Philosophy Now Forum

To insure that this forum and I are both using the name Philosopher in the same manner, I will define the term. A philosopher wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose, for as Aristotle learnt from Plato, That which has a function, exists for that function. Read Cratylus.

Many people have enough sense to know that we are a mind, as Plato introduced it in Alcibiades I. But let me make what a mind is very clear.
A mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible: as such it has a well-defined biologically determined job to perform and well-defined physically determined means of doing its job. As Plato informs us, as the Bible informs us, a mind functions by its ability to manage memory in such a manner as we can virtualize the environment so that we can model solutions, responses to it, and are thus able to choose the best behavior commensurate with our ability. This is called prophecy by the Bible and Plato, it is also called judgment, and being rational.
Plato also informs us that a mind functions by dialectic. Dialect is another term for binary information processing. This is derived from the definition of a thing as a relative contained by correlatives and which we call in Common Grammar, noun and verb, in Arithmetic, 0 and 1, in Geometry point and line.
The Bible, itself, is the only Book I know of which repeatedly tells the reader that mankind will not be able to read it until a certain time in human history. It is a puzzle book which requires a certain level of reading comprehension. In the short of it, Adam and Eve are a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produce the human race. This is identical to the definition of every grammar system in our Grammar Matrix, Relatives and Correlatives are a Conjugate Binary Pair whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produces all judgments.
Today, we have the computer, which processes all information, and all of its products using binary recursion.

I have had nonhuman intervention in my life, in fact, it is the only reason I am alive today. I have demonstrated many things claimed impossible because I was kept alive. I was asked to help teach mankind judgment which I post freely on the Internet Archive. My longest work is in Geometry, a geometry many have looked for but never found. I found it.
There are no correct grammar books on this planet today, and therefore, I believe a true philosopher is one who actually takes the time to learn what dialectic is, and how it is expressed as a Grammar Matrix, the four methods of using binary recursion to formulate grammar systems: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

By biological fact, man is being made to be the salvation of life, yet to date I have found no one to aid me in that quest.
Mankind is currently proto-linguistic, and most people to claim to believe in this or that are simply simple minded sycophants, they cue off of alpha animals. I have no real interest in that kind of person.

You can state the purpose of mind in the metaphorical work of Plato, or in scientific terms, or put it in a puzzle as the Bible did, The Beast whose number is 666, a nice metaphor, which is the purpose of Mind : To regulate behavior so as to turn the past into a future and to bring the future to pass.
So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension, but most people are offended by it, and the simpler minded they are, the more I tend to annoy them.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Plato also informs us that a mind functions by dialectic. Dialect is another term for binary information processing. This is derived from the definition of a thing as a relative contained by correlatives and which we call in Common Grammar, noun and verb, in Arithmetic, 0 and 1, in Geometry point and line.

I'm a heavily right hemisphere - dominant thinker, I mostly use probabilistic and fuzzy logic. I rarely use the absolutes of 1 and 0, and even then only in a probabilistic context. Is this compatible with what you wrote?
(All things are defined in relation to other things, if that's what you meant, we agree there.)

Really? Good for you, you believe logic is different from logic? How about warm logic? Or vanilla logic?
Plato posted a sign above his academy, Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here. Why did he do that?

Make the simplest thing possible, with one and only one relative difference with your hand. i.e. take a straightedge and draw a simple line. The motion to produce that thing, is it called a relative or correlative? Where you started and where you stopped are those limits called relatives or correlatives?
Now the thing, in of itself, that line segment, also has another name, in fact it has several which you and other's gave it. Let us use the word analog. i.e. geometrically it is named as an analog, i.e. it is its own definition of the simplest thing you can make with your own hand.
Now, it is an analog which is composed of one relative and two correlatives, i.e. it is a binary expression.

Now, name it logically in Common Grammar, and again in Arithmetic. Can you name the parts of that thing with more names other than those which name the relative and those which name the correlative?

Obviously, if you have studied, it was to no avail.

And really. I do not give a shit if you agree with me or not. I am not the standard by which anything is defined and neither are you. If you cannot even correctly name what you, yourself can and have done, your own behavior, you will always be illiterate.

Geometry is an analog system of grammar and there is nothing fuzzy about it. You do not study it to learn about circles, lines, etc., or to discover new bull shit. You study it to learn grammar. By the study of Geometry, you learn about our Grammar Matrix. You learn grammar and how you can and cannot use names and you learn it by standardizing your own physical and mental behavior.

If you want to see geometry as no one else in history has ever demonstrated it, you can study my work and it will take years to get it. That work is posted on the Internet Archive to help people learn grammar, to actually learn philosophy which is not the philosophy of this or of that, philosophy was defined by Plato and by which we call psychology today. It teaches you about yourself. And quite simply, if you cannot learn about yourself what on earth makes you believe you can learn anything else?

