly struggle with the same barrier. The difference is that I know it, and I'm currently working on it, and you apparently don't, and are not, rather, only, seemingly, in it, to promote self, and even failing at that.

Spheres of Balance:

The question of what I'm trying to achieve I found particularly viscious because - as I've already acknowledged, I'm having great difficulty imparting this idea. That failing aside, your question also impinges on the question of my intent in seeking to impart this idea. Unable to answer for the first, for the past few days I've struggled with that latter question.

Intent.

I urge you accept a scientific understanding of reality in common because there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and causal reality. In short, virtue is not with me but with truth. I discovered this, and as a philosopher - my duty is to truth. I write about it, but I didn't invent it. It was already there - waiting to be found. I found it because I was not happy. Had I been happy I could not have abandoned the beaten track. Yet I left the false light of ideological illusion behind and wandered into darkness - not knowing if there was light. I'm quite intelligent, but I had a troubled childhood and it never really got any better. I have no ideological identity. I am outside looking in - and maybe that exact set of circumstances were necessary for the social organism to produce what it needs to survive: the antigen to your disease. Or maybe, for those exact same reasons, I've forged a poisoned dagger from truth - and plunge it into your heart by showing that accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common is necessary while knowing it's beyond you. Make what you will of me. Accept the truth and be saved, or know your doom.

homegrown wrote:Hi. Wow. Do you all suck at philosophy!? Every thread seems to descend into an egoistic shouting match.

I'm sure that in 11 pages of posts, someone has already pointed out the irony, but anyway; welcome to the Philosophy Now forum.

Are you psychotic?

How is it that protest groups and charities don't seem to understand that hunger, disease, energy, deforestation, pollution, climate change, homelessness or just keeping the local library open are facets of the very same problem? But they don't. They treat each issue as if it were a discrete problem, and tell people they can salve their consciences for a mere 3 pounds per month and continue untroubled in the course of the ideas, identities and purposes that cause these problems. Read Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Descartes, Rousseau, Foucualt, Freud, Marx, Rawls, Monibot or Botton, and tell me why these intellectual giants failed to appreciate that it's necessary to act on the basis of valid knowledge within a causal reality if you want a valid outcome? Without understanding all these issues are symptoms of acting in the course of ideological falsities, then politicians, protest groups and charities are all pissing into the wind. Take unemployment as an example. It's ideologically required of individuals to do comercially profitbale work - while at the same time justified by capitalist ideology to apply technology to produce more using less labour, to outsource work and import reserve armies of labour. Thus, unemployment is a consequence of action in the course of capitalist ideology - while in these same terms is close to a criminal offence. It's like the Climate Change Protester at the Make Poverty History rally. Both issues are the same sort of 'post material values' - ethical concern, but given an ideological basis of analysis are directly contradictory aims. Science can square these circles - but religious, political and economic ideologies aren't true. They are misconceptions of reality. Acting on the basis of these ideas as if they were true manifests a false relation to reality that then becomes the assumed basis of analysis for ongoing action. That simple equation explains the halting, faltering, lesser of two evils, half-assed, sideways progress of a world that could be better but is probably doomed. Why have none of them realized that scientific truth is valid knowledge of reality - while religious, political and economic ideologies are just made up? So I tell them - over and over, and the silence is deafening. No-one wants to know - not philosophers, nor protest groups, not politicians, nor media or clergy. Are human beings psychotic?

As you have stated yourself, then here is your problem, as we both see it:

homegrown wrote:..., I'm having great difficulty imparting this idea. That failing aside, ...

As you have stated yourself, then here is your solution, as is our point of contention:

homegrown wrote:..., I've forged a poisoned dagger from truth - and plunge it into your heart...

Though you do not aim it at me, drop that poisoned dagger, and stop plunging it into the heart of those, that are not as 'enlightened' as you and I, NOT with respect to your furthering your cause; ideologically, stab away; but though it may be difficult, with respect to imparting the fruits of your labor, as your listeners can see your dagger, in your approach, and as you would, of another world (microcosm of any particular human environmental stage), parry, running for cover, seeking what they 'believe' to be higher ground.

Now you need no longer, put it aside, and you shall succeed in it's proper conveyance! Heed my words, we are in fact, on the same page. Consider me your teammate, at least with respect to this particular message, of scientific living in order to maintain "Spheres of Balance!"

Is that it? Don't! What instead? Nothing? Double balls.

homegrown wrote:Is that it? Don't! What instead? Nothing? Double balls.

Sarcasm huh? You are either here to fight with you words, or you are here to edify with your words, your choice.

My choice? Don't seem so. I'd elevate humankind to Godhead but you doommonkeys keep slinging your shit at me.

homegrown wrote:My choice? Don't seem so. I'd elevate humankind to Godhead but you doommonkeys keep slinging your shit at me.

Hey monkey, sporting a poison dagger, you sling shit at the wrong monkey. I see that you'd be much more effective as a lovemonkey. We are of the same coin, you and I, at least in terms of seeing the problem and knowing it's cure.

"Sarcasm huh? You are either here to fight with you words, or you are here to edify with your words, your choice"

so its black or white?
i think not..
I an here simply so my thought as in words. Is recorded somewhere.
i argue little as what the fuck does it mater.
I have posts on science talking of singularities.
do i argue. no.. no-one denies them. As i have spent 30 years studying them.. it is no mystery.
yet the thing in-itself is. Beyond human understanding.

immanent death has a wy of bring out the true nature of one.
thus i love Oscar Wild
"
The dinner table was Wilde's event and made him the greatest talker of his time…
William Butler Yeats in Four Years (1891).

Any man that yeats would laud.. i want to speak with.

Wildes deathbead "My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or the other of us has to go."

comedy in last words..A sign of TRUE humanity