The Philosophy Discussion Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2026 6:58 pm _______

For the king, in his time, what this tune suggests was a matter of survival because any excuse would do.
Messages were more subtle in the days of the king.
That's but one reason why rock and roll was so shocking for the times.
Not too subtle.
Then later, violent cultural revolution in the name of love, and that's when gentle men who had survived to late middle age were labeled as, Tom.


Nat King Cole - Straighten Up & Fly Right
https://www.bing.com/search?q=straighte ... 20&pc=HCTS

*

Interesting. He sells it from the heart, as do all great artists, and even after the real trash thrown his way in his time.
Oh yeah, read all about it. Every new generation thinks its discoveries are unique, and therefore special.

However ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfAb0gN ... rt_radio=1

Giving all of oneself to another means giving all your attention, time, purpose for existence, Money money money, to another person.
That's Disney talk. Romantic devotion. Selling your soul to emotion. It appeals to the ideology and innocence of youth to devote oneself to something or someone worthy ... but look at the divorce rates that evolved from that. It smothers. That stuff ain't love. Love is much less superficial than all that.

A 70/30 split. Both/one. Much more practical. In the seventy part, egos are traded. In the seventy all thou does is for thee, but in the thirty it's all for "me." The concept of me. Interestingly enough, that correlates with chronological age in the really long unions.

(continued)

This is a far more nuanced performance than Disney-slick Cole.

*

He says a lot with this, especially when phrasing and facially expressing the words, “myself,” and “wonderful.” He first suggests that he doesn’t really mean it is wonderful, and his "self" is an issue, then the mask returns and he reassures all is fine with the big smile.

Louis Armstrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaCSuzR ... rt_radio=1

observe the watchmaker

-Imp

Gary Childress. The classical analysis of Knowledge: (1) p is true. (2) S believes that p. (3) S is justified in believing that p. You say that it is a false belief. Ensuring, that every step is sound. You seem to take Gettier’s approach to the classical analysis of knowledge, but Gettier was no skeptic. What about the false belief? Denying, knowledge with every false belief enters the picture. Do not be equivocal in your terms in philosophy, sacred theology, and metaphysics, natural philosophy to gain knowledge of those sciences. Being, speculative knowledge and practical knowledge would you please use the sake of truth, and be desirable for its own sake, not for the sake of anything else metaphysically. Please do not plagiarize by looking up a writers words you have never read or thought of. Use proof having plausibility rather than of unlikelihood. Religion: Explaining ignorance of the nature of the unknowable because it claims false when it has not been proven true. A state of affairs confused fact and knowledge of metaphysical matter and one of epistemology. Religion: A tying back in Latin, is the real intension, the objects picked out by the expression.

puto wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 9:46 am Gary Childress. The classical analysis of Knowledge: (1) p is true. (2) S believes that p. (3) S is justified in believing that p. You say that it is a false belief. Ensuring, that every step is sound. You seem to take Gettier’s approach to the classical analysis of knowledge, but Gettier was no skeptic. What about the false belief? Denying, knowledge with every false belief enters the picture. Do not be equivocal in your terms in philosophy, sacred theology, and metaphysics, natural philosophy to gain knowledge of those sciences. Being, speculative knowledge and practical knowledge would you please use the sake of truth, and be desirable for its own sake, not for the sake of anything else metaphysically. Please do not plagiarize by looking up a writers words you have never read or thought of. Use proof having plausibility rather than of unlikelihood. Religion: Explaining ignorance of the nature of the unknowable because it claims false when it has not been proven true. A state of affairs confused fact and knowledge of metaphysical matter and one of epistemology. Religion: A tying back in Latin, is the real intension, the objects picked out by the expression.

I'm sorry that my view of the world annoys you so much. But it seems like the truth to me. What have I said that is not true? Has the US not been to "war" since 1945? All the fighting and killing we have participated in since 1945 are just "conflicts"? Should our leaders be able to do all the bombing and killing they want without congressional approval for going to war? Do you really think that?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2026 3:06 pm If you can't love, then start with don't hate.

And once you achieve that, then move a little closer in the direction of love.

Apologies. Piss poor advise.

For hate to grow, all lovers need do is nothing against that which jeopardizes what is loved.

We are dualistic and can both hate and love. We default to love, as is evidenced by reality, but should not hesitate to let our healthy hate out.

Tolerate the intolerant, for instance, and you end facing inquisitions and jihads.