Philosophy Now Forum

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:06 pm

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

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

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".

So what you’re saying is that if I don’t adhere to these criticisms, I’m not brave? I’m very brave to deal with so many naysayers. Back to reification. Show me where “will” could be made clearer that was overlooked?

Reification is a big word for thingification. To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm

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".

She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

Why do you keep making stuff up that this was sub-Hubbard writings or scientology. Why are you purposely misleading people? Interestingly, he mentioned Dianetics, which is part of Scientology in this excerpt as not being proven.

The very fact that the educational system passed everybody along from grade to grade and was responsible for innumerable fallacious standards that justified the existence of ignorance, which passed for knowledge, it was assumed that when a certain grade was reached, you were more educated than a person who didn’t go as far as you. By accepting the belief that this external value called education was also a part of the real world, you would hear one boy say, “I am more educated than both of you because I finished college.” This formal system of learning allowed each child to measure his education, and when the top grade was reached, he felt very proud of himself. It gave him a false notion of his superiority by implying that when he reached this level of education, he was now the most educated and intelligent of all. As a consequence of this external value, everyone was treated with greater respect the more of it they acquired. Down the line this stratification went, making the student who only went to grade school feel very inferior to the intellectuals who finished college. But alas, when it comes to mathematical relations, the average college student tries to remember a formula, not realizing that the answer doesn’t lie in the method but in the ability to perceive the relations. A high school graduate recently told me that his best subject was algebra and that he was terrific at it because his teacher told him so. After finding that he was incapable of solving two problems I gave him, he excused himself by saying, “I think that’s college algebra.” If someone drops out of high school, he is not as educated as the individual who graduates, nor is the high school graduate as educated as someone who completed college who is less educated than a professor who is less educated than a Ph.D. We all know that certain diplomas exact the title of doctor, which requires that these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them, and someone who never learned to read or write is made to feel as if he is an absolute nonentity. It is difficult for him to hold up his head in the presence of these educated giants. These professors and Ph.D.s. were like gods among mankind, and from their height of success, they not only looked down with patronizing disdain but exacted from everybody a formal degree of respect by demanding that they be called ‘Dr.’ This word, when analyzed, means, “I have more knowledge than anybody who has not attained the same height as myself.”

From this source began the complete development of our unconscious ignorance because this misplaced pride in their achievement, which was necessary in the world of free will, permitted them to pass along from generation to generation theories and opinions that were accepted as facts only because they were the professors, the cream of the crop, which justified anything they wished to teach. It was considered a sign of disrespect to disagree with people of such high rank and education. The doctors of philosophy and those with additional titles say, “We are more educated than all of you put together.” Many philosophers, in trying to be educated, have taken a simple truth that could have been explained in very few words and then made a profound book out of it, which nobody understood, all because they judged the value of the book by the quantity of big words and how difficult of being grasped. How many poets, philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists have been accorded fame because they imparted their own meaning and used this as a confirmation of wisdom. To agree with a famous person is an unconscious way of saying, “I am as smart as he is,” only he got a lucky break, or he was able to express himself better. Aristotle stopped the world from thinking for a while because everybody agreed with what he had to say, due to his world renown. Can you imagine what he would say about this book? How many of you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant or less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:24 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:06 pm

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

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".

So what you’re saying is that if I don’t adhere to these criticisms, I’m not brave? I’m very brave to deal with so many naysayers. Back to reification. Show me where “will” could be made clearer that was overlooked?

Reification is a big word for thingification. To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

I'm trying to get the gist of it to see if you think the reason he created a fallacy was because he used the term "law of nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:50 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm

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".

She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

Why do you keep making stuff up that this was sub-Hubbard writings or scientology. Why are you purposely misleading people? Interestingly, he mentioned Dianetics, which is part of Scientology in this excerpt as not being proven.

