Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am**

"How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:09 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am "How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.

Well only 'you' KNOW what "mind their own business" means. As I could be seen as a very "bad" person (or "egg") just for asking 'you' a clarifying question?

And also, only 'you' would KNOW what "keep their hands to themselves" actually means.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:13 am**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:09 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am "How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.
Well only 'you' KNOW what "mind their own business" means. As I could be seen as a very "bad" person (or "egg") just for asking 'you' a clarifying question?

And also, only 'you' would KNOW what "keep their hands to themselves" actually means.

C'mon, Age, you know what I mean.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:02 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:13 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:09 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am "How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.
Well only 'you' KNOW what "mind their own business" means. As I could be seen as a very "bad" person (or "egg") just for asking 'you' a clarifying question?

And also, only 'you' would KNOW what "keep their hands to themselves" actually means.
C'mon, Age, you know what I mean.

Of course I KNOW what 'you' are getting at, but I do NOT know, EXACTLY, what you mean. For example I LOVE having 'hands not kept to themselves' some times. I also LOVE 'inquisitiveness and being questioned' just about all times.

Pointing out that this 'NOT knowing EXACTLY what "one" means' is what I am alluding to by being so inquisitive and asking numerous clarifying questions. When, and If, my discussions are looked back over what will be discovered and SEEN is even people, themselves, do NOT always know EXACTLY what "they" mean, "themselves". One of the ways this can be seen to be proven to be true is when people respond with things like; "You know what I mean".

The Truth IS the people saying this can NOT explain EXACTLY nor FULLY what they ACTUALLY mean.

Even just when a person uses the term "bad people" and/or "good people", the ones who say this can NOT explain what this actually means EXACTLY nor FULLY. As can be EVIDENCED and PROVEN within this thread and forum.

The reason 'you', people, can NOT explain what a "bad person" or "good person" IS because NO such thing ACTUALLY exists.

The very reason HOW and WHY 'you', people, came to exist excludes 'you' ever becoming an actual "bad person". In saying this, however, of course it is extremely OBVIOUS that just about ALL of 'you', adult people, BELIEVE there are "bad" and "good" people, and that the "bad" people are nearly ALWAYS "other" people.

If any one wants to Truly get down into ALL-OF-THIS, then I am more than welcome to answer any and all clarifying questions regarding THIS, and welcome any and and all challengers regarding what I say and claim.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:01 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:37 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm We need to retain the "us versus them mentality".
There are bad people no doubt not their fault they are bad.

How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?

I cannot yet I must try as much as I can to judge well.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmWe don't want to do what bad people do or believe as bad people believe.
What do these so called "bad" people do and believe?

Do you expect me to write here a full list of all of my loyalties and favourite ethics?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmWe ought not to identify with people who do bad things.
Do 'you' KNOW of an adult human being who does not do bad things?

No

If yes, then who are they? And how many of them are there?

Jesus said only God is good, and I go along with that.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm We ought to identify with people who do good things.
Will you provide any examples?

I could of course and I bet you could too! At the same time no man is entirely good.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm It's impossible to live a good life and believe all cultures of belief and practice are equally good.
Is there a human being that believes such a thing?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmNick quoted Simone Weil: Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.

I don't know if Simone was referring to a certain historical event( such as the rise of fascism). However it's clear that the influence of the "blind collectivity" is evil like absence of good is evil. It's important that men struggle to seek the good and identify with the good, not with the "blind collectivity".
Is it important for women to do this also, or is it just important that men "struggle" ...?

I am not sexist. 'Men' is a generic term that means something the same as 'human beings'.I am aware that some people use 'men' always as connoting sex, but hope philosophers would all use the term generically.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:31 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:01 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:37 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm We need to retain the "us versus them mentality".
There are bad people no doubt not their fault they are bad.

How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?

I cannot yet I must try as much as I can to judge well.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmWe don't want to do what bad people do or believe as bad people believe.
What do these so called "bad" people do and believe?

Do you expect me to write here a full list of all of my loyalties and favourite ethics?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmWe ought not to identify with people who do bad things.
Do 'you' KNOW of an adult human being who does not do bad things?

No

If yes, then who are they? And how many of them are there?

