A Philosophy of Mind

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:34 pm

Socrates believed because every one had better be ruled by divine wisdom dwelling within ; or, if this be impossible, then by an external authority in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:52 pm

Philosophy of Mind the chief aim here is to carry on an argument not one that falls into verbal opposition but in the love of knowledge.

This entails thinking about things just for the sake of knowledge called pure speculative thinking that which has the power of elevating mind to the highest principles of being.

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:43 pm

The pathway to knowledge is love of truth, it embraces nothing less than the entire system of consciousness. The realm of knowledge is set forth in the virtue of consciousness.

I have been rapted with true being my mind ever directed towards things everlasting, which I see neither injuring nor injured by another, but all in order moving according to thinking logically; these I imitate and to these I will, as far as I can, conform myself to. Can anyone help imitating that with which is held respectful converse?

There are those who will agree with me and will take my words as a revelation; and others to whom they will take my words as be utterly unmeaning, and deem them to be idle tales, for they see no sort of profit which is to be obtained from them.

My writing is not a matter of clever turns nor allusive phrases, or half utterances but knowledge, which consists in open, definite, meaningful, and purposeful origin.

Arising of Philo · Post by **Arising of Philo** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:15 am

Barbara Brooks wrote:This is philosophy I have never said these are my thoughts. I am just trying to figure philosophy out, for myself and anyone else on the same road that wants to read it.

People read it and come to the conclusion that you are bonkers.
Not one educated soul, on this forum ,believes that you make sense.
Stop playing at being a female Hegel or Plato ; it is pathetic.

Get hold of Schopenhauer's essays and read and learn and then come here and openly reflect in coherent language what it means to you.

Give up the ridiculous babble.

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:34 am

Now I understand your anger. Schopenhauer expressed his dislike for the philosophy of his contemporary Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel many times in his published works.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:37 am

Babbling Brooks wrote:...I would have written it as "The problem is that you have no tune of your own" but then I am not an expert on writing like Hegel.

So would I if I'd not just shared the best part of a bottle of bourbon. Did I claim anywhere that I'm an 'expert' on Hegel? I'm just stating a fact. BB thinks she is explicating her understanding of Hegel. You apparently are doing your version of Schopenhauer.

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:03 pm

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: In Schopenhauer's essay "Of Women" ("Über die Weiber"), he expressed his opposition to what he called "Teutonico-Christian stupidity" on female affairs. He claimed that "woman is by nature meant to obey", and opposed Schiller's poem in honor of women, "Würde der Frauen" ("Concerning the Ladies"). The essay does give two compliments, however: that "women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than [men] are" and are more sympathetic to the suffering of others. However, the latter was discounted as weakness rather than humanitarian virtue.

Schopenhauer's hostility to women may tell us more about his biography than about philosophy, his biological analysis of the difference between the sexes, and their separate roles in the struggle for survival and reproduction, anticipates some of the claims that were later ventured by sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists in the twentieth century.

Whereas Rene Descartes, 1596-1650 believed good among people is the most equally distributed; the power of judging right and from error is reason is by nature equal in all; and that the variety of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely conducting our thoughts along different ways.

He believed to be possessed of a dynamic mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest brilliance, are open likewise to the greatest peculiarity; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who while they run, forsake it.

The labor of love is a chain that keeps philosophers in bondage but they succeed in attaining and finding reason. This is a twofold process; one is the slave the other the master they are solely a unity as unconditional sacrifice and labor of love. Master and slave are equally in themselves truth.

Arising of Philo · Post by **Arising of Philo** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:39 am

Barbara Brooks wrote:

The labor of love is a chain that keeps philosophers in bondage but they succeed in attaining and finding reason. This is a twofold process; one is the slave the other the master they are solely a unity as unconditional sacrifice and labor of love. Master and slave are equally in themselves truth.

A completely meaningless and pointless paragraph hammered on to a cut and past form Wiki.
Is this what your life amounts to ?

Arising of Philo · Post by **Arising of Philo** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:43 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Babbling Brooks wrote:...I would have written it as "The problem is that you have no tune of your own" but then I am not an expert on writing like Hegel.
So would I if I'd not just shared the best part of a bottle of bourbon. Did I claim anywhere that I'm an 'expert' on Hegel? I'm just stating a fact. BB thinks she is explicating her understanding of Hegel. You apparently are doing your version of Schopenhauer.

A bottle of cider you mean. Acquired from a tramp in the park.
You still have not answered the question on the volte face episode
telling the woman she is a nutter then persuading, god knows who,that she is a Helgelian genius.
You are a fucking twat and the reason this fruitloop is banging on total bullshit all her life.
After reading this shit and your shit i need three bottles of bourbon.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:54 am

Maybe beer goggles would improve your sight.

Nowhere have I said BB's a 'nutter', thats you 'getting in the way', nor have I said she's a Hegelian 'genius', just that this is who she is influenced by. In the same way that I think you've been influenced by Schopenhauer.

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:17 am

Hegel believed men are human and women are divine.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:49 am

And thats useful how BB?

Barbara Brooks · Post by **Barbara Brooks** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:15 pm

It is useful to me because judging from history seldom were women appreciated their virtues always attached to a man's success. Look at Galvani it was really his wife who came up with the Galvani Process, which is the subject matter of particular behavior of the body, and its altered process.

The galvanic process is a state of tension towards, water, combined with air, makes metals capable of real action by the generation of air and water, this process is the essential, to the life of all animals. Through water and air metal develops a state of tension, which is hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.

When Mrs. Galvani died, critics realized she was who had the knowledge.

ponziq · Post by **ponziq** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:30 pm

Barbara Brooks wrote:Hegel believed men are human and women are divine.

No Hegel did not! This is a common English mistranslation from the original German. What Hegel really said was

Hegel wrote:I Hegel believe that men and women are bovine.

To me, this just sounds weird. I assume in Hegel's philosophy there is something that makes this statement not absurd. But I am no expert of Herr Hegel, so I don't know.

For anyone out there who knows about Hegel: Is there something in the philosophy of Hegel that makes the equating of humans (of either gender) and cows sensible? To me it sounds like so much philosophical crazy talk!

ponziq · Post by **ponziq** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:37 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
ponziq wrote:Me, ponziq, never heard of enemas? This is slander a_uk! Slander!!!
Fair enough so you agree that anal sex may not 'smell'?

I suppose if you want to go through hours of preparation for the anal penetration then it might not smell. But, really, why bother? Put up with the stink or do something else. Life's too short to waste hours fiddling around with stinky enemas.

Arising_uk wrote:
ponziq wrote:The heterosexual men you had sex with might not be as heterosexual as you think. I mean there they are inserting their peepees in another man's dirty dirty anoose saying how they are heterosexual and love the smell of poo. Something doesn't make sense.
Not really, as the only 'hetrosexual' males that I've met who think this way are those whose 'sexuality' is based upon denying what they do. Hence they are generally those who do not take any hygenic precautions in their actions.
a_uk

Pee-Yu*, this conversation stinks.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That heterosexual men are dirty and are all really just denying their homo tendencies? Is this correct? All you gays do is stereotype and stereotype!

* - This is not to be confused with the current head of the Communist Party of The People's Republic of China

Philosophy Now Forum

A Philosophy of Mind

Hegel and, Our Friends, The Cows

Re: Philosophy of Mind and Feces