Philosophy Now Forum

I am lame, Phil. Lame as a duck in dungarees.

Plus I don't wanna argue about language anymore after I read some Wittgenstein. I'm done with it. I can't take anymore.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:06 am See, even when the dog asks for something exact, he ignores it, dismisses it and keeps on begging for attention,

AGAIN, 'you' MAKE A CLAIM, here, that SOME 'dog', which you are CONVERSING WITH, here, ASKS for some thing EXACT, then the 'male dog', ignores 'it', dismisses 'it', and keeps on, supposedly, what you call, 'begging for attention'. Now, to SHOW and PROVE, ONCE AGAIN, that 'this one' will NOT back up and support its ACTUAL CLAIMS, 'I' will ASK it, 'What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that SOME 'male dog' is, supposedly, ignoring and dismissing, here?

SHOW 'the readers', here, that you can, ACTUALLY, back up and support your ALLEGATIONS and CLAIMS, here.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:24 am After reading your last reply to me, Phil, i have to file you away as one of those brainiacs having his own unique (use of) language that nobody else will ever understand and who will therefore have to pass through much of life smart af, frustrated, and alone.

ALTHOUGH, ANY ISSUE, here, could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY BE RESOLVED if 'this one' JUST DEFINED and CLARIFIED its OWN UNIQUE, USE OF, LANGUAGE, and ESPECIALLY SO WHEN ASKED TO.

But, the Fact that it WILL NOT, more or less LAYS PROOF that it can NOT back up and support its OWN BELIEFS and CLAIMS, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:35 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:24 am After reading your last reply to me, Phil, i have to file you away as one of those brainiacs having his own unique (use of) language that nobody else will ever understand and who will therefore have to pass through much of life smart af, frustrated, and alone.

Seriously? that is really lame. I suppose you are right about my great grandchildren. They are not yet grown up.

your COMPREHENSION SKILL IS ABSOLUTELY SKEWED, TWISTED, and WAY OFF.

ABSOLUTELY NO one, besides your OWN IMAGINATION thought, implied, NOR said ABSOLUTELY ANY thing ABOUT ANY 'grandchildren', YET here you are 'grandchildren' is what you 'saw', and 'concluded', in 'those writings'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:35 am And 21,000 pages of grammar lessons is hardly a unique use of grammar, you learn it in arithmetic, Algebra and geometry. And all of it can be paired with common grammar.

HOWEVER, you WILL NOT PROVIDE one even LITTLE example, here, in this forum, which MIGHT pique one to THEN go and read just one of your, alleged, 21,000 pages.

AGAIN, I have read some of them, which I then POINTED OUT the Inaccuracies within them, but you just IGNORED and DISMISSED my replies, COMPLETELY.

Which is just FURTHER PROOF OF one who has some thing TO HIDE.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:35 am I do not speak any language, nobody does, we all use systems of grammar.
Language is Universal and Intelligible, Grammar is Particular and Perceptible. Now, if you have not figured that out, is it my fault?

YET you USE 'language', and A 'system of grammar', which AT TIMES does NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, TO ANY one BUT you, and is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'universal' NOR 'intelligible'.

you INABILITY TO JUST COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what others are ACTUALLY MEANING, from the words that they ACTUALLY USE, ALSO HIGHLIGHTS you have MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, here, "yourself".

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:45 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:42 am "Now, if you have not figured that out, is it my fault?"

I suppose not, suh. (accent of a British man being rebuked).

I have a son, who has been on his own for several years now, he is the same age as one of my grandsons. So, I have lived far from a lonely life.

ONCE MORE, what you SAY and WRITE, here, does NOT 'logically follow'.

Now, HOW can 'the conclusion', 'So, I have lived far from a lonely life', (besides after ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT TO DO WITH what you are REPLYING TO), does NOT 'follow, logically', FROM the preceding sentence, and CLAIM.

This IS your CLAIM, here.

P1. I have a son.
P2. My son has been on his own for several years now.
P3. My son is the same age as one of my grandsons is.
C. So, I have lived far from a lonely life.

LOL For all 'we' KNOW you have NEVER even met your son NOR grandson because they live in ANOTHER country. PLUS the near COUNTLESS OTHER VARIABLES, here, that might apply.

AGAIN, NOT much of what you SAY and WRITE, here, 'logically follows'. And, VERY RARELY what you SAY and WRITE, here, DIRECTLY FOLLOWS ON FROM what you are REPLYING TO, EXACTLY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 2:45 am But you still have given just another lame response.

Even 'this' IS ABSURD, and 'out there', as some might say.

It does NOT even RELATE TO ANY ACTUAL 'thing'. But, if it does, then 'what', EXACTLY, does ANY one, here, KNOW?

After ALL of 'this', 'Do you KNOW what your purpose in life is, EXACTLY?