So, back in the day, people set off into the world to discover themselves. I was one of them, however, I quickly got lost and spent over thirty years asking people if they had seen me wandering about anywhere, and if they did find me, to let me know that I was lost and looking for myself. But, I never did find myself, and to this day, I wonder, where in the hell did I go? I never found myself. At one point I started looking in the obituaries.That too proved useless.
Meanwhile, the other me had never moved out and instead of exploring the perceptible, decided to explore the intelligible. I found it a whole lot cheaper to use grammar than to use drugs as grammar is almost as cheap as water. Well, maybe cheaper than water as all a mind can do is grammar, all a mind can do is read, process, and write, with our whole body. I think you will find that put into the metaphors of the Bible. If a mind can only read, process, and write, what on earth makes you think that you have more than one brain to do one job? And, what makes you think that if it cannot do one job, that it can do anything at all worth while?

And, if all a mind can do is read, process, and write information, what makes anyone think that a mind has anymore subjects to learn than one? Is philosophy different from psychology? Is it possible for psychology be different than information processing?

if a person is too stupid to answer simple questions, then they have two choices, imagine that they are smart, or realize that until they learn the truth of the matter, they are simply a fool.

What educational system, on this planet today, actually teaches anyone how to read, process, and write information, with their whole body, mind and soul? From perception to expression? And since a unit is a standard of behavior, how is it possible, as Socrates noted, for there to be discord among a species claiming to be literate?

Simple facts that fools always deny because it leads to simple truth about our own primitive state of being. Only the insane flatter themselves.

So, let us go back to this attempted obfuscation of fuzzy logic. You are claiming, by the use of an adjective, that its correlative pair is clear logic. And, as Plato noted, if you claim to know the one, you are also claiming to know the other. Factually there are two types of equality, again a binary. Arithmetic and Geometric, i.e. absolute and relative which in common grammar is called literal and metaphorical. Pretenders of thought imagine that they can invent names in order to weasel their way out of an argument, but grammar systems always depend upon arithmetic equality between the perceptible and a system of naming via a grammar system. The ability to manipulate those names cannot be hidden by the simple inability to agree upon a convention of names to start with. So, if you cannot, will not, do the first required step in the use of names, then you cannot, and do not, know how to use them.

Every life support system of a living organism must acquire what that organism needs to survive. It must process what it has acquired for the life of the body, and that product must be life supporting. There is no choice in what is needed. No choice in how to process it. No choice as to whether or not it is good or bad for the body. It just has a well defined job to do, and well defined means of doing its job. The mind is no different.

However, the mind differs in one respect. Every other life support system has a particular part of the environment it has to use, but the mind has the whole of it, i.e., it is, when functional, the most powerful, and most demanding life support system possible, therefore, it takes longer to evolve, longer to mature. During the stages of becoming it imagines that it is working, but it is provably not. Every system of grammar is designed for virtual modeling, in order to predict our behaviors prior to committing them to insure survival. You can say that we have to learn to be rational, or that we have to learn the Art of Prophecy, just two different ways of saying one and the same thing.
So, if you cannot learn the simplicity of a grammar system, you certainly cannot learn the complexities of the products they are capable of. You simply cannot do the minds own job, a job you do not choose, but which you are responsible for learning.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:00 am Really? Good for you, you believe logic is different from logic? How about warm logic? Or vanilla logic?
Plato posted a sign above his academy, Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here. Why did he do that?

Make the simplest thing possible, with one and only one relative difference with your hand. i.e. take a straightedge and draw a simple line. The motion to produce that thing, is it called a relative or correlative? Where you started and where you stopped are those limits called relatives or correlatives?
Now the thing, in of itself, that line segment, also has another name, in fact it has several which you and other's gave it. Let us use the word analog. i.e. geometrically it is named as an analog, i.e. it is its own definition of the simplest thing you can make with your own hand.
Now, it is an analog which is composed of one relative and two correlatives, i.e. it is a binary expression.

Fuzzy and probabilistic logic are still constrained by the three laws of thought.

There are no straight lines in the real world that we can draw. Lines should also have no width, which is also impossible to draw. Perfect lines exist as abstract ideas.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm To insure that this forum and I are both using the name Philosopher in the same manner, I will define the term.

I do not see how the whole forum is going to just suddenly and from now on use the word 'philosopher' in the same manner that you, personally, define the term 'philosopher'.

But let us see what happens and occurs here.

In fact I do not think you will get all the participants in this thread to keep using the term 'philosopher' in the way you define that term. But I will keep attempting to here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm A philosopher wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose, for as Aristotle learnt from Plato, That which has a function, exists for that function. Read Cratylus.

So, to you, until a human being, or something else, wants to know these three things, alone, then they are not yet a so-called 'philosopher' here, right?

