Philosophy Now Forum

Sorry about your insomnia

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:37 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 12:48 am

Yeah, yes, we can defintely do pyramids. The triangle is not a lost technology.

Good, then rebuild the pyramid of Giza using the same dimensions and materials....or rather show me someone who has.

The materials are just stone, why do you think we can't cut blocks of stone any more?

I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.

Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:37 am

Good, then rebuild the pyramid of Giza using the same dimensions and materials....or rather show me someone who has.

The materials are just stone, why do you think we can't cut blocks of stone any more?

I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.

Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

Of course. Those primitive idiots couldn't possibly have been able to do something that we can't. Must have been aliens.

Seems a tad arrogant and surpremacist.,,

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.
Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

You are so ignorant just as your thinking regarding 'All is distinction' at the level of a philosophical gnat.

If we can move large rockets to from factories to their launch pads, oil rigs to their destined sites, lift the most heavy stuff with the largest cranes, there is no reason we cannot build the same pyramid to the same dimension with the same materials.
The only reason we do not construct the same pyramid with the same material is we do not want to repeat stupidity of believing in immortality of the soul.

Can the strongest plane lift the heaviest stone block of the pyramid?

GoogleSearch AI:

Yes, the strongest modern cargo planes can easily lift the heaviest stone blocks used in the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Comparison of Weights
Heaviest Pyramid Stone Blocks: The vast majority of the pyramid's blocks average around 2.5 tons (5,000 lbs). The absolute heaviest stones, the granite beams used for the ceiling of the King's Chamber and relieving chambers, are estimated to weigh between 50 and 80 tons (100,000 to 160,000 lbs) each.
Strongest Cargo Plane Capacity: The Antonov An-225 Mriya (which was the largest cargo aircraft ever built before its destruction in 2022) had a maximum payload capacity of 250 tons (500,000 lbs). Other current heavy lifters like the Antonov An-124 can carry up to 150 tons, and the Boeing 747-8F can carry about 140 tons.
The An-225 could lift more than three times the weight of the heaviest pyramid stone block, and even currently operational large cargo planes have more than enough capacity to transport these massive stones.


Can the strongest Crane lift the heaviest stone block of the pyramid?

GoogleSearch AI:
Yes, the strongest modern cranes can lift the heaviest stone blocks of the pyramids, and some even more massive blocks found in other ancient structures. While the heaviest blocks in the Great Pyramid weigh an estimated 70–80 tons, modern cranes like the "Big Carl" can lift 5,000 tons or more, and offshore cranes can lift up to 10,000 tons, vastly exceeding the requirements for the pyramid stones.
Lifting capacity of modern cranes
The heaviest blocks in the Great Pyramid weigh about 70–80 tons.
The strongest modern cranes can lift 5,000 tons or more, which is more than 60 times the weight of the heaviest pyramid blocks.
Even though modern cranes could easily lift the pyramid stones, the Egyptians did not use them; they used levers, ramps, and manpower instead.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:37 am

Good, then rebuild the pyramid of Giza using the same dimensions and materials....or rather show me someone who has.

The materials are just stone, why do you think we can't cut blocks of stone any more?

I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.

Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

All it would take to build another pyramid of Giza out of the same materials is the materials, which is just stone, plus the cutting and the placing of the stone... no? You got something more magical in mind perhaps?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:43 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 7:51 pm Yup. I saw something about Epstein and Chomsky today, maybe don't tell Gary.

Too late. What did you see regarding Epstein and Chomsky?

See here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.
Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

You are so ignorant just as your thinking regarding 'All is distinction' at the level of a philosophical gnat.

If we can move large rockets to from factories to their launch pads, oil rigs to their destined sites, lift the most heavy stuff with the largest cranes, there is no reason we cannot build the same pyramid to the same dimension with the same materials.
The only reason we do not construct the same pyramid with the same material is we do not want to repeat stupidity of believing in immortality of the soul.

Can the strongest plane lift the heaviest stone block of the pyramid?

GoogleSearch AI:

Yes, the strongest modern cargo planes can easily lift the heaviest stone blocks used in the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Comparison of Weights
Heaviest Pyramid Stone Blocks: The vast majority of the pyramid's blocks average around 2.5 tons (5,000 lbs). The absolute heaviest stones, the granite beams used for the ceiling of the King's Chamber and relieving chambers, are estimated to weigh between 50 and 80 tons (100,000 to 160,000 lbs) each.
Strongest Cargo Plane Capacity: The Antonov An-225 Mriya (which was the largest cargo aircraft ever built before its destruction in 2022) had a maximum payload capacity of 250 tons (500,000 lbs). Other current heavy lifters like the Antonov An-124 can carry up to 150 tons, and the Boeing 747-8F can carry about 140 tons.
The An-225 could lift more than three times the weight of the heaviest pyramid stone block, and even currently operational large cargo planes have more than enough capacity to transport these massive stones.


Can the strongest Crane lift the heaviest stone block of the pyramid?