The very fact that the educational system passed everybody along from grade to grade and was responsible for innumerable fallacious standards that justified the existence of ignorance, which passed for knowledge, it was assumed that when a certain grade was reached, you were more educated than a person who didn’t go as far as you. By accepting the belief that this external value called education was also a part of the real world, you would hear one boy say, “I am more educated than both of you because I finished college.” This formal system of learning allowed each child to measure his education, and when the top grade was reached, he felt very proud of himself. It gave him a false notion of his superiority by implying that when he reached this level of education, he was now the most educated and intelligent of all. As a consequence of this external value, everyone was treated with greater respect the more of it they acquired. Down the line this stratification went, making the student who only went to grade school feel very inferior to the intellectuals who finished college. But alas, when it comes to mathematical relations, the average college student tries to remember a formula, not realizing that the answer doesn’t lie in the method but in the ability to perceive the relations. A high school graduate recently told me that his best subject was algebra and that he was terrific at it because his teacher told him so. After finding that he was incapable of solving two problems I gave him, he excused himself by saying, “I think that’s college algebra.” If someone drops out of high school, he is not as educated as the individual who graduates, nor is the high school graduate as educated as someone who completed college who is less educated than a professor who is less educated than a Ph.D. We all know that certain diplomas exact the title of doctor, which requires that these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them, and someone who never learned to read or write is made to feel as if he is an absolute nonentity. It is difficult for him to hold up his head in the presence of these educated giants. These professors and Ph.D.s. were like gods among mankind, and from their height of success, they not only looked down with patronizing disdain but exacted from everybody a formal degree of respect by demanding that they be called ‘Dr.’ This word, when analyzed, means, “I have more knowledge than anybody who has not attained the same height as myself.”

From this source began the complete development of our unconscious ignorance because this misplaced pride in their achievement, which was necessary in the world of free will, permitted them to pass along from generation to generation theories and opinions that were accepted as facts only because they were the professors, the cream of the crop, which justified anything they wished to teach. It was considered a sign of disrespect to disagree with people of such high rank and education. The doctors of philosophy and those with additional titles say, “We are more educated than all of you put together.” Many philosophers, in trying to be educated, have taken a simple truth that could have been explained in very few words and then made a profound book out of it, which nobody understood, all because they judged the value of the book by the quantity of big words and how difficult of being grasped. How many poets, philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists have been accorded fame because they imparted their own meaning and used this as a confirmation of wisdom. To agree with a famous person is an unconscious way of saying, “I am as smart as he is,” only he got a lucky break, or he was able to express himself better. Aristotle stopped the world from thinking for a while because everybody agreed with what he had to say, due to his world renown. Can you imagine what he would say about this book? How many of you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant or less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

He really did have a chip on his shoulder about leaving school at 14 and people not thinking he was well educated didn't he? It's strange to look at that passage and then look at his over wordy prose that radiates his insecurities in that area while he complains, with no sign of self-awareness, of philosophers using too many words to convey simple ideas.

I never said he was a disciple of Hubbard, I always described what you're selling as a third rate Scientology alternative, so his comments on Dianetics fit perfectly well with my expectations.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 5:04 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:50 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm
She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

Why do you keep making stuff up that this was sub-Hubbard writings or scientology? Why are you purposely misleading people? Interestingly, he mentioned Dianetics, which is part of Scientology in this excerpt as not being proven.

The very fact that the educational system passed everybody along from grade to grade and was responsible for innumerable fallacious standards that justified the existence of ignorance, which passed for knowledge, it was assumed that when a certain grade was reached, you were more educated than a person who didn’t go as far as you. By accepting the belief that this external value called education was also a part of the real world, you would hear one boy say, “I am more educated than both of you because I finished college.” This formal system of learning allowed each child to measure his education, and when the top grade was reached, he felt very proud of himself. It gave him a false notion of his superiority by implying that when he reached this level of education, he was now the most educated and intelligent of all. As a consequence of this external value, everyone was treated with greater respect the more of it they acquired. Down the line this stratification went, making the student who only went to grade school feel very inferior to the intellectuals who finished college. But alas, when it comes to mathematical relations, the average college student tries to remember a formula, not realizing that the answer doesn’t lie in the method but in the ability to perceive the relations. A high school graduate recently told me that his best subject was algebra and that he was terrific at it because his teacher told him so. After finding that he was incapable of solving two problems I gave him, he excused himself by saying, “I think that’s college algebra.” If someone drops out of high school, he is not as educated as the individual who graduates, nor is the high school graduate as educated as someone who completed college who is less educated than a professor who is less educated than a Ph.D. We all know that certain diplomas exact the title of doctor, which requires that these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them, and someone who never learned to read or write is made to feel as if he is an absolute nonentity. It is difficult for him to hold up his head in the presence of these educated giants. These professors and Ph.D.s. were like gods among mankind, and from their height of success, they not only looked down with patronizing disdain but exacted from everybody a formal degree of respect by demanding that they be called ‘Dr.’ This word, when analyzed, means, “I have more knowledge than anybody who has not attained the same height as myself.”