Jesus said only God is good, and I go along with that.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm We ought to identify with people who do good things.
Will you provide any examples?

I could of course and I bet you could too! At the same time no man is entirely good.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pm It's impossible to live a good life and believe all cultures of belief and practice are equally good.
Is there a human being that believes such a thing?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:50 pmNick quoted Simone Weil: Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.

I don't know if Simone was referring to a certain historical event( such as the rise of fascism). However it's clear that the influence of the "blind collectivity" is evil like absence of good is evil. It's important that men struggle to seek the good and identify with the good, not with the "blind collectivity".
Is it important for women to do this also, or is it just important that men "struggle" ...?
I am not sexist.

Did I ever say, or imply, or let alone even think that 'you' were being sexist here?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:01 pm 'Men' is a generic term that means something the same as 'human beings'.

If the word 'men' is supposedly a generic term that means 'something the same as' 'human beings', then why not just use the right and correct term 'human being', itself, instead? Why change what is right and correct to what is wrong and incorrect?

One of the things that makes finding and seeing the actual Truth of things harder is when not speaking the actual Truth of things in the first place.

Also, if the word 'men' is a generic term that means 'something the same as' 'human beings', does the word 'women' have a generic term that means 'something the same as'' some thing else also?

The reason WHY the 'men' or 'man' word started out meanings things other than meaning its intended purpose would be an extremely good reason to not keep using it the way you have done here.

Human beings are made up of and exist because of two genders. Human beings are NOT one gendered only, so WHY is one gender used for ALL human beings?

Does this help in making those who are male gendered feel more powerful, superior, or above the other gender? Does and/or did the male gendered ones feel so inferior or insecure that they had to make up things to make "themselves" out to be better or more superior than the "others"?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:01 pmI am aware that some people use 'men' always as connoting sex, but hope philosophers would all use the term generically.

I hope people in a philosophy forum would use terms in their true, right, and correct way, but we do not always get what we hope for.

If you hope all the people in any group that you have placed them use terms generically, although it is obviously incorrectly, then you will have to inform them of ALL the terms that you hope they will use generically, as well as informing them of their generic meaning, which sounds like a very convoluted way of NOT just use terms properly and correctly.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:24 pm**

I sometimes prefer the term 'men'. This is because 'human beings' has a biological connotation which I might not wish to connote. 'Men' on the other hand is part of the common lexicon in its reference to people,our own species, and so on, and has been so ever since Anglo Saxons made their deep impression upon English usage.'Men' is often used when the speaker refers to the human condition, especially perhaps the human social condition, without special reference to biology.
I always prefer plain English whenever it serves.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:32 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:09 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am "How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.
Well only 'you' KNOW what "mind their own business" means. As I could be seen as a very "bad" person (or "egg") just for asking 'you' a clarifying question?

And also, only 'you' would KNOW what "keep their hands to themselves" actually means.

One knows perfectly well what Henry means. Henry uses vernacular language with all its subtle nuances of approval and disapproval. It's because Henry is so direct that it's easy to try to persuade him to believe otherwise than he does.
One does not manage to do so but this is because he is intransigent not because he is unclear.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:59 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:32 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:09 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:01 am "How can 'you' logically and reasonably POSSIBLY distinguish between so called "bad" people from those that 'you' call "good" people?"

For me, it's simple...

Good eggs mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Bad eggs don't mind their own business, don't keep their hands to themselves.
Well only 'you' KNOW what "mind their own business" means. As I could be seen as a very "bad" person (or "egg") just for asking 'you' a clarifying question?

And also, only 'you' would KNOW what "keep their hands to themselves" actually means.
One knows perfectly well what Henry means.

Who is this 'one' you speak of here?

Considering "henry quirk", "them self", could not explain what "henry quirk" supposedly knows perfectly well, then your claim that 'one' knows perfectly well what "henry" means might in fact not be true at all. But to prove if 'one' actually does know perfectly well what "henry quirk" means, then how about 'you', "belinda" telling us what "henry quirk" meant.

Either you will prove me WRONG or RIGHT. So, go ahead and SHOW us if your CLAIM is True or False.