If yes, then what is 'your' purpose in life, EXACTLY?

AGAIN, if you do NOT CLARIFY, here, then what you are ALLEGING and/or CLAIMING TO KNOW appears to EXIST IN your OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY. And, the Fact that you are NOT BEING CLEAR, OPEN, and Honest, and NOT EXPLAINING and NOT CLARIFYING, here, is SHOWING and PROVING that you ACTUALLY can NOT back up and support your BELIEFS and CLAIMS, here, AT ALL.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 12:54 am

Chat GPT wrote:"Binary incursion" is not a widely recognized term in general discourse, and its meaning can depend on the context in which it's used. However, we can break down the term:

Binary refers to something involving two parts, often related to binary code in computing, where information is represented using two states (0 and 1). It can also refer to anything with two components or categories.

Incursion typically means an invasion or intrusion, especially a sudden or brief one, into another area, often with a sense of conflict or disturbance.

Combining these ideas, "binary incursion" could potentially refer to:

A digital or cyber-related attack – In the context of computer science or cybersecurity, it might refer to an intrusion involving binary data (such as a virus or malware using binary code to breach a system).

A two-part or dual-process invasion – It might be used more metaphorically to describe a situation where two factors or forces invade or disrupt a system or environment in a coordinated manner, possibly related to technology, military tactics, or even political discourse.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 12:45 am You do not seem to grasp the idea behind the definition of a thing. Binary recursion always produces a binary result.
This means, as a form of life, our purpose was put into a metaphor "To have life, and have it more abundantly."

This is Cowardly Phil trying to hide behind more terms he randomly combined to mean something he wont admit.

Coward wont define his words.

Coward hides from accountability.

Coward comes to a philosophy forum, and explains purpose in metaphor.

"Binary recursion", not "binary incursion". Phil hallucinates that binary recursion is everywhere because that nutcase Plato said something like that.

The fact that we tend to use binary systems in language, thought, computers etc. because they are simple and efficient, and not because binary is hard-wired into the world, went above his head many decades ago.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 3:04 am Plus I don't wanna argue about language anymore after I read some Wittgenstein. I'm done with it. I can't take anymore.

Wittgenstein? Well you should not have to read much of him before you know you can shit can his works.

Plato is hard for people to understand, because they cannot follow him in his dialogs well, For example, he was a teacher of dialectic, A science based on pure intellectual metaphysics. If anyone had understood what he was doing, they would have known how to order his works, and how he was giving examples by his dialogs how to use it to reason with.
We use his concepts in Arithmetic, Algebra, and Euclidean Geometry, but people are trained to be free in common grammar, so they think that they can use common grammar they way they were taught it in school, which makes no effort at all to teach anyone how to reason with it.
That is why I do my grammar project and bother the shit out of people. I am testing to see if anyone, after long years of bull-shit common grammar, can grasp pure reasoning. Habit are if not impossible to break, very hard.
The common teaching of common grammar is that there are many parts of speech because it is not based on any standard of information processing, as the computer demonstrates today. A computer process electricity, parses electricity to do all it can do, and it has no limits of application.

So, As Plato was trying to do, so am I trying. Show how it is done, dialectic, the pure intelligible, over common grammar. It is easy in arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, but nobody has done it for common grammar.

Only a person with a passion for Truth and the intelligence trace it to its source, can actually ever know what Philosophy is and maybe even become a philosopher.

Like the computer, Plato divided first, the Universe into the fi8nite and infinite.
Then between the intelligible and perceptible.
Then the intelligible between the sciences devoted to crafting things, and pure science.
Intelligence is divided likewise, those who pursue the perceptible, and those who pursue pure knowledge.

Parsing information is rather liberal, for those whose concern of work with the perceptibles of social life.
Parsing information is rigidly defined by "names in accordance with the truth of things.' This science, very few actually care about.

Take this Forum, run by those whose only concern is selling heaps of words for profit. The only truth that concerns them is profit, not truth.
When I was in diapers, I had my first epiphany, Before I could even speak English, I knew for certain that there was a right way to do anything.
When I had my only I.Q. test, performed by the state, he said, I could be anything I wanted to be, I had a very high I.Q.
Then, well past puberty, I was introduced to something not human who in short, told me to go for it, but I never thought I could.

But, I now know, I can.

Most people think it makes them appear smart, claiming that they are looking for truth, as if truth were something perceptible. This same farce is maintained by those who have found god.

You have to realize, on some level, that you not only have a purpose, but that purpose is the regulation of behavior, starting with your own. There is a right way to behave. A mind produces all of the behaviors of the body. i.e., there is a right way to do anything. By biological fact, we produce the behavior of our own body. We regulate, or do not regulate, our own behavior.

So, any one claiming, in the light of facts they have lived with their whole life, that this is not true, is as stupid as one can get.

