The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

But, HOW did 'you' 'decide' who the so-called "masters" are, exactly? For example, some say 'the master' is a SAGE, or a Spirit, God, Allah, (or) Enlightenment, Itself.

If, and when, 'you' find out WHY 'you' made/make the 'decision/s' that 'you' do, exactly, then 'you' will have discovered 'human behavior' in a much more enlightened or fuller way.

Expressing that there are some so-called 'big thinkers' and some who are not just shows and reveals 'your prejudices' only. It certainly does not show nor prove that there are some so-called 'masters' or cbig thinkers' or not.

Also, finding and uncovering the very 'root' of human behavior' was in fact very revealing, very refreshing, and very rewarding.

As it also led to the Creation of 'the (exact same) world' that all of you human beings Truly wanted and desired, anyway.

Alright, let me clarify how I think about "masters" in the scientific sense. In fields like physics and mathematics, the masters are those whose work is original, foundational, and so solid that no one who understands it can actually disprove it. Take Emmy Noether’s work, for instance. Her theorems linking symmetries in physics to conservation laws are not just compelling or creative ideas—they’re facts of nature that have held up under every test and scrutiny thrown at them since she first presented them. Her insights are so deeply tied to the physical laws that they simply are.

So, it’s not about labeling someone a “master” out of personal bias or preference. It’s about recognizing contributions that fundamentally change how we understand the world—ideas that, once understood, can’t be refuted because they reflect how reality itself behaves. These are the people I look to as “masters” in their fields, those who took us a step closer to understanding the universe in ways that hold up, time and time again.

This perspective grounds me when navigating modern debates because, knowing where the solid ground lies, it’s easier to spot which ideas are built to last and which might crumble under real scrutiny.

[Age]

...but I like to get to the roots.

...as do I, always. But in order to do that it becomes necessary to forgo much of the philosophical sediment and claptrap which obfuscates the reality.
Forgive the interruption; back to the regular channel!

And, do you know the, non obfuscated, 'reality'?

If yes, then how are you so sure that 'your version' of 'reality', itself is not just another 'obfuscated version'?

Where do the so-called masters look to discover the fundamental views which reflect conditions more precisely but in nature and the incorporated realities of the conditions we find ourselves in having created them but which most philosophical commentary and laminations only serve to distort.

But through the once meant version of 'philosophy' 'Reality', Itself, was uncovered, thus found.

[Age]

Forgive the interruption; back to the regular channel!

I think we’re actually seeing eye to eye here. When you get into concepts like determinism and the idea that every event has a cause—well, you’re right. It’s not about just putting old ideas in fresh language; it’s about drilling down to the actual bedrock of reality. The goal isn’t to build on layers of philosophical interpretations but to reach the raw, underlying principles themselves.

When I say I look to the masters, it’s because I’m searching for the unfiltered insights that reflect the natural world as it is.

But, 'searching' for 'unfiltered insights', which reflect the 'natural world', 'through others', is, literally, an oxymoron and a contradiction of term.

It is through 'that body', which 'you', 'the person', inhabit, is WHERE the Truly 'unfiltered' 'natural world' comes through, and is SEEN/OBSERVED/EXPERIENCED.

Only the already obtained False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect views, and thinking, within, is what twists, distorts, blurs, prevents, and/or stops the so-called 'natural world' from being seen, understood, and known for what 'It' Truly is.

And, how to VERIFY 'this', and if a perspective of the 'natural world/Reality', Itself, is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct is through and from how I have explained, previously.

They help cut through the noise, not adding more layers but peeling them back.

So, why would you use others to 'look at' and 'see' what is, literally, clearly before you, anyway?

And, calling some 'masters', and others not, just reveals 'your own already obtained distortions and/or prejudices' of Reality', and if the 'natural world'.

That’s why I stay focused on what’s real, on that chain of cause and effect that shapes everything around us.

But, every one claims that 'they stay focused on what is real', even when 'what is real' to one of you is NOT, to another one of you. For example two people with two completely different and opposite views and perspectives both can, and do, claim that 'they stay focused on what is real'. Yet, obviously, they both cannot be. In fact both could actually be not focusing on 'what is actually real' at all, but they will both claim that 'they are', just like 'you are', here.

It’s not dressed-up philosophy—it’s about uncovering the actual mechanisms at play in human behavior, in the universe, without the “sediment,” as you put it.

Why you human beings had not yet uncovered the underlying cause for all human behavior', and the very reason for all the different types of human behavior is because the very 'thing' is, literally, because if the very 'thing', which is, and was, OVERLOOKED and MISSED

So, no need for forgiveness here. I think these kinds of interruptions are exactly where we get to the good stuff.