All of 'you', adult human beings, think or believe 'you' KNOW what words, "others", and "yourselves" mean when you say things, yet when I put the challenge to you to SHOW us that 'you' KNOW what each other means, inevitably you will that thee Truth IS, 'you' do NOT know.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:32 pm Henry uses vernacular language with all its subtle nuances of approval and disapproval.

So what?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:32 pmIt's because Henry is so direct that it's easy to try to persuade him to believe otherwise than he does.

But has "henry quirk" actually believed otherwise than "henry quirk" did previously?

Of course it is very easy to 'try to' persuade any one of any thing. But actually doing or achieving this is a completely other matter.

I have found the human being known as "henry quirk" to be just as stubborn and just as closed and as fixed as all the other adult human beings who assume things to be true, and/or who believe that they already know the truth of things.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:32 pmOne does not manage to do so but this is because he is intransigent not because he is unclear.

So, to you, WHY is it easy to 'try to' persuade some one of some thing other than what they believe only when they are so direct?

Can you not just as easily 'try to' persuade ALL people equally, no matter if they are direct or not? Is it not possible to just write some thing down persuasively, with no comprehension of how direct or not "others" are or would be?

Also, thanks for the laugh. Because some one, to you, is direct then that means it is easy to 'try to' persuade that one to change their views but you can not do this anyway because that is intransigent anyway. lol

If 'I' or "henry quirk" said to 'you'; 'I don't want to argue with you". Then, because "One knows perfectly well what "henry quirk" means, then what would "henry quirk" mean? And, what do 'I' mean?

See, what 'you' will find is, it is NOT as easy as some imagine it is is to KNOW what 'one' means. This Truth even applies to thy 'one', "them self". As I can very easily PROVE, very simply.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:08 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:24 pm I sometimes prefer the term 'men'. This is because 'human beings' has a biological connotation which I might not wish to connote. 'Men' on the other hand is part of the common lexicon in its reference to people,our own species, and so on, and has been so ever since Anglo Saxons made their deep impression upon English usage.'Men' is often used when the speaker refers to the human condition, especially perhaps the human social condition, without special reference to biology.
I always prefer plain English whenever it serves.

And, 'human being' is NOT 'plain english', to you?

If I say, "It is 'men' who create a much better way of life", then is that also always preferred plain english that serves you, than to say, "It is 'human beings' who create a better way of life"?

You could use the former term if you like, because it is YOUR always preferred plain english that serves you, but you might get some disagreement from about half of the adult population.

My ALWAYS preferred plain english, which ALWAYS serves Me, is to just use plain old Honesty, INSTEAD. That way things can not be so easily misconstrued, misunderstood, and/or misinterpreted.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:12 pm**

he is intransigent

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:59 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:08 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:24 pm I sometimes prefer the term 'men'. This is because 'human beings' has a biological connotation which I might not wish to connote. 'Men' on the other hand is part of the common lexicon in its reference to people,our own species, and so on, and has been so ever since Anglo Saxons made their deep impression upon English usage.'Men' is often used when the speaker refers to the human condition, especially perhaps the human social condition, without special reference to biology.
I always prefer plain English whenever it serves.
And, 'human being' is NOT 'plain english', to you?

If I say, "It is 'men' who create a much better way of life", then is that also always preferred plain english that serves you, than to say, "It is 'human beings' who create a better way of life"?

You could use the former term if you like, because it is YOUR always preferred plain english that serves you, but you might get some disagreement from about half of the adult population.

My ALWAYS preferred plain english, which ALWAYS serves Me, is to just use plain old Honesty, INSTEAD. That way things can not be so easily misconstrued, misunderstood, and/or misinterpreted.

You remind me of the problem with experts who by definition have sacrificed honesty for prestige.

“Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” - Emerson

Get out of those working clothes and forget about honesty. Appearance is everything. Women will teach you how to dress properly to create the appropriate impression.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:07 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:59 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:08 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:24 pm I sometimes prefer the term 'men'. This is because 'human beings' has a biological connotation which I might not wish to connote. 'Men' on the other hand is part of the common lexicon in its reference to people,our own species, and so on, and has been so ever since Anglo Saxons made their deep impression upon English usage.'Men' is often used when the speaker refers to the human condition, especially perhaps the human social condition, without special reference to biology.
I always prefer plain English whenever it serves.
And, 'human being' is NOT 'plain english', to you?