Our job is the regulation of behavior.

Science tells you that is your job, your purpose.
Social Law tells you that is your purpose.
And if you actually read the Bible, it tells you the same thing.

Our job, the regulation of behavior, has two branches, one according to the stupid, and one according to the intelligent.

There is factually, no mystery about it.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:13 pm I think that is normal, even though odd.

Every form of life is composed of a number of life support systems, each of them have their particular job to do, and they simply do it.

Now a mind is the product of one of those life support systems, and claims it does not know what its purpose is.
Well, there you go. With your own lips, you said what Evolutionist say, not evolved to be functional.
It is what the Bible also states.
'
It is a normal product of evolution to be at a staged of development, that your only concept of work is Duh!

A person without a purpose, is simply an incomplete person.

By biological design, we are destined to be intelligent enough to do our own work. How intelligent are you if you cannot even take the first step?

Life's original purpose is the propagation of life.
In man this is not enough.
Men need a purpose, above that of animals, to focus their creative minds, to give direction to their will.

Every man gives himself a purpose, so as to give meaning to his suffering.
Usually men find collective purposes in ideologies and dogmas.
If purpose were universal then men would have no free-will and would be determined by said purpose.
God's will would determine their purpose.
Modern men have replaced the absolutist ideal of god's will with the idea of absolute order, calling it determinism.
They want to be given a purpose, because they fear the responsibility of giving themselves one.

God's announced death, has left a void in their spirit.
They need god, or a comparable absolute to give them what they cannot give themselves - a motive and a scapegoat, to blame when their motives lead to negative consequences.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 10:37 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 3:04 am Plus I don't wanna argue about language anymore after I read some Wittgenstein. I'm done with it. I can't take anymore.

Wittgenstein? Well you should not have to read much of him before you know you can shit can his works.

Plato is hard for people to understand, because they cannot follow him in his dialogs well, For example, he was a teacher of dialectic, A science based on pure intellectual metaphysics. If anyone had understood what he was doing, they would have known how to order his works, and how he was giving examples by his dialogs how to use it to reason with.
We use his concepts in Arithmetic, Algebra, and Euclidean Geometry, but people are trained to be free in common grammar, so they think that they can use common grammar they way they were taught it in school, which makes no effort at all to teach anyone how to reason with it.
That is why I do my grammar project and bother the shit out of people. I am testing to see if anyone, after long years of bull-shit common grammar, can grasp pure reasoning. Habit are if not impossible to break, very hard.
The common teaching of common grammar is that there are many parts of speech because it is not based on any standard of information processing, as the computer demonstrates today. A computer process electricity, parses electricity to do all it can do, and it has no limits of application.

So, As Plato was trying to do, so am I trying. Show how it is done, dialectic, the pure intelligible, over common grammar. It is easy in arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, but nobody has done it for common grammar.

But your words, here, keep proving that you have not yet grasped 'reasoning', itself, let alone 'pure reasoning'.

For example,
I have a son.
My son has been on his own for several years now.
My son is the same age as one of my grandsons.
Therefore, I have lived far from a lonely life.

Is NOT a logical thought, and is NOT 'reasoned thinking' AT ALL.

And 'this' was just one of your many 'unreasonable thoughts', here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:07 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 9:13 pm I think that is normal, even though odd.

Every form of life is composed of a number of life support systems, each of them have their particular job to do, and they simply do it.

Now a mind is the product of one of those life support systems, and claims it does not know what its purpose is.
Well, there you go. With your own lips, you said what Evolutionist say, not evolved to be functional.
It is what the Bible also states.
'
It is a normal product of evolution to be at a staged of development, that your only concept of work is Duh!

A person without a purpose, is simply an incomplete person.

By biological design, we are destined to be intelligent enough to do our own work. How intelligent are you if you cannot even take the first step?

Life's original purpose is the propagation of life.
In man this is not enough.
Men need a purpose, above that of animals, to focus their creative minds, to give direction to their will.

Every man gives himself a purpose, so as to give meaning to his suffering.
Usually men find collective purposes in ideologies and dogmas.
If purpose were universal then men would have no free-will and would be determined by said purpose.
God's will would determine their purpose.
Modern men have replaced the absolutist ideal of god's will with the idea of absolute order, calling it determinism.
They want to be given a purpose, because they fear the responsibility of giving themselves one.

God's announced death, has left a void in their spirit.
They need god, or a comparable absolute to give them what they cannot give themselves - a motive and a scapegoat, to blame when their motives lead to negative consequences.

Plato divided between the perceptible and the intelligible.
And this same division was made in religion and science
The common man, has no criteria for a god, other than some of what you mention.
However, the Philosopher, as they divided the Universe, between the finite and infinite, i.e., binary,
Plato made the physical universe the body of God, i.e., all the power in the universe materially.
And the mind of God, the reason by which the universe is actually expressed, and it works like this.

