Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:03 pm PG,

You insist folks have to read the text 'as is' to get it; others want a synopsis of sorts to help them decide if they wanna invest time readin' the text.

Obviously, you know the text frontwards and backwards, yeah? Why not write up the equivalent of a wikipedia entry? You might go five or ten or fifteen pages. Certainly such a treatment could convey the gist of your dad's ideas (not fully, but as a preview). Such a synopsis would satisfy the investment-reluctant and allow you move forward in promoting the work.

I have compiled 7 of the author's books. It has taken me a long time to do this. I am constantly asked to do more and more and more to satisfy those who don't want to read 3 chapters. This is insane henry. As I said, if you want more from me than what I can give, DO NOT READ! It's as simple as that.

Okay.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:06 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:04 pm Why are you people so arrogant? I am taken aback by the foolhardy comments that presuppose the author is guilty of something. Hey, pitch in and I will gladly market the hell out of this book.

See henry's comment above.

You approach to selling this is all-or-nothing.

I need to buy the book (pay money), read the book (spend time) to decide if it is worth my while.

I asked you for the elevator pitch. Sell me this book!

Hint: by calling me arrogant you are going in the wrong direction.

I can't help it. People are coming off arrogant by their comments. I am not a saint. I'm human and I can't help but call people out on what I see. I understand the skepticism but you can't let skepticism alone get in the way of a work that may offer something of value. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:06 pm if you want more from me than what I can give, DO NOT READ! It's as simple as that.

I guess you aren't on a commission...

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:09 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:06 pm if you want more from me than what I can give, DO NOT READ! It's as simple as that.

I guess you aren't on a commission...

I understand that you are suspicious of someone making these claims, and no one wants to be a sucker. I really do get it, but should that stop people from seeing what this is about, and then coming to a conclusion? I need open-minded people who will study this work without giving me all kinds of excuses as to why they can't read 100 pages. The resistance is so strong I don't know whether my efforts will be fruitful.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:59 pm
You are doing the same thing everybody else is doing. You are jumping to a premature conclusion because you are using yourself as someone who knows more than the author. You are turning into a mini god that knows there is nothing that can be done to make our world better. It's a huge stumbling block for the author.

Yes, I am jumping into conclusions, no doubt about it, but those conclusions are pretty solid, not premature. If they are wrong, you have to prove that.

The author stated that crime and wars will stop because he can eliminate hatred and evil. I said hatred and evil are not the cause of crime and wars. You come back to me and say I am wrong.

I am not wrong. Again, we have to take your word for it? I proved in a logical way, not through some divine insight, that the author's approach is wrong. You can't say I am wrong unless you prove it. You have not proved me wrong, only with a vague promise that is in the book.

We are back at square one: you are selling a cat in a bag.

Man up, peacegirl. You are not logical, you are not selling, you are just parroting your insistence that the book has the psychological discovery and the holy grail of everlasting peace and crimelessness in the entire world.

That's something I can't believe, given the promise in the sales blurb by Amazon.

Face it, Peacegirl: Your father has tried to peddle his book for forty years. All kinds of publishers turned him down. Famous scientists did not write back to him with an opinion. You say I am "doing the same thing everybody else is doing." That is, take the promises made on your father's book with disbelief and rejection on the case of publishers and other authors. But others are doing more, such as publishers and famous writers and scientists: they read the book, and never wrote back to your father or to you. This also means something, I am sure.

Time to smell the roses. If the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD IS SAYING THE SAME TO YOU, THAT IS, YOUR FATHER'S BOOK IS EITHER CRAP OR YOU HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB AT SELLING IT, then there is, maybe, just a chance, that WE are right, the entire world, and YOU are wrong, alone against the entire world?

You can't come back to this, saying I haven't read the book. Because there WERE OTHERS who read the book and never said a word to you after that, perhaps out of tact.

I don't know why you are doing this to yourself.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:59 pm No, this does not say much. I've already explained what this knowledge can do, but people aren't satisfied.

No, you haven't explained. You simply claimed, without an explanation.

Had you supplied an explanation, this entire thread would have been different.