If I say, "It is 'men' who create a much better way of life", then is that also always preferred plain english that serves you, than to say, "It is 'human beings' who create a better way of life"?

You could use the former term if you like, because it is YOUR always preferred plain english that serves you, but you might get some disagreement from about half of the adult population.

My ALWAYS preferred plain english, which ALWAYS serves Me, is to just use plain old Honesty, INSTEAD. That way things can not be so easily misconstrued, misunderstood, and/or misinterpreted.
You remind me of the problem with experts who by definition have sacrificed honesty for prestige.

Name one or all parts where I have supposedly sacrificed honesty.

Then after we discuss that/them, then we will see who exactly has sacrificed honesty.

Also not clarifying questions could be seen as being deceitful and/or dishonest itself.

And, what prestige are you talking about?

The way I communicate I lose, and/or have already lost all, respect. I have also never had nor wanted any admiration in any forums. I am just here to keep learning more.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:59 pm
“Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” - Emerson
Get out of those working clothes and forget about honesty. Appearance is everything. Women will teach you how to dress properly to create the appropriate impression.

Now I am lost. To me, this appears to contradict your previous paragraph, or am I missing something?

To me, Honesty overrides any and every thing, in discussions. After all it is only in Honesty where Truth lays and so is where the Truth is also found.

Anyone could teach me how to impress the people at any period of "time". But it is the people of any "time" period, other than the period of absolute Peace and Harmony that I certainly do NOT want to impress.

Any one can learn how to act in a particular way to create an impression that pleases the people. But I am not here in this forum to learn this. I am here in this forum to learn how to communicate some thing that will displease people, at first. I am here to learn how to communicate this without putting people off or with displeasing them in at the least way possible.

I am here to learn how to communicate a way that shows how easily it really is to live in Peace and Harmony with each "other", but in order to do this people have to LOOK AT their own selves first, and most people do not like doing this at all.

So, I am not looking to create an appropriate impression for them. I am looking at how do impress them in a way that shows them that what they are actually doing is inappropriate but if they were prepared to look at this and prepared to change, for the better, then the final result would be and is far more than they had ever even imagined was possible.

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am**

Age

N. Get out of those working clothes and forget about honesty. Appearance is everything. Women will teach you how to dress properly to create the appropriate impression.

A. Now I am lost. To me, this appears to contradict your previous paragraph, or am I missing something?

This was just a little sarcastic humor. I’m surprised you missed it.

I’ll take this opportunity to describe what I know of as the fallen human condition you asked about. When we say “I” we believe it to be our inner unity. But the fallen human condition is a description of ourselves as a plurality with the potential for inner unity. If you are open to the basics of this short article it will be obvious why we are not God. God is inner unity; 3 in 1. We are a plurality of three connected by imagination. That is the human condition. Man’s conscious potential is sacrificed to imagination. Are you open to what Plato means in the following?

https://philosophycourse.info/platosite/3schart.html

Plato's identification of these three distinct elements of a person's inner life is unique, and can be validated by directly turning inward to one's own experience of the self.

Plato's three elements of the psyche are

1. The appetites, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left.

2. The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, i.e., the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. (Note that Plato's use of the term "spirited" here is not the same as "spiritual." He means "spirited" in the same sense that we speak of a high-spirited horse, for example, one with lots of energy and power.) This element of the soul is represented by the noble white horse on the right.

3. The mind (nous), our conscious awareness, is represented by the charioteer who is guiding (or who at least should be guiding) the horses and chariot. This is the part of us that thinks, analyzes, looks ahead, rationally weighs options, and tries to gauge what is best and truest overall.

The fallen human condition has caused us to live upside down. Man would have the conscious quality (nous) to guide the horses. The dark horse or the appetites would serve the white horse. The horses are guided by the charioteer guided by consciousness. The fallen human condition has turned it upside down. Fallen Man is guided by appetites which create negative emotions to support them. Consciousness is replaced by associative thoughts which justify these negative emotions.