GoogleSearch AI:
Yes, the strongest modern cranes can lift the heaviest stone blocks of the pyramids, and some even more massive blocks found in other ancient structures. While the heaviest blocks in the Great Pyramid weigh an estimated 70–80 tons, modern cranes like the "Big Carl" can lift 5,000 tons or more, and offshore cranes can lift up to 10,000 tons, vastly exceeding the requirements for the pyramid stones.
Lifting capacity of modern cranes
The heaviest blocks in the Great Pyramid weigh about 70–80 tons.
The strongest modern cranes can lift 5,000 tons or more, which is more than 60 times the weight of the heaviest pyramid blocks.
Even though modern cranes could easily lift the pyramid stones, the Egyptians did not use them; they used levers, ramps, and manpower instead.

Oh good...than show the proof of them being built with such things.

Show me the texts that use this building methods and show me a crane tall enough to build pyramids to exact same specifications.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:17 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 1:37 pm
The materials are just stone, why do you think we can't cut blocks of stone any more?

I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.

Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

All it would take to build another pyramid of Giza out of the same materials is the materials, which is just stone, plus the cutting and the placing of the stone... no? You got something more magical in mind perhaps?

Good....then show people from the modern age rebuilding them with our tools.

Then show the leavers and man-power that built them.

The simple historical evidence shows the construction methods as lacking within the presented historical texts.

Their building methods are context projection from the modern world. Historically there are no records to the processes.

Laborers? No.
Aliens? No.
Answers? None but a minute number of myths.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:43 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 7:51 pm Yup. I saw something about Epstein and Chomsky today, maybe don't tell Gary.

Too late. What did you see regarding Epstein and Chomsky?

Just glad it all came out before the hypocritical old bastard croaked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oco8kPWD6w4

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:32 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:43 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 7:51 pm Yup. I saw something about Epstein and Chomsky today, maybe don't tell Gary.

Too late. What did you see regarding Epstein and Chomsky?

Just glad it all came out before the hypocritical old bastard croaked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oco8kPWD6w4

All this is actually an ad hominem. A relationship with Epstein doesn't magically make all of Chomsky's observations null and void. I've heard that after his wife died in 2008, Chomsky became very lonely and depressed. I can easily see someone like Epstein taking advantage of that situation in order to make friends in high places.

Science and intellectual geeks seem to have a lot of pent-up sexual frustrations, and when given an outlet for them, all of us men will probably cave in to them (except maybe monks and saints), Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking for example. In the end, male genitalia will be the undoing of the reputations of many liberal men. Bertrand Russell must have had an overactive libido. But he wrote books giving advice on marriage and relationships.

Contrarily, as far as dirty habits go, Hitler was a relatively clean guy compared to many. Never smoked (though he may have done some hard core drugs prescribed by his doctors), had a soft spot for animals. I've never heard stories of him going to brothels, but he doubtless could have had the opportunity to do well for himself, had he been interested in doing so.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:18 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:32 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:43 am

Too late. What did you see regarding Epstein and Chomsky?

Just glad it all came out before the hypocritical old bastard croaked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oco8kPWD6w4

All this is actually an ad hominem. A relationship with Epstein doesn't magically make all of Chomsky's observations null and void. I've heard that after his wife died in 2008, Chomsky became very lonely and depressed. I can easily see someone like Epstein taking advantage of that situation in order to make friends in high places.

Science and intellectual geeks seem to have a lot of pent-up sexual frustrations, and when given an outlet for them, all of us men will probably cave in to them (except maybe monks and saints), Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking for example. In the end, male genitalia will be the undoing of the reputations of many liberal men. Bertrand Russell must have had an overactive libido. But he wrote books giving advice on marriage and relationships.

Contrarily, as far as dirty habits go, Hitler was a relatively clean guy compared to many. Never smoked (though he may have done some hard core drugs prescribed by his doctors), had a soft spot for animals. I've never heard stories of him going to brothels, but he doubtless could have had the opportunity to do well for himself, had he been interested in doing so.

I don't expect men to be sexless, which seems to be the prevailing puritanical, woke position at this time in history. Perhaps it will eventually evolve into better behaviour by men, particularly those in positions of power. They certainly needed a shakeup.
I see that Chomsky remarried at 85. What's the point??
And yes, there is really nothing to report about Hitler in any way regarding his personal life. He comes across as practically nonexistent.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 5:15 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 7:17 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:03 am

I never said whether or not to cut them, can we build the pyramids to the same dimensions with the same materials currently? No, our knowledge base is not that powerful...we are not that advanced.

Knowledge is relative. Advancements are relative.

All it would take to build another pyramid of Giza out of the same materials is the materials, which is just stone, plus the cutting and the placing of the stone... no? You got something more magical in mind perhaps?

Good....then show people from the modern age rebuilding them with our tools.

Then show the leavers and man-power that built them.

The simple historical evidence shows the construction methods as lacking within the presented historical texts.

Their building methods are context projection from the modern world. Historically there are no records to the processes.