That's a nice chunk of time you're askin' folks to hand over: you see this, yeah?

On the other hand: a fifteen page treatment is not so big a deal.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:59 pm

I' wrote:Wars are started out of unsettled diplomatic negotiations. Mostly about resources that are scarce and not available freely to all who need it or want it. Most wars have nothing to do with hate, but with greed and with dire supplies for survival.

Take away the word 'hate'. You are correct that people hurt others because they are often in a dire situation, and the only solution is to hurt others as the lesser of two evils. Stop acting like you know what the author has discovered, and take the time to understand his words, otherwise, this is a waste of time.

What do you mean, "take away the word 'hate'?" It's in there. It's an integral part of the description of the promise given by the psychological discovery your father made. Why take away the word "hate"? I suspect your only reason is to defend yourself against my argument, which is hinged precisely on that word.

The word is there. You can't take it out now. It is an integral part of the promise by your father. You can't do without it. If you take it out, then you collapse the entire thesis of your father.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Leave the word "hate" in there, and the promise is nullified; take out the word "hate" and the promise is collapsed.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:54 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:59 pm
You are doing the same thing everybody else is doing. You are jumping to a premature conclusion because you are using yourself as someone who knows more than the author. You are turning into a mini god that knows there is nothing that can be done to make our world better. It's a huge stumbling block for the author.

Yes, I am jumping into conclusions, no doubt about it, but those conclusions are pretty solid, not premature. If they are wrong, you have to prove that.

Those conclusions are pretty solid, really? The author proved that man's will is not free and from this he also proved how the extension of this knowledge, along with the corollary, leads to world peace.

I wrote:The author stated that crime and wars will stop because he can eliminate hatred and evil. I said hatred and evil are not the cause of crime and wars. You come back to me and say I am wrong.

I am not wrong. Again, we have to take your word for it?

I did not say you're wrong regarding other reasons than hatred for the cause of crime and wars. I am using the term "evil" to mean the things we wish we could rid the world of such as war and crime.

I wrote: I proved in a logical way, not through some divine insight, that the author's approach is wrong. You can't say I am wrong unless you prove it. You have not proved me wrong, only with a vague promise that is in the book.

I did not say that hatred is the only motive for the evil (i.e., the hurt) that is plaguing mankind.

I wrote:We are back at square one: you are selling a cat in a bag.

Man up, peacegirl. You are not logical, you are not selling, you are just parroting your insistence that the book has the psychological discovery and the holy grail of everlasting peace and crimelessness in the entire world.

That's something I can't believe, given the promise in the sales blurb by Amazon.

Face it, Peacegirl: Your father has tried to peddle his book for forty years. All kinds of publishers turned him down.

He peddled nothing so please stop using that term. Conventional publishers turned him down because they didn't think there would be enough interest considering he was an unknown, and the type of material they would be financing, not that there was anything wrong with the book. Do you see what you're doing?

Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo
will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions
on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they
are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument
necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to
reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially
non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to
subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have
devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such
tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery.

Any contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting
from the different perspective of those outside the field in question,
is lost to the community. In its most extreme form scientific
tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is
perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that
are the object of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel
themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in
adopting any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the
community who profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded
as untouchable.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo
reaction is that it tends to have a cumulative and permanent
discriminatory effect: any idea that is ideologically suspect or counter
to the current paradigm is permanently dismissed, and the very fact
of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on all future occasions.
It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea
of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he
in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first place? This
‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the
intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes
more and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no
possibility of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or
hundreds or thousands of important discoveries were thrown in the
scrap heap merely because of intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment

I wrote:Famous scientists did not write back to him with an opinion.

Will Durant talked to him by phone.

I wrote:You say I am "doing the same thing everybody else is doing." That is, take the promises made on your father's book with disbelief and rejection on the case of publishers and other authors. But others are doing more, such as publishers and famous writers and scientists: they read the book, and never wrote back to your father or to you. This also means something, I am sure.