Also, if you define the word or term 'philosopher' as one who wants to know these three things, then the first of these three things is already known. That is; if a real 'philosopher' wants to know what they are, then they would, obviously, be a 'philosopher', which, according to your definition, is one who wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose.

Now, to me, if a 'philosopher' really wants to know what they are, then 'they' a set of invisible thoughts and feelings within a visible human body, which by the have a very specific way of looking at and seeing things around them, (but your own definition says and claims otherwise).

Also, why all human beings, including the very specific ones which you have separated out and labeled as 'philosophers' here, are the way they are is also very obvious, and is already known, and because of one sole reason.

As for the purpose of all human beings, this is also already known, is the exact same one thing, even for your specific group, which you call 'philosophers', and which fits in perfectly with your remark about 'that which has a function, exists for that function', and this is because of what the function of being a human being actually is, really.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Many people have enough sense to know that we are a mind, as Plato introduced it in Alcibiades I. But let me make what a mind is very clear.
A mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible: as such it has a well-defined biologically determined job to perform and well-defined physically determined means of doing its job.

Are you here suggesting;

1. That there are many minds or just one mind?

2. That whatever amount of minds you think or believe there are that they are physical things?

3. I think you could have made what a mind is, exactly, more clear here.

What is the 'determined job' of a mind/s?

What is the supposed well-defined physically determined means?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm As Plato informs us, as the Bible informs us, a mind functions by its ability to manage memory in such a manner as we can virtualize the environment so that we can model solutions, responses to it, and are thus able to choose the best behavior commensurate with our ability.

This also is referring to 'free will', and the ability of imagination, itself, to imagine how we want the future to be, and the ability to choose what is wanted, and to do what is needed to create what it is that is wanted.

Also, the memory within human beings can be very, very faulty. So, is this the result of a faulty mind, or of something else?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm This is called prophecy by the Bible and Plato, it is also called judgment, and being rational.
Plato also informs us that a mind functions by dialectic. Dialect is another term for binary information processing. This is derived from the definition of a thing as a relative contained by correlatives and which we call in Common Grammar, noun and verb, in Arithmetic, 0 and 1, in Geometry point and line.
The Bible, itself, is the only Book I know of which repeatedly tells the reader that mankind will not be able to read it until a certain time in human history. It is a puzzle book which requires a certain level of reading comprehension.

Not necessarily just a certain level of reading comprehension, but just a certain or particular way of looking at, and thus seeing/understanding, things. But, obviously, which 'reading comprehension' is also entailed within. That is; an ability to not just read words, but also read people and other things as well, and comprehend them fully, or comprehensively. you, human beings, being the easiest and simplest to read and understand.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm In the short of it, Adam and Eve are a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produce the human race.

The importance of binary here is because the whole Universe at Its simplest, or most fundamental, level is made up of two things alone. Which have to co-exist together, always. Also, binary is important in regards to the fact that at least two things, coming together, is how absolutely every thing is created, or made, except of course for the two most fundamental things of the Universe. Which both actually need each other to be able to exist.

The full explanation and full details here can be delved into any one is truly interested to.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm This is identical to the definition of every grammar system in our Grammar Matrix, Relatives and Correlatives are a Conjugate Binary Pair whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produces all judgments.
Today, we have the computer, which processes all information, and all of its products using binary recursion.

I have had nonhuman intervention in my life, in fact, it is the only reason I am alive today. I have demonstrated many things claimed impossible because I was kept alive. I was asked to help teach mankind judgment which I post freely on the Internet Archive. My longest work is in Geometry, a geometry many have looked for but never found. I found it.

Okay, but who or what asked you to help teach so-called 'mankind'?

And, what about the 'women' and 'children kind'? Why were you not asked to help teach them?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm There are no correct grammar books on this planet today, and therefore, I believe a true philosopher is one who actually takes the time to learn what dialectic is, and how it is expressed as a Grammar Matrix, the four methods of using binary recursion to formulate grammar systems: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

Okay. So your definition for the term 'philosopher' is now expanding.

Will you inform us of where and when 'your own definition' of that term is finished?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm By biological fact, man is being made to be the salvation of life, yet to date I have found no one to aid me in that quest.

I am more than willing to help you, but just so you are forewarned i am not going to help only some, like men only.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Mankind is currently proto-linguistic, and most people to claim to believe in this or that are simply simple minded sycophants, they cue off of alpha animals. I have no real interest in that kind of person.

Are you here suggesting that you will not help this so-called 'that kind of person'?

Or when you say, 'no real interest' here do you mean something else?

You can state the purpose of mind in the metaphorical work of Plato, or in scientific terms, or put it in a puzzle as the Bible did, The Beast whose number is 666, a nice metaphor, which is the purpose of Mind : To regulate behavior so as to turn the past into a future and to bring the future to pass.[/quote]

But the past will so-call 'turn into a future', and, 'bring the future to pass', no matter what is being thought or done by you human beings.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension,

Where is the actual connection from the sentence prior to this and how you have leap jumped to, 'So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension'?