From this source began the complete development of our unconscious ignorance because this misplaced pride in their achievement, which was necessary in the world of free will, permitted them to pass along from generation to generation theories and opinions that were accepted as facts only because they were the professors, the cream of the crop, which justified anything they wished to teach. It was considered a sign of disrespect to disagree with people of such high rank and education. The doctors of philosophy and those with additional titles say, “We are more educated than all of you put together.” Many philosophers, in trying to be educated, have taken a simple truth that could have been explained in very few words and then made a profound book out of it, which nobody understood, all because they judged the value of the book by the quantity of big words and how difficult of being grasped. How many poets, philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists have been accorded fame because they imparted their own meaning and used this as a confirmation of wisdom. To agree with a famous person is an unconscious way of saying, “I am as smart as he is,” only he got a lucky break, or he was able to express himself better. Aristotle stopped the world from thinking for a while because everybody agreed with what he had to say, due to his world renown. Can you imagine what he would say about this book? How many of you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant or less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

He really did have a chip on his shoulder about leaving school at 14 and people not thinking he was well educated didn't he?

His leaving school had nothing to do why the word "education" loses all meaning when this word can't even be defined. No one said he was not educated except when he was asking a student a math question after the student laughed that he only went to 7th grade and went to his professor to show Lessans up, but he also couldn't answer it. He was making a point that knowledge can be wrapped in different packages but still have value.

All of us have different capacities but we are an intelligent race. We don’t know everything which means we are ignorant of many things, but the words “unconscious ignorance” only refer to those who don’t know but think they know. As a result of believing that only certain people are intelligent, we have developed words like “stupid,” “dumb,” “unintelligent,” and so forth, which words sit in judgment of half the human race as an inferior production. As for the word “educated,” it is important to remember that we begin acquiring an education from the day we are born. Believing that we are not educated unless we choose to move in a direction that gives others greater satisfaction judges us to be inferior people. This is why a high school graduate puts down a high school dropout, why a college graduate considers that he has a superior education to one who never went to college, and why professors and Ph.D.s look down on everybody who, in their eyes, didn’t accomplish scholastically what they did. But when the word “educated” is removed from our vocabulary because every human being acquires an education from the time of his birth, but only in a direction of his own choosing, then nobody is put down by what he chooses to do with his time. What he chooses to study or not to study will be his particular education.

All mankind becomes perfectly equal in intrinsic value. God is giving us no choice but to move in this direction for greater satisfaction the very moment we know that to continue using these words is a hurt that not only cannot be justified but for which there will be no blame. Can’t you see now why the leaders of the establishment must react against this work when they realize that they are not a superior production of the human race? Don’t you think Miss America will find it difficult to believe that she is not more beautiful than the Wicked Witch? Can a professor believe that he is not more educated than someone who never completed the 7th grade? Can a professor believe that he is not more intelligent than someone who can’t understand why 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8? These people in our present world are judged superior human beings only because of words, nothing else. They are not and never have been superior human beings because all of us are perfectly equal in intrinsic value, although most of us have different physical and intellectual capacities. Because of these words, half the human race was treated with disrespect, but now, for the very first time, all of us deserve and will be treated with respect which heretofore has been denied.

FlashDangerpants wrote:It's strange to look at that passage and then look at his over wordy prose that radiates his insecurities in that area while he complains, with no sign of self-awareness, of philosophers using too many words to convey simple ideas.

So now you are his psychoanalyst? He was the most secure, self-aware yet humble person you would ever meet. You are grasping at anything you can to put him down when he was nothing like the way you're portraying him. I took a chance with this excerpt because I know he mentioned "Dianetics." He explains why words like "educated" have no meaning. You won't get this until you understand Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality, and then read Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education, if you ever care to.

Although you look back with smiling incredulity to the days of yore and wonder about the many ignorant beliefs that our ancestors used to imagine were true, is it possible for your professors to believe that they are not any more educated or intelligent than anybody else? As a further consequence of these fallacious differences that do not exist in reality but are only a projection of deceptive relations, they have been led to believe that they are more important than someone else, more valuable in the scheme of things, and from this source a host of evils stem. Do they have any conception that these are only words? In reality, no one is more intelligent or educated than anyone else, as you will soon understand. There are many more words that will go by the wayside, such as brilliant, genius, a brain, etc., because they do not accurately describe reality for what it is (and will be discussed in the chapter on education). It is absolutely true that just as long as others judge you as more beautiful or valuable when your physiognomy conforms to an accepted standard, or more educated or valuable when you learn or do certain things, there is ample justification to change yourself to suit them, which is the reason many people have nose operations, squeeze their teeth together, develop a huge vocabulary, walk, talk, and act in definite ways. The individuals who are considered educated, intelligent, or beautiful may not like to be told that they are none of these things, but there is a big difference between the people considered to possess these values and the ones who do not. It is difficult to contemplate the extent to which we have all been influenced by words that judge half of the human race as inferior, and the consequent pain this has caused.