This book has never been widely distributed, nor has it been thoroughly investigated by anyone, let alone famous writers and scientists. I wish I could get hold of Sam Harris, or Derk Pereboom. There's so much reading material out there that it's difficult to decipher the genuine from the fake.

I wrote:Time to smell the roses. If the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD IS SAYING THE SAME TO YOU, THAT IS, YOUR FATHER'S BOOK IS EITHER CRAP OR YOU HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB AT SELLING IT, then there is, maybe, just a chance, that WE are right, the entire world, and YOU are wrong, alone against the entire world?

You can't come back to this, saying I haven't read the book. Because there WERE OTHERS who read the book and never said a word to you after that, perhaps out of tact.

Please speak for yourself, not for others. You are talking from ignorance. Remember this: "Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it."
(LeoTolstoy)

I wrote:I don't know why you are doing this to yourself.

Amazing!

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:59 pm

I' wrote:Wars are started out of unsettled diplomatic negotiations. Mostly about resources that are scarce and not available freely to all who need it or want it. Most wars have nothing to do with hate, but with greed and with dire supplies for survival.

Take away the word 'hate'. You are correct that people hurt others because they are often in a dire situation, and the only solution is to hurt others as the lesser of two evils. Stop acting like you know what the author has discovered, and take the time to understand his words, otherwise, this is a waste of time.

I wrote:What do you mean, "take away the word 'hate'?" It's in there. It's an integral part of the description of the promise given by the psychological discovery your father made. Why take away the word "hate"? I suspect your only reason is to defend yourself against my argument, which is hinged precisely on that word. The word is there. You can't take it out now. It is an integral part of the promise by your father. You can't do without it. If you take it out, then you collapse the entire thesis of your father.

Most situations that are dire (such as economic insecurity, the need for resources, etc.) turn people against each other.
I call that hate. You can call it something else. You are nitpicking. It doesn't matter what word you use. There is an undercurrent of distrust, fear, and even rage in many parts of the world due to lack of basic necessities.

I wrote:"Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Leave the word "hate" in there, and the promise is nullified; take out the word "hate" and the promise is collapsed.

This word has nothing whatsoever to do with the nullification of the principles involved. The word does not change the basic concept which is irrefutable, if understood.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:02 pm That's a nice chunk of time you're askin' folks to hand over: you see this, yeah?

On the other hand: a fifteen page treatment is not so big a deal.

To meet you halfway, begin reading from page 45-60. That's 15 pages, exactly what you asked for. You can skip the whole introduction. It will give you an understanding of why man's will is not free. If you have questions at that point, I can try to answer them. If you then feel like continuing, I will give you another 15 pages to read, so it doesn't feel overwhelming.

Amazon sells self-published books.

Peacegirl wrote:

Those conclusions are pretty solid, really? The author proved that man's will is not free and from this he also proved how the extension of this knowledge, along with the corollary, leads to world peace.

I agree with the Determinist claim and its corollary, but not that this knowledge leads in practice to world peace. Many people 'know' that the claim is correct,have known it for centuries, and there is no world peace.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:32 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:54 pm
Yes, I am jumping into conclusions, no doubt about it, but those conclusions are pretty solid, not premature. If they are wrong, you have to prove that.

Those conclusions are pretty solid, really? The author proved that man's will is not free and from this he also proved how the extension of this knowledge, along with the corollary, leads to world peace.

Okay, you are not even aware you are getting back to square one? "The author proved..."
Where is the proof? In the book of course! (...Brach schoma kultur yechoma dochei...)
-------------------
I am not going to write the third time why my conclusions, based on reality of crime and war, and based on claims by the blurb, are right.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:50 pm Amazon sells self-published books.

Peacegirl wrote:

Those conclusions are pretty solid, really? The author proved that man's will is not free and from this he also proved how the extension of this knowledge, along with the corollary, leads to world peace.

I agree with the Determinist claim and its corollary, but not that this knowledge leads in practice to world peace. Many people 'know' that the claim is correct,have known it for centuries, and there is no world peace.

The author made it very clear that the knowledge of determinism is NOT the discovery. It is the gateway to the discovery.
There is no world peace because the issue of moral responsibility has not been resolved.