The human problem isn’t the result of a lack of knowledge but rather lack of an inner life which puts our inner connections with the external world into a conscious human rather than an imbalanced acquired perspective. The fact that Socrates said “I know nothing” is just common sense for anyone having experienced the fallen human condition within themselves. This quality of awareness is so insulting that Socrates had to be killed. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the reality of the fallen human condition must be rejected in favor of imaginary egoism.

A person having experienced the human condition within themselves is less worried about more knowledge than how to become right side up. They would be concerned with how to acquire objective human consciousness in addition to animal reactive consciousness, emotional quality, and a body that serves the needs of the charioteer rather than escapism. It is obvious how far society is from such awareness so us vs them will continue to rule the day.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:17 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am Age

N. Get out of those working clothes and forget about honesty. Appearance is everything. Women will teach you how to dress properly to create the appropriate impression.

A. Now I am lost. To me, this appears to contradict your previous paragraph, or am I missing something?
This was just a little sarcastic humor. I’m surprised you missed it.

I am not sure I missed it completely, it was more that I just did not keep looking at it that way. For a split second I saw the humor but honestly I really did not know which way to take it, and so I went off track and looked at it in another way. My asking did I "miss some thing" obviously gave a wrong perception, which would have been much better word if I had made my true views more clearer. So, I apologize.

This, not obtaining the true intention/meaning, I guess is half the battle with language, and its subtle differences. What can be obviously humor in face-to-face contact can be not so easily seen, noticed, or even not accepted in written contact. After all, without knowing the person really well, even in face-to-face contact humor and more so sarcastic humor can just get overlooked all to easily, so again sorry.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amI’ll take this opportunity to describe what I know of as the fallen human condition you asked about.

Thank you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amWhen we say “I” we believe it to be our inner unity.

But who are 'you' speaking for here?

When the 'we' word is used, if who that 'we' is, is NOT actually "spelled out", as they say, then without assuming I have absolutely NO idea who that 'we' is exactly.

All so, are you absolutely SURE that whoever that 'we' is BELIEVES what you say here?

For example, when 'I' say "I", 'I' NEVER believe 'I' to be our inner unity at all.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am But the fallen human condition is a description of ourselves as a plurality with the potential for inner unity.

Will 'you' elaborate further? 'you' did start off saying that you would take this opportunity to describe what 'you' know of as "the fallen human condition" I asked about.

So, if the "fallen human condition" is just a description of "ourselves", then, again, who is "our" "selves"? Is this just 'you', human beings?

If yes, then the "fallen human condition" is a description of 'human beings' as a "plurality", and so what does the word 'plurality' actually mean or refer to exactly? Is in relation to just EVERY one of 'you' human beings?

If yes, the "fallen human condition" is a description of ALL human beings with the potential for 'inner unity', correct?

If no, then where have I got lost?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amIf you are open to the basics of this short article it will be obvious why we are not God.

Okay, if you say so. But if this short article explains obviously WHY 'you', human beings, are NOT God, then I do NOT need to read this to ALREADY BE AWARE of this FACT.

Also, if this short article explains obviously WHY 'we' are NOT God, then this infers that the author of this short article KNOWS EXACTLY who and what 'we' ARE and who and what 'God' IS. Is this explained and outlined in the short article also?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY did 'you' come to the conclusion from the basics of this short article 'it' will be obviously WHY 'we' are not God?

Obviously one would have to KNOW God, for what It IS exactly, to KNOW that God is not 'we'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am God is inner unity; 3 in 1.

What does this mean?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amWe are a plurality of three connected by imagination.

What three?

Also, if "I" is believed to be 'inner unity', then is that 'inner unity' different or the same as the 'inner unity' in the saying; "God is inner unity"?

You will have to bear with me as i am very simple and very slow to learn.

And, if those three are connected by imagination, is that connection in imagination only, and if yes, then does that mean there is no actual real connection?

It would help me to understand if you explained ALL things as we went along, for example, like saying; "God is inner unity; 3 in 1", then what 'inner unity' are you referring to. What are the 3 three things in 1? What is the connection?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am That is the human condition. Man’s conscious potential is sacrificed to imagination. Are you open to what Plato means in the following?

What is the 'human condition' and how does it differ from the 'fallen human condition'?