Also, what does 'reading comprehension' even mean or refer to, to you?

From what I have observed your 'reading comprehension' has not been that much better than anyone else's here, except of course other than in regards to me.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm but most people are offended by it, and the simpler minded they are, the more I tend to annoy them.

Well you certainly have not annoyed nor offended me here at all, which seems rather weird considering some here consider me to be the most simplest minded one of them all.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm To insure that this forum and I are both using the name Philosopher in the same manner, I will define the term. A philosopher wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose, for as Aristotle learnt from Plato, That which has a function, exists for that function. Read Cratylus.

...

So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension, but most people are offended by it, and the simpler minded they are, the more I tend to annoy them.

Philosophers are simple minded creatures. They want to know what they are, but then they displace their identity onto others.

You don't annoy others. You are annoying.

Now you know what you are. An annoying philosopher.

The kind of methods you are using to arrive at 'truth' died 300+ years ago together with Platonism. Functions are just another platonic form.

All in all, philosophy starts anywhere and leads nowhere. It's a stupid activity...

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:00 am Really? Good for you, you believe logic is different from logic? How about warm logic? Or vanilla logic?
Plato posted a sign above his academy, Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here. Why did he do that?

Make the simplest thing possible, with one and only one relative difference with your hand. i.e. take a straightedge and draw a simple line. The motion to produce that thing, is it called a relative or correlative? Where you started and where you stopped are those limits called relatives or correlatives?
Now the thing, in of itself, that line segment, also has another name, in fact it has several which you and other's gave it. Let us use the word analog. i.e. geometrically it is named as an analog, i.e. it is its own definition of the simplest thing you can make with your own hand.
Now, it is an analog which is composed of one relative and two correlatives, i.e. it is a binary expression.

Now, name it logically in Common Grammar, and again in Arithmetic. Can you name the parts of that thing with more names other than those which name the relative and those which name the correlative?

Obviously, if you have studied, it was to no avail.

And really. I do not give a shit if you agree with me or not. I am not the standard by which anything is defined and neither are you. If you cannot even correctly name what you, yourself can and have done, your own behavior, you will always be illiterate.

Geometry is an analog system of grammar and there is nothing fuzzy about it. You do not study it to learn about circles, lines, etc., or to discover new bull shit. You study it to learn grammar. By the study of Geometry, you learn about our Grammar Matrix. You learn grammar and how you can and cannot use names and you learn it by standardizing your own physical and mental behavior.

If you want to see geometry as no one else in history has ever demonstrated it, you can study my work and it will take years to get it. That work is posted on the Internet Archive to help people learn grammar, to actually learn philosophy which is not the philosophy of this or of that, philosophy was defined by Plato and by which we call psychology today. It teaches you about yourself. And quite simply, if you cannot learn about yourself what on earth makes you believe you can learn anything else?

Have you yet learned about 'you', "yourself"?

if yes, then who and/or what are 'you', exactly?

And, so 'we' can see just how much, or how little, you really know about 'you', and thy 'Self', 'I', what is the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm So, back in the day, people set off into the world to discover themselves. I was one of them, however, I quickly got lost and spent over thirty years asking people if they had seen me wandering about anywhere, and if they did find me, to let me know that I was lost and looking for myself. But, I never did find myself, and to this day, I wonder, where in the hell did I go? I never found myself. At one point I started looking in the obituaries.That too proved useless.
Meanwhile, the other me had never moved out and instead of exploring the perceptible, decided to explore the intelligible. I found it a whole lot cheaper to use grammar than to use drugs as grammar is almost as cheap as water.

When you say and use the word and term 'grammar', what do you actually mean, what are you actually referring to, and/or how do you define that word and term, exactly?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Well, maybe cheaper than water as all a mind can do is grammar, all a mind can do is read, process, and write, with our whole body.

To others the mind can do more than just these little things. So, which one am I to follow and/or believe here?

Are you right or are they right here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm I think you will find that put into the metaphors of the Bible. If a mind can only read, process, and write, what on earth makes you think that you have more than one brain to do one job? And, what makes you think that if it cannot do one job, that it can do anything at all worth while?

And, if all a mind can do is read, process, and write information, what makes anyone think that a mind has anymore subjects to learn than one? Is philosophy different from psychology? Is it possible for psychology be different than information processing?

Although many, many different words have many, many different definitions there are not many words at all that share the exact same definition. So, on a probability scale 'philosophy' is different from 'psychology', and from every dictionary, well that I have looked in anyway, the definition of 'philosophy' is very different from 'psychology'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm if a person is too stupid to answer simple questions, then they have two choices, imagine that they are smart, or realize that until they learn the truth of the matter, they are simply a fool.

Okay, now have you answered