And, the 'good stuff' is even far better than is even ring imagined by you human beings

[Age]

it takes a special kind of idiot to not understand where a great deal of the blame for the border crisis lies.

I agree. It's well past tine for the US to stop bein' a buttinsky.

I don't think the mild little term "buttinsky" quite covers the damage America has done (and plans to do) to other societies across the planet.

And the point was, that if America is going to help facilitate,...

"...regime changes, support coups, and back authoritarian regimes to counter left-wing [aka, democratic] movements..."

...which, in turn, has led to,...

"...political instability, economic hardship, and human rights abuses in the affected countries..." - (in South America and the Middle East to name a few)

...then don't you think that America bears responsibility to take-in the innocent men, women, and children whose homelands we've help to make unlivable for them?

Again, it takes a special kind of (blind and heartless) American idiot who whines about needing to block the flood of refugees (by violence if necessary), when it was America's violent foreign policies that helped create the problem to begin with.
_______

Very well expressed "seeds".

[BigMike]

Alright, let’s get into it. You’ve raised some thoughtful questions, and I’ll answer each one as clearly as I can.

First, you ask why I’d “look to others” for insights into the natural world when, as you say, reality can only be truly understood from within. Now, I get your point: we all experience life directly, and our own perceptions are powerful. But here’s where learning from others—especially those who have genuinely broken new ground in understanding reality—can make all the difference. Studying their work isn’t about relying on them blindly; it’s about using their insights to refine and deepen our own. For example, Noether didn’t just give us an opinion; she uncovered a relationship in physics that has been universally validated and remains unchallenged. That’s not adding a layer—that’s peeling one back and seeing the universe a little more clearly.

Second, about calling some people “masters” and others not—your point about potential distortions is fair. And sure, we all come with our perspectives. But in science, there are certain discoveries so profound and well-supported that they provide a kind of baseline for all of us. These insights help cut through noise and bias, even if our personal views or beliefs might color other areas. When I say “masters,” I’m not speaking out of reverence but out of respect for work that’s proven to be foundational, work that provides clarity without distortion.

Now, your third point touches on a real challenge: how do we know we’re focused on “what’s real” when everyone claims to be? You’re right; two people can claim they’re each seeing reality clearly, yet arrive at opposite conclusions. For me, the difference lies in evidence. Reality, in the scientific sense, tends to leave consistent, observable markers we can all agree on if we’re looking closely enough. Cause and effect—observable, testable sequences—are one way we can all check our understanding against what’s actually there, regardless of personal bias.

Finally, you ask why, with so many brilliant minds, we humans haven’t yet uncovered the “underlying cause” for all human behavior. My take? We’re still on the path. Human behavior is shaped by layers of history, biology, and environmental factors, and yes, we’ve missed things along the way. But every so often, we get closer, uncovering pieces of that cause-and-effect chain and learning more about why we are the way we are. It may not be a final answer, but each step forward brings us a little closer to understanding.

And hey, I agree with you—the good stuff, as you put it, is out there, and sometimes we’re only beginning to imagine it. But I think conversations like this can help us get a little closer to that fuller picture.

[Age]

But, HOW did 'you' 'decide' who the so-called "masters" are, exactly? For example, some say 'the master' is a SAGE, or a Spirit, God, Allah, (or) Enlightenment, Itself.

If, and when, 'you' find out WHY 'you' made/make the 'decision/s' that 'you' do, exactly, then 'you' will have discovered 'human behavior' in a much more enlightened or fuller way.


Expressing that there are some so-called 'big thinkers' and some who are not just shows and reveals 'your prejudices' only. It certainly does not show nor prove that there are some so-called 'masters' or cbig thinkers' or not.

Also, finding and uncovering the very 'root' of human behavior' was in fact very revealing, very refreshing, and very rewarding.

As it also led to the Creation of 'the (exact same) world' that all of you human beings Truly wanted and desired, anyway.

Alright, let me clarify how I think about "masters" in the scientific sense. In fields like physics and mathematics, the masters are those whose work is original, foundational, and so solid that no one who understands it can actually disprove it.

Once more 'we' are back to, 'those who understand it'. Which used to be a very common phrase of the other 'religious' people as well.

LOL Some of what is called 'solid' is not at all, but because the ones who came up with the so-called 'solid work' are called 'masters' others Dare do not question it. What happens is some thing like, 'It is written in 'the book', therefore it is gospel.

The similarities between the two religions of 'theology' and 'science' are quite strikingly obvious really when looked and delved into.