What does "man's conscious potential" which is supposedly sacrificed to imagination? Was it not 'imagination' before that connected the 3 in 1, whatever that may be?

I am open to what plato means in the following. Are you open to what you think, say, or believe is what plato means, may actually NOT be what plato actually means?

Now, if I were to read any or all of this, and I just happen to gain another 'meaning' of what plato 'meant', from the 'meaning' which you think or believe 'meant', which the likelihood of occurring would probably be very close to being 100%, then 'whose' account do I accept?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am https://philosophycourse.info/platosite/3schart.html

How about instead of asking me obviously ridiculous things like; Are you open to what plato means in the following, and instead you write down, word for word, what you think or believe what plato means in that? Does that sound like a better idea and a much easier and simpler way for you to get across what it is that you want to say and/or believe is true?

Obviously if i read the article in a link given and I do NOT come back with the EXACT SAME meaning, which I was SUPPOSED to SEE and RECOGNIZE, then I will get accused of NOT being open, especially after I am specifically asked some thing like; Are you open to what Plato means in the following?

So, to save absolutely any more misinterpretations, misgivings, and miscommunication, how about you now tell us NOT what plato means in that article but what you THINK or BELIEVE plato means in that article, and then relate that to whatever else it is that you are 'trying to' say here is the truth of things?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am
Plato's identification of these three distinct elements of a person's inner life is unique, and can be validated by directly turning inward to one's own experience of the self.

Plato's three elements of the psyche are

1. The appetites, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left.

2. The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, i.e., the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. (Note that Plato's use of the term "spirited" here is not the same as "spiritual." He means "spirited" in the same sense that we speak of a high-spirited horse, for example, one with lots of energy and power.) This element of the soul is represented by the noble white horse on the right.

3. The mind (nous), our conscious awareness, is represented by the charioteer who is guiding (or who at least should be guiding) the horses and chariot. This is the part of us that thinks, analyzes, looks ahead, rationally weighs options, and tries to gauge what is best and truest overall.

Well ALL-OF-THIS, very little explanation, can be explained in a much simpler and much easier way, which could be far better understood, and which could be explained in far less or in far more detail, depending on one's desires, but exposing how this ALL fits together perfectly with EVERY thing else. Like for example the psyche of a human being is just the thoughts and the inner feelings, which would LOOKED INTO further would explain all the above here and how each and ever part of ALL-OF-THIS actually works.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amThe fallen human condition has caused us to live upside down.

If you are 'trying to' explain the Truth of things, then you will have to write the Truth of things.

For example, human beings do NOT live the proper because of how the Mind and the brain works. The reason they work in such a way, which has led adult human beings to live wrongly is because they become Honest, then they will SEE the Truth and start living the True and Proper way that they ALL want to live, anyway.

How do you propose human being are living "upside down"?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 am Man would have the conscious quality (nous) to guide the horses. The dark horse or the appetites would serve the white horse. The horses are guided by the charioteer guided by consciousness. The fallen human condition has turned it upside down. Fallen Man is guided by appetites which create negative emotions to support them. Consciousness is replaced by associative thoughts which justify these negative emotions.

Now is this as deep or as far into as you can get because if you would like to go deeper and look at this from ALL perspectives, which will REVEAL the actual Truth of things, the I would more than love to do so with you.

But be forewarned I will question 'you' on just about every thing you say. I do this NOT to catch you out but because if you were Truly OPEN to continue discovering and learning what is Truly Right and Correct in Life, then your Truly Honest and Open Answers will REVEAL thee Truth of things.

For example, if you were prepared to LOOK further into what you have said here I would start of by asking, WHY did you use the 'man' world here?

Then I would ask what do you mean by 'conscious quality'?, and then what do you mean by, 'to guide the horses'?

After you replied, and depending on your answers/replies given were Truly Honest, then I would move onto some thing like asking, Why not just say some thing like; human beings have the ability to guide "themselves". Now this is thee actual Truth of things.

Then we could move on to the very FACT that adult human beings have desires, or what you call "appetites" here, and then we could LOOK AT the EXACT reasons of WHY these desires, which lead adult human beings astray, have strayed from the actual True desire, which if maintained instead would have lead to the creation of a Truly Peaceful World for Everyone ALREADY.