All a mind can do is process information, all information is processed in binary. Therefore, there is pure reason, often called pure science, which applies to Common Grammar, Arithmetic Algebra and Geometry.

Or in the terms of Confucius, which you find in his Rectification of Names. So, the Bible calls such a person a prophet, or seer, Plato called him the Philosopher, Confucius, the superior man.

To the common man, he often envisions a perceptible and material god, while the superior man, god is an intelligible, the only power of the universe, mirrored by intelligence.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Only a person with a passion for Truth and the intelligence trace it to its source, can actually ever know what Philosophy is and maybe even become a philosopher.

When you say and write the word 'it', here, what are you referring to, exactly?

Do you think or believe that 'you' are a so-called "philosopher"?

If yes, then what is 'philosophy', to you, and what is 'it', exactly, that makes 'you' a so-called "philosopher", exactly?

If you do NOT answer and clarify, here, then this is another sure sign that 'you' are NOT as good NOR as great as you actually believe you are.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Like the computer, Plato divided first, the Universe into the fi8nite and infinite.

Do you even have the capability to just write down how ANY one divides the Universe, Itself, into the so-called finite and infinite? And, by the way, does this is just very simple and very easy, anyway.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Then between the intelligible and perceptible.

Again, will you provide ANY examples AT ALL?

If no, then WHY NOT? What is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are SO AFRAID and SCARED OF, here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Then the intelligible between the sciences devoted to crafting things, and pure science.

It is extremely simple and easy to CLAIM that someone did some thing, but without examples and PROOF, REALLY, you are NOT SAYING ANY thing AT ALL.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Intelligence is divided likewise, those who pursue the perceptible, and those who pursue pure knowledge.

And, just SAYING and WRITING that 'this one' has 'done this, or that', SHOWS that you are pursuing 'the perceptible' ONLY. Although, and let 'us' NOT FORGET, that UNTIL you PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF, what 'you, allegedly and supposedly, 'perceive' exists IN 'your perception', ONLY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Parsing information is rather liberal, for those whose concern of work with the perceptibles of social life.
Parsing information is rigidly defined by "names in accordance with the truth of things.' This science, very few actually care about.

This is just MORE GIBBERISH, which you, STILL, have NOT PROVIDED ANY examples NOR ANY proof FOR.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Take this Forum, run by those whose only concern is selling heaps of words for profit.

But, 'this forum' is 'selling' 'your words' for ABSOLUTELY FREE, thus FOR NO 'profit' AT ALL. So, if this one little CLAIM of yours, here, is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

you REALLY HAVE NOT YET GRASP HOW TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things' AS 'they' Truly ARE. NOR have you YET GAINED THE ABILITY OF 'logically reasoning' 'things' OUT, properly, Correctly, nor FULLY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm The only truth that concerns them is profit, not truth.

Even this one little sentence you can NOT get 'grammatically and/or logically correct'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm When I was in diapers, I had my first epiphany, Before I could even speak English, I knew for certain that there was a right way to do anything.

So, what 'language' did you have your, supposed and alleged, 'epiphany' in, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' SEE if you have the ABILITY TO JUST CLARIFY 'this' MOST SIMPLEST OF QUESTIONS, here.

Also, KNOWING that there is A 'right way' to do ANY thing NEVER EVER MEANS that 'that one' can do ANY thing IN THE 'right way'.

Furthermore, KNOWING that there is A 'right way' to do ANY thing NEVER EVER MEANS that there is ONLY ONE 'right way'. Did you have 'this epiphany' AS WELL?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm When I had my only I.Q. test, performed by the state, he said, I could be anything I wanted to be, I had a very high I.Q.

Did you BELIEVE 'that one person'?

Did you QUESTION 'that person', OR did you just take 'them' ON 'their word/s', ALONE?

Also, can 'you' ALSO be A 'person' who STARTS their OWN 'forum' NOT FOR 'profit'? After all 'you' are TELLING 'us' that you were TOLD that 'you' could be ANY thing that 'you' wanted to be.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm Then, well past puberty, I was introduced to something not human who in short, told me to go for it, but I never thought I could.

ONCE AGAIN, you have SAID and WRITTEN ANOTHER sentence that I can NOT MAKE OUT, WITHOUT GAINING CLARITY, FROM you.

What IS 'the thing', which you were introduced to, at some time, EXACTLY?

AND, what are the words, 'not human who in short', REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

AND, what is 'the thing', that you were told, 'to go for', but which you NEVER EVER thought you could, EXACTLY?

Are you AT LEAST just ABLE TO CLARIFY this one little sentence of yours, here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 11:07 pm But, I now know, I can.

That may well be great, but what you are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, does ANY one ELSE KNOW?