At long last we will be able to know ourselves for who we really are. If any reader starts out with a feeling of superiority or inferiority, I will guarantee that when he understands all the principles — and he will — he will end up feeling exactly equal in value with every person alive… no better or worse. We must remember that mankind has been developing at a mathematical rate and had to go through the necessary stages of development in order to reach this stage of maturity. Man has been consciously unconscious of the reason for doing things because of words, nothing else. Psychologists, theologians, philosophers, as well as all others who read books but do not know the difference between mathematical and logical relations, think that by learning a lot of words in various combinations, they have been studying reality. But when we realize that everything had to develop exactly the way it did, we are comforted in the knowledge that just as these words came into existence for various reasons, they will soon depart. I don’t believe it is possible for me to clarify this more than it is already in the text itself. However, I suggest this chapter be read and listened to several times just in case you haven’t completely understood it. As a result of this knowledge, I have completely stopped using these words. It may be difficult for you to stop because they are used to compliment, flatter, and raise ourselves by downing others. When you refer to someone as bad looking, it is equivalent to saying, “I am better looking,” and most people use everything they can to elevate their opinion of themselves in this cruel world of words. However, you will soon see that all these words must come to an end out of absolute necessity.

FlashDangerpants wrote:I never said he was a disciple of Hubbard, I always described what you're selling as a third rate Scientology alternative, so his comments on Dianetics fit perfectly well with my expectations.

I know you didn't say he was a disciple of Hubbard. You were comparing this work to Scientology as an inferior work by calling it third rate, which is a joke.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:24 pm Reification is a big word for thingification.

Reification is when we turn an abstract thing into a concrete thing.

To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

Will can totally be seen as a thing. It's an important part of our psychology. Will, willpower. Some people have stronger wills, others have weaker wills.

Half the first chapter of that book is just some guy complaining because nobody takes him seriously because he didn't graduate school. The excerpt above is just the same guy whining that "these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them" ... but apparently peacegirl can't see the chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps it's easier for us to recognise because we've seen the same complaining from Hobnob7 and Vagina Aquarium among others. Or perhaps she refuses to see it because that would be bad for her financial interests.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 5:35 pm Half the first chapter of that book is just some guy complaining because nobody takes him seriously because he didn't graduate school. The excerpt above is just the same guy whining that "these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them" ... but apparently peacegirl can't see the chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps it's easier for us to recognise because we've seen the same complaining from Hobnob7 and Vagina Aquarium among others. Or perhaps she refuses to see it because that would be bad for her financial interests.

To be fair to PG and her father:

I worked in software development for more than 25 years with those having only technical school training through associates, bachelors, masters and doctorate. In that time, I worked in many different development groups within several different industries. In my experience, critical thinking skills and conceptual thinking do not necessarily get better with getting additional formal academic training. An individual either develops them or they don't. In that regard, there's a lot of overlap between those categories. For example, one the best developers I worked with only had technical school training. He could quickly gain a deep understanding, no matter how complex the problem domain. There were many with much more additional formal academic training who couldn't hold a candle to him.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 5:35 pm Half the first chapter of that book is just some guy complaining because nobody takes him seriously because he didn't graduate school. The excerpt above is just the same guy whining that "these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them" ... but apparently peacegirl can't see the chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps it's easier for us to recognise because we've seen the same complaining from Hobnob7 and Vagina Aquarium among others. Or perhaps she refuses to see it because that would be bad for her financial interests.

No, he had no chip on his shoulder. None. He was just an amazing thinker and saw how certain words don't symbolize anything real yet have hurt so many people because of this false stratification of importance based on WORDS ONLY. You are failing to understand why the word "education" has no real meaning. You can see this when you ask anyone what is the meaning of the word. Everybody has a different meaning, which is proof that it doesn't apply to anything concrete. I'm a little sorry that I posted so much without your understanding Chapter Four. Oh well. Too late.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 6:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 5:35 pm Half the first chapter of that book is just some guy complaining because nobody takes him seriously because he didn't graduate school. The excerpt above is just the same guy whining that "these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them" ... but apparently peacegirl can't see the chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps it's easier for us to recognise because we've seen the same complaining from Hobnob7 and Vagina Aquarium among others. Or perhaps she refuses to see it because that would be bad for her financial interests.