Laborers? No.
Aliens? No.
Answers? None but a minute number of myths.

Is that word salad supposed to make a point of some sort?

Here's a video about how to assemble the Great Pyramid anew using two cranes:
Could A Modern Mega Crane ACTUALLY Build The Great Pyramid
https://youtu.be/MST6V1IHaTA

This is absurd, if you were sane you would drop the idea that we cannot build the pyramids today, it makes no sense that you insist on doubling down on such crap.

The best philosopher would be the worst philosopher... the philosopher who has philosophized less than any other but has said the most. That would be Max Stirner, hands down.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:18 am All this is actually an ad hominem. A relationship with Epstein doesn't magically make all of Chomsky's observations null and void. I've heard that after his wife died in 2008, Chomsky became very lonely and depressed. I can easily see someone like Epstein taking advantage of that situation in order to make friends in high places.

And this is why what is hominem about ad hominem is crucially relevant. Immanuel Can continually proposes that man -- the man -- should be excluded from our considerations and judgments about how men handle the ideas they entertain. I say this is both impossible and unwise. However, the focus on man and man's psychology must be handled carefully and responsibly.

Now, what is interesting in what Acellafine's video proposed is that Chomsky dealt in a realm outside of genuine political science. He used the word 'empirical political science'. This caused me to consider what he (the video author) was proposing as I had not thought of this before. Chomsky had a sort of *product* and a sort of intellectual concoction that he presented to people who, allow me to say, were susceptible to it. Was he really a 'political scientist' then?

Thinking about it, I would say that no, he was not. But what then, what ultimately, was Chomsky dealing in? I would say that it had a great deal to do with guilt on one hand, and possibly ressentiment on the other. Guilt on the part of those in the developed world who suffer biting pangs of conscience; and ressentiment on the part of those of the intellectual class in the underdeveloped regions who cannot bear to face the facts of how things in this world actually work. I.e. power-dynamics.

So is it fair to say that Chomsky operates in and takes advantage of a psychological susceptibility? To really embrace the Chomskian stance you have to undermine your own relationship to your own world, to your own power, to the attainments of your civilization and culture. You have to turn against it and 'hate' it. In fact what Gary wants most is to cease to exist!

In reality you have to become to really institute Chomsky's philosophy, at least on the idea-realm, a 'Communist' -- as Chomsky in fact said that he was (Anarcho-Syndicalist is the old term for Communist). But seen in this light Chomsky was just one more cultural manipulator. And he even can be understood as handling a variant of a religious perspective, one both Hebraic and Christian.

In this sense Chomsky has been extremely powerful in our present and in the post-Sixties as fulminating a posture of self-hatred and self-contempt which, thinking about it, extends into many different areas, not just politics and society.

It is interesting to examine Gary himself in this light: as one susceptible to a master manipulator who works a religious and ideological position that undermines the very foundation of the individual himself. And by extension 'the righteous child' who must attack and condemn the attainments of his parents in this difficult and confusing world. The 'essence' of the Chomskian view is that the entire foundation of our own (American) civilization was constructed on a crime. That is basically what Chomsky's position is. So what he does, at least principally, is the undermine a man's right to exist in this world unless he signs up to an ultra-critical position.

I have no idea why Chomsky became involved with some of the people he did (as Greenwald pointed out). But I have a feeling that we need have take far more critical stances about many powerful cultural figures in our present. And Noam Chomsky is a major one.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 9:18 am Contrarily, as far as dirty habits go, Hitler was a relatively clean guy compared to many. Never smoked (though he may have done some hard core drugs prescribed by his doctors), had a soft spot for animals. I've never heard stories of him going to brothels, but he doubtless could have had the opportunity to do well for himself, had he been interested in doing so.

I would share this not uncontroversial observation: Hitler is and was made into a sort of 'construct' whose purpose is to encapsulate, and perhaps to contain, all that can be thought and felt about what is evil in man. I.e. in respect to man's potential. So, the figure of Hitler, the Emblem, is quite distinct from what it is likely that Hitler actually was. What I mean by this is that it seems to me impossible to 'think about Hitler' or to understand what his program was in any but the light of projected satanism.

Interestingly, I have been listening to James Lindsay taking apart the National Socialist platform as expressed in Mein Kampf. (Episode 4 but his preamble explains the series).

The purpose of Lindsay's foray here is to develop his critique of 'The Woke Right' as he calls it and to expose what he thinks is now occurring in American society with the rise of the Dissident Right: the resurgence of a similar platform of ideas as that expressed in Hitler's ideology. Race, nationalism, reaction, not to mention antisemitism and anti-Israelism: lots of things that have come up recently.

I think Lindsay does a good job at exploring the roots of many of the very strange ideas that had Hitler and the National Socialists captured (not the least being the influence of Helena Blavatsky), but I am not sure at all if his analysis is useful enough in understanding the reaction now on-going among some sectors in America. Definitely worth listening to, though the whole series is 15 hours long, more or less.