Philosophy Now Forum

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 1:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:36 pm Peacegirl lacks the insight of historical perspective . Historical perspective would enable her to contrast and compare the several changes in usage of the word 'will' particularly religious/philosophical usage.

Her problem is not so called 'Free Will' but reification of the word 'will'. I hope my previous post as synthesised by ChatGPT will help her to understand where in the arc of historical meanings she herself stands

Belinda,with all due respect you cannot condemn him when you have no idea what he read or the intelligence he had. You don’t know what you’re talking about!

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 1:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:36 pm Peacegirl lacks the insight of historical perspective . Historical perspective would enable her to contrast and compare the several changes in usage of the word 'will' particularly religious/philosophical usage.

Her problem is not so called 'Free Will' but reification of the word 'will'. I hope my previous post as synthesised by ChatGPT will help her to understand where in the arc of historical meanings she herself stands

Belinda,with all due respect you cannot condemn him when you have no idea what he read or the intelligence he had. You don’t know what you’re talking about!

I 'm talking philosophy of language. I claim that you reify the word 'will' .

Reification is an understandable error. However it is an error.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 12:33 am If anyone would like to read the first three chapters, here it is again. Please make up your own mind. People are quick to follow the loudest but don't be fooled. If you want to buy the book, you'll need to put the author's name in the search bar on Amazon, and the book will show up.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 067439bd66

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:34 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 12:33 am If anyone would like to read the first three chapters, here it is again. Please make up your own mind. People are quick to follow the loudest but don't be fooled. If you want to buy the book, you'll need to put the author's name in the search bar on Amazon, and the book will show up.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 067439bd66

Why do you do what the very first lines of the first paragraph tell you not to do?

Why have you, still, not yet come to know the discovery and knowledge "yourself"?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 10:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:34 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 12:33 am If anyone would like to read the first three chapters, here it is again. Please make up your own mind. People are quick to follow the loudest but don't be fooled. If you want to buy the book, you'll need to put the author's name in the search bar on Amazon, and the book will show up.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 067439bd66

Why do you do what the very first lines of the first paragraph tell you not to do?

Why have you, still, not yet come to know the discovery and knowledge "yourself"?

I’m not sure what you mean.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 1:15 pm

Belinda,with all due respect you cannot condemn him when you have no idea what he read or the intelligence he had. You don’t know what you’re talking about!

I 'm talking philosophy of language. I claim that you reify the word 'will' .

Reification is an understandable error. However it is an error.

Where is the error? More importantly, where does this "error" destroy his claim that we can create a world of peace and brotherhood as a result of this knowledge? I want to express my sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk. These assassinations could be prevented in the future, but people here refuse to listen when they think they're right, and they won't budge. It's their loss.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for — Judgment Day. The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, and all those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change… “I have a dream,” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountaintop, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with hostility towards anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree without revealing a still greater ignorance. If this book was not a mathematical revelation — which scientists will soon confirm — what do you think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and disrupts the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads, and what is being revealed to them is only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to do, without success.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:26 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm
I 'm talking philosophy of language. I claim that you reify the word 'will' .

Reification is an understandable error. However it is an error.

Where is the error? More importantly, where does this "error" destroy his claim that we can create a world of peace and brotherhood as a result of this knowledge? I want to express my sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk. These assassinations could be prevented in the future, but people here refuse to listen when they think they're right, and they won't budge. It's their loss.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for — Judgment Day. The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, and all those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change… “I have a dream,” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountaintop, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with hostility towards anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree without revealing a still greater ignorance. If this book was not a mathematical revelation — which scientists will soon confirm — what do you think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and disrupts the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads, and what is being revealed to them is only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to do, without success.

I am not your tutor. It's high time you informed yourself of the meaning of 'reification' and were able to criticise and edit your own texts.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:59 pm I want to express my sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk. These assassinations could be prevented in the future, but people here refuse to listen when they think they're right, and they won't budge.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:38 pm I 'm talking philosophy of language. I claim that you reify the word 'will' .

Reification is an understandable error. However it is an error.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:26 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:59 pm

Where is the error? More importantly, where does this "error" destroy his claim that we can create a world of peace and brotherhood as a result of this knowledge? I want to express my sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk. These assassinations could be prevented in the future, but people here refuse to listen when they think they're right, and they won't budge. It's their loss.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives. Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but in some manner that confirms what has been looked for — Judgment Day. The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism to relinquish the thought that they are right when they think they are not wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health, for security, and all those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change… “I have a dream,” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountaintop, but no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with hostility towards anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree without revealing a still greater ignorance. If this book was not a mathematical revelation — which scientists will soon confirm — what do you think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it upsets the apple cart and disrupts the status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer. The fact remains that these individuals are trying to solve problems that are very much over their heads, and what is being revealed to them is only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to do, without success.

I am not your tutor. It's high time you informed yourself of the meaning of 'reification' and were able to criticise and edit your own texts.

If you're not my tutor, then don't tutor me. Regardless of where reification (abstract vs concrete) enters into this discussion, it doesn't change the fact that under certain environmental conditions, along with the release of all authority and control, and other important changes, mankind is compelled to move in a different direction for satisfaction. If you're so sure he could have made it clearer, give me an example. I am also the first one to be critical of my own writing and I'm always ready to hear ideas that may clarify things even better. But I'm not rewriting the entire book just because some people want to criticize me for no reason other than it gives them satisfaction to criticize.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:55 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:59 pm I want to express my sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk. These assassinations could be prevented in the future, but people here refuse to listen when they think they're right, and they won't budge.

I see it's basically our fault that he's dead.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:02 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 3:26 pm
I am not your tutor. It's high time you informed yourself of the meaning of 'reification' and were able to criticise and edit your own texts.

If you're not my tutor, then don't tutor me. Regardless of where reification (abstract vs concrete) enters into this discussion, it doesn't change the fact that under certain environmental conditions, along with the release of all authority and control, and other important changes, mankind is compelled to move in a different direction for satisfaction. If you're so sure he could have made it clearer, give me an example. I am also the first one to be critical of my own writing and I'm always ready to hear ideas that may clarify things even better. But I'm not rewriting the entire book just because some people want to criticize me for no reason other than it gives them satisfaction to criticize.

Few love to criticise: most prefer that their ideas align with others' ideas.

I am afraid it's the entire book that needs to be grappled with if you are going to do philosophy. That is why it's better to have a tutor to show your the shortest easiest way to read the "book" of philosophy.
Have around our website here; and you will see several posters bravely trying to "rewrite the whole book".

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:02 pm I am afraid it's the entire book that needs to be grappled with if you are going to do philosophy. That is why it's better to have a tutor to show your the shortest easiest way to read the "book" of philosophy.
Have around our website here; and you will see several posters bravely trying to "rewrite the whole book".