No, he had no chip on his shoulder. None. He was just an amazing thinker and saw how certain words don't symbolize anything real yet have hurt so many people because of this false stratification of importance based on WORDS ONLY. You are failing to understand why the word "education" has no real meaning. You can see this when you ask anyone what is the meaning of the word. Everybody has a different meaning, which is proof that it doesn't apply to anything concrete. I'm a little sorry that I posted so much without your understanding Chapter Four. Oh well. Too late.

He don't want those grapes, they're sour anyway!

There's countless things that nobody can perfectly define, but everybody can recognise, most famously porn and obscenity. Trying to make a big insight out of education being one of them isn't a strong move. But the other chapters were shit, so I am unsurprised Ch4 is bad too.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm

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".

She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

You're so focused on the form of his writing and your love for criticism, that you have not asked one relevant question pertaining to Chapters Two and Three. That forbodes a very poor outcome for this thread, not because the book isn't worthy; but because people are very quick to jump to conclusions which he urged people not to do. Do you think people care to listen? No, which is why we haven't made a bit of progress after all these pages.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:24 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:06 pm

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

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".

So what you’re saying is that if I don’t adhere to these criticisms, I’m not brave? I’m very brave to deal with so many naysayers. Back to reification. Show me where “will” could be made clearer that was overlooked?

Reification is a big word for thingification. To will is actually something that people and other animals do, it's not a thing.

You are brave to do philosophy at all. Philosophy is not easy. I have been doing philosophy of language with you and that is not usually for beginners.

Where did he say "will" was a thing? And where does this relate to conscience and how we judge whether something is okay or not okay to do when it comes to our actions?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 7:59 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm

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".

She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

You're so focused on the form of his writing and your love for criticism, that you have not asked one relevant question pertaining to Chapters Two and Three. That forbodes a very poor outcome for this thread, not because the book isn't worthy; but because people are very quick to jump to conclusions which he urged people not to do. Do you think people care to listen? No, which is why we haven't made a bit of progress after all these pages.

I've asked you multiple questions and you have found ways to persuade yourself that you don't need to answer any of them. This thread was doomed to have poor outcomes on a garbige in garbage out basis.

You've been doing this for at least 20 years and appear to have zero to show for it, but you learn nothing and change nothing. No point blaming me for that.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 6:15 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 6:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 5:35 pm Half the first chapter of that book is just some guy complaining because nobody takes him seriously because he didn't graduate school. The excerpt above is just the same guy whining that "these Ph.D.s look down on us with less respect than is given to them" ... but apparently peacegirl can't see the chip on his shoulder.

Perhaps it's easier for us to recognise because we've seen the same complaining from Hobnob7 and Vagina Aquarium among others. Or perhaps she refuses to see it because that would be bad for her financial interests.

No, he had no chip on his shoulder. None. He was just an amazing thinker and saw how certain words don't symbolize anything real yet have hurt so many people because of this false stratification of importance based on WORDS ONLY. You are failing to understand why the word "education" has no real meaning. You can see this when you ask anyone what is the meaning of the word. Everybody has a different meaning, which is proof that it doesn't apply to anything concrete. I'm a little sorry that I posted so much without your understanding Chapter Four. Oh well. Too late.

He don't want those grapes, they're sour anyway!

There's countless things that nobody can perfectly define, but everybody can recognise, most famously porn and obscenity. Trying to make a big insight out of education being one of them isn't a strong move. But the other chapters were shit, so I am unsurprised Ch4 is bad too.

You're skepticism is so great that you would never approve of this work even if the new world was here. You're not trying to understand; you're just calling his work a story and an empty tautology. How utterly wrong can you be?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 8:14 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 7:59 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:23 pm
She is the compiler of a book of her dad's sub-Hubbard writings with very underwhelming sales. She's here trying to sell that book. That's why she is only active in this one thread.

It does need a significant re-write though. It contains some comically bad writing.

You're so focused on the form of his writing and your love for criticism, that you have not asked one relevant question pertaining to Chapters Two and Three. That forbodes a very poor outcome for this thread, not because the book isn't worthy; but because people are very quick to jump to conclusions which he urged people not to do. Do you think people care to listen? No, which is why we haven't made a bit of progress after all these pages.

I've asked you multiple questions and you have found ways to persuade yourself that you don't need to answer any of them. This thread was doomed to have poor outcomes on a garbige in garbage out basis.

You've been doing this for at least 20 years and appear to have zero to show for it, but you learn nothing and change nothing. No point blaming me for that.

I'm not blaming you but this work has not been promoted or advertised (very few people know about this discovery other than these forums), so how can you use the fact that it's been 20 years against me? It is very unfortunate that you think this some kind of third-rate Scientology when there's no joining anything, no mind control, no force, no authority, no promotions. You are so off it's mindboggling.