But I will wait to SEE what you want to do. So far, you appear that you ALREADY KNOW what ALL the Answers ARE, and you are just 'trying to' get me to see the error of my ways, correct?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amThe human problem isn’t the result of a lack of knowledge but rather lack of an inner life which puts our inner connections with the external world into a conscious human rather than an imbalanced acquired perspective. The fact that Socrates said “I know nothing” is just common sense for anyone having experienced the fallen human condition within themselves.

Just HOW simply and easily this very simple term has been taken out of context. OF COURSE that one human being known as "socrates" did NOT know nothing. But relatively speaking what each individual human being knows is RELATIVELY nothing compared to ALL-THERE-IS to learn and KNOW.

To me the 'fallen human condition' is for example like when I ask a simple clarifying question, How do you KNOW what plato was actually meaning in an article, and the human being misses or falls to the way side and starts going on about what plato actually meant or says any thing else other than, 'I do not know', which was more or less what that one called "socrates" could have been getting at as well. That is; 'you', human beings, do NOT actually know as much as you would like to think or believe you know, and because you keep thinking you do know things, then you fallen down and thus are not still standing. Your dishonesty has, literally, let you down, and as such dishonesty is actually the "fallen human condition", and if we wanted to LOOK AT this and SEE what actually Honest will bring back and create for the human being, then the True potential of the human being to understand any and ALL things, will be or could be the again 'standing human condition'.

I could go on for centuries backing and supporting absolutely EVERY thing I say or claim.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amThis quality of awareness is so insulting that Socrates had to be killed. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the reality of the fallen human condition must be rejected in favor of imaginary egoism.

If you want to KNOW the Truth here, to me it appears you are speaking from times as old as "socrates" times are to you.

This is not in any way derogatory nor in any way criticizing. I am just freely expressing what appears to me now, when this is being written.

Every time any human being expresses a quality of awareness that "others" find insulting, then they will "kill" the 'you' with ridicule and insults.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amA person having experienced the human condition within themselves is less worried about more knowledge than how to become right side up.

Well here is a hint, once 'you' have become right side up, as far as you can get, then why do 'you' still think or believe that that 'I' is NOT God?

Also, I still am unsure what 'you' actually mean when 'you' use the term 'human condition' and 'fallen human condition'. So, would you mind please explaining them again?

Also, is it possible to experience the human condition outside of "themselves"?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amThey would be concerned with how to acquire objective human consciousness in addition to animal reactive consciousness, emotional quality, and a body that serves the needs of the charioteer rather than escapism.

Have you ever heard me say and explain how to LOOK FROM a Truly Objective perspective entails?

Part of this actually explains exactly HOW 'you' also can acquire the KNOW-HOW to LOOK FROM thee Truly Objective perspective, where the Truth of things is SEEN and RECOGNIZED almost immediately.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:40 amIt is obvious how far society is from such awareness so us vs them will continue to rule the day.

Well "us" verses "them" is EXACTLY HOW 'you', human beings, live.

But once you have, as you say, "become right side up", then 'you' SEE just HOW foolish 'you' have been ALL ALONG.

By the way, 'you' are TELLING me that I have to learn how to become more "right side up", but then when I even just to begin to explain HOW to actually do it and BE IT, you instantly disregard me completely, as well as contradict your own views, by stating completely illogical and unreasonable statements like; " "us" verses "them" will continue to rule the day".

What do you think or believe living "upside down" in the "fallen human condition" actually means?

I will tell 'you', in case 'you' are still not yet FULLY aware; Living in and with this obviously completely wrong and stupid BELIEFS IS living upside down in the fallen human condition. Living in and with lies and dishonest IS living upside down in the fallen human condition.

And, HOW to right "yourselves" so that you can all live in the proper human way is to just STOP lying to "yourselves", and to just STOP being dishonest, with "yourselves", which just means BE Honest, ALWAYS, which, when done, it is found to be the actual and REAL KEY to unlocking ALL of Life's (so called) "mysteries".

I can NOT prove this to 'you'. Only 'you' can verify or falsify the Truth or NOT of this.

Philosophy Now Forum

How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

I want this on my tombstone...

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?