Take Emmy Noether’s work, for instance. Her theorems linking symmetries in physics to conservation laws are not just compelling or creative ideas—they’re facts of nature that have held up under every test and scrutiny thrown at them since she first presented them.

And, those facts actually verify what I have been saying and claiming throughout this forum.

Once one delves down deep enough to the deepest root level of things, these shallow and surface level facts only back up and support what I have been saying and claiming in regards to the fundament root of things regarding the Universe, Itself, as well as you human beings and how the Mind and the brain actually work.

Her insights are so deeply tied to the physical laws that they simply are.

Nothing surprising here.

So, it’s not about labeling someone a “master” out of personal bias or preference. It’s about recognizing contributions that fundamentally change how we understand the world—ideas that, once understood, can’t be refuted because they reflect how reality itself behaves.

Again, for example, the Universe being infinite and eternal is just some thing that could not be refuted. Like who and what God, Itself, is, exactly, can not be refuted. But, you human beings, in the days when this was being written, were only, still, in the process of evolving to come to understand the irrefutable Facts and Truths here

These are the people I look to as “masters” in their fields, those who took us a step closer to understanding the universe in ways that hold up, time and time again.

Once again, to some of you human beings the bible is a source of 'mastery', in which the 'master' of all fields has spoken, and in ways that hold up, time and time again. Therefore, who 'you' class and consider a 'master' other human beings do not. So, who are the 'rest of us' meant to listen to and follow?

Should 'we' listen and follow who 'you' class 'a master' and who you only listen to and follow, or should 'we' listen to and follow those who 'try to' claim the EXACT SAME thing as you are here, but who they class as 'masters' oppose 'your masters'?

This perspective grounds me when navigating modern debates because, knowing where the solid ground lies, it’s easier to spot which ideas are built to last and which might crumble under real scrutiny.

Will you provide actual examples here?

If no, then why not?

Also, if any one is, still, in the 'old days and stages' of 'debating', then they are, still, list and confused. For the obviously reasons that I have already explained, within this forum.

[henry quirk]

...America bears responsibility to take-in the innocent men, women, and children whose homelands we've help to make unlivable for them...

So: how many of these innocents, these down-trodden, these victims of the US Jackboot, are you feedin', shelterin', carin' for, and attendin' to?

It's easy to talk the talk, but are you walkin' the walk?

[Age]

Alright, let’s get into it. You’ve raised some thoughtful questions, and I’ll answer each one as clearly as I can.

First, you ask why I’d “look to others” for insights into the natural world when, as you say, reality can only be truly understood from within.

But I have never said this.

Although I may not necessarily disagree with it.

Now, I get your point: we all experience life directly, and our own perceptions are powerful. But here’s where learning from others—especially those who have genuinely broken new ground in understanding reality—can make all the difference. Studying their work isn’t about relying on them blindly; it’s about using their insights to refine and deepen our own. For example, Noether didn’t just give us an opinion; she uncovered a relationship in physics that has been universally validated and remains unchallenged. That’s not adding a layer—that’s peeling one back and seeing the universe a little more clearly.

But others had already seen and recognised those things beforehand, or without 'studying that one's so-called work'.

Second, about calling some people “masters” and others not—your point about potential distortions is fair. And sure, we all come with our perspectives. But in science, there are certain discoveries so profound and well-supported that they provide a kind of baseline for all of us.

But, let 'us' not forget there are quite a few in the 'scientific community', in the days when this is being written, who, still, consider and claim that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, was once smaller, and/or began. Which is also based on, supposed and alleged, 'certain profound discoveries', but which, when challenged, are False and Inaccurate in and of themselves. But, again, some people do not challenge some things because they have presumptions and beliefs about the 'masters' and 'their work' who claim such things.

These insights help cut through noise and bias, even if our personal views or beliefs might color other areas. When I say “masters,” I’m not speaking out of reverence but out of respect for work that’s proven to be foundational, work that provides clarity without distortion.

Again, will you provide some examples?

Until you do I cannot show where the distortions are exactly, if there are any.

Now, your third point touches on a real challenge: how do we know we’re focused on “what’s real” when everyone claims to be? You’re right; two people can claim they’re each seeing reality clearly, yet arrive at opposite conclusions. For me, the difference lies in evidence.

As I have already shown, so-called claimed 'evidence' can be just 'another distortion', which is completely unlike 'proof', itself. For example, observing the sun revolving around the earth is claimed to be 'evidence', for the same. Just like 'red shift' is claimed to be 'evidence' for an expanding and beginning Universe. Yet, 'the proof' 'proves', irrefutably, otherwise.

Reality, in the scientific sense, tends to leave consistent, observable markers we can all agree on if we’re looking closely enough. Cause and effect—observable, testable sequences—are one way we can all check our understanding against what’s actually there, regardless of personal bias.

Very True.

And, by the way, 'cause and effect' is just more irrefutable proof that the Universe is, and has to be, eternal, and could NOT be intermittent, as some in the 'scientific community' believe is true

Finally, you ask why, with so many brilliant minds, we humans haven’t yet uncovered the “underlying cause” for all human behavior.

LOL I NEVER asked absolutely ANY thing like this, And, I NEVER WOULD. Because of the DISTORTION within it.

My take? We’re still on the path. Human behavior is shaped by layers of history, biology, and environmental factors, and yes, we’ve missed things along the way. But every so often, we get closer, uncovering pieces of that cause-and-effect chain and learning more about why we are the way we are.

The irrefutable answers to all of these have, already, been uncovered, including the answer and reason WHY you human beings, in the days when this is being written, are taking so, so long to 'catch up', here

It may not be a final answer, but each step forward brings us a little closer to understanding.[/quote]

And, when 'understanding', itself, came to be 'understood', fully, then this is when things started, really, progressing, and moving forward,

And hey, I agree with you—the good stuff, as you put it,

I only said and wrote, the 'good stuff', here because that is how you put it. I was just copying what you put and how you put it.

is out there, and sometimes we’re only beginning to imagine it.

Again, you human beings, in the days when this is being written, have not yet even begun to imagine and comprehend just how 'good' the 'good stuff' really is

But I think conversations like this can help us get a little closer to that fuller picture.

If you, really, would like to obtain a crystal clear full picture, then just let me know, and I will then inform you if how you can, and will, obtain It also.

[Walker]

A Looming Political Earthquake
City Journal
https://www.city-journal.org/article/th ... earthquake

“The Inflation Reduction Act’s unprecedented climate spending—much of it uninvestigated—may soon lead to unprecedented scandals.”

Comment: Climate Change is the catch-all that The Left uses to justify government control of the population’s activities. The question is, how to blame Trump for whatever the scandals reveal?

[BigMike]

Once more 'we' are back to, 'those who understand it'. Which used to be a very common phrase of the other 'religious' people as well.

LOL Some of what is called 'solid' is not at all, but because the ones who came up with the so-called 'solid work' are called 'masters' others Dare do not question it. What happens is some thing like, 'It is written in 'the book', therefore it is gospel.

The similarities between the two religions of 'theology' and 'science' are quite strikingly obvious really when looked and delved into.

You pointed out that the phrase “those who understand it” feels religious, almost like a statement of faith. I see where you’re coming from. But the difference in science is that understanding doesn’t rely on belief—it’s rooted in evidence and repeatable results. In science, when someone “understands” a theory, they’re grasping principles that can be tested and verified independently by others. Noether’s theorem, for example, isn’t upheld because people accept it blindly; it’s because anyone can test the relationships she described, and they hold true every time. It’s knowledge built on demonstration, not faith.

Take Emmy Noether’s work, for instance. Her theorems linking symmetries in physics to conservation laws are not just compelling or creative ideas—they’re facts of nature that have held up under every test and scrutiny thrown at them since she first presented them.

And, those facts actually verify what I have been saying and claiming throughout this forum.

Once one delves down deep enough to the deepest root level of things, these shallow and surface level facts only back up and support what I have been saying and claiming in regards to the fundament root of things regarding the Universe, Itself, as well as you human beings and how the Mind and the brain actually work.

Second, you mentioned that Noether’s work and scientific “facts” reinforce what you’ve been saying about the deeper roots of reality. You’re onto something there because Noether’s theorem gets right to the fundamentals of symmetry and conservation in physics. It strips away any fluff and shows how physical laws are connected at a level that governs everything we observe. If your ideas align with these principles of conservation and symmetry, then we’re both exploring the same foundational ground—just through different lenses.

So, it’s not about labeling someone a “master” out of personal bias or preference. It’s about recognizing contributions that fundamentally change how we understand the world—ideas that, once understood, can’t be refuted because they reflect how reality itself behaves.

Again, for example, the Universe being infinite and eternal is just some thing that could not be refuted. Like who and what God, Itself, is, exactly, can not be refuted. But, you human beings, in the days when this was being written, were only, still, in the process of evolving to come to understand the irrefutable Facts and Truths here

These are the people I look to as “masters” in their fields, those who took us a step closer to understanding the universe in ways that hold up, time and time again.

Once again, to some of you human beings the bible is a source of 'mastery', in which the 'master' of all fields has spoken, and in ways that hold up, time and time again. Therefore, who 'you' class and consider a 'master' other human beings do not. So, who are the 'rest of us' meant to listen to and follow?

Should 'we' listen and follow who 'you' class 'a master' and who you only listen to and follow, or should 'we' listen to and follow those who 'try to' claim the EXACT SAME thing as you are here, but who they class as 'masters' oppose 'your masters'?

As for “who counts as a master,” I get that there are different “masters” for different people, like religious texts or scientific theories, each viewed as authoritative by their followers. But what makes someone a “master” in science is that their work doesn’t demand belief; it invites testing. Scientific masters leave behind a toolkit for anyone to pick up and apply. So, while other fields may have their guiding texts or figures, scientific “masters” like Noether give us methods to question and test everything—even their own work. It’s less about following and more about participating in a shared search for truth.

This perspective grounds me when navigating modern debates because, knowing where the solid ground lies, it’s easier to spot which ideas are built to last and which might crumble under real scrutiny.

Will you provide actual examples here?

If no, then why not?

You ask for examples of ideas that stand the test of time versus those that crumble under scrutiny. Alright, let’s take a classic: Newton’s laws of motion. They held up incredibly well until Einstein came along and showed that, at the extremes of speed and gravity, relativity gives a more complete picture. Newton’s laws didn’t “crumble,” though—they’re still accurate in everyday contexts—but relativity took us further. It’s a reminder that ideas aren’t always about proving each other wrong but building layers of understanding. In contrast, phrenology (the idea of measuring personality by skull shape) didn’t hold up because it lacked the kind of rigorous testing we expect. It crumbled because the evidence wasn’t there. That’s the kind of scrutiny I’m talking about.

Also, if any one is, still, in the 'old days and stages' of 'debating', then they are, still, list and confused. For the obviously reasons that I have already explained, within this forum.

You mention debates as something outdated, perhaps implying that a more collaborative approach would serve us better. I’d agree there, too. While debates have value, the real progress happens in open, constructive dialogue—like what we’re doing here. We’re not “winning” or “losing”; we’re adding layers to the conversation, seeing where ideas connect, and refining our understanding bit by bit.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You mention debates as something outdated, perhaps implying that a more collaborative approach would serve us better. I’d agree there, too. While debates have value, the real progress happens in open, constructive dialogue—like what we’re doing here. We’re not “winning” or “losing”; we’re adding layers to the conversation, seeing where ideas connect, and refining our understanding bit by bit.

Other possibilities exist. One being not a will to genuinely uncover, reveal and to understand (the present; ourselves in that present; “the world”, etc.) but a questionable and potentially self-deceiving ideational path that obscures and inhibits understanding.

While debates have value, the real progress happens in open, constructive dialogue—like what we’re doing here.

Pshaw!

First, there is nearly no “constructive interchange” that occurs on this forum. Breakdown of agreement actually defines the place. Sadly, that is a fact. And it is that that can be, should be, turned into the topic of discussion. That is to ask: What is the root of such discord in the realm of ideas and, I think realistically, the varied and conflicting interpretations of life and life’s meaning. As above, so below. As in here, so out there.

I’d say that again you (you-we) will not get anywhere until there is a clear will to grasp, to realize, what the problems in fact are.

I am speaking of contemporary American society which so dominates even this (supposedly) European philosophy forum.

Your nearly saccharine political view of Harris as against Trump could be described as sophomoric and partisan — this is my take so far— and I can say I have no idea what you are really up to here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you assholes at all concerned about what they did to P’nut the Squirrel?!?

I didn’t think so!

[Alexiev]

[
Your nearly saccharine political view of Harris as against Trump could be described as sophomoric and partisan — this is my take so far— and I can say I have no idea what you are really up to here.

Oh, come on. Could be described? Have the courage of you convictions!

Criticizing the positions of others is easier than developing cogent, defensible positions of one's own. Academia is teeming with critics, but original theories are rare. We can hardly expect a philosophy forum to do better.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Could be described? Have the courage of you convictions!

Could be that, but could be other things as well.

I am still uncertain about BigMike.

[commonsense]

Walker, did Trump lose the 2020 election?

- I've already answered that question, in depth, in this very thread.
- Methinks you simply want a different answer. A shallow answer.
- That's quite understandable, given your record.
- The arrogant view this as a pitiable limitation to philosophizing.

I, too, would like to know what your answer was, but I’ve been away from the thread and I can’t find your post. Please repost it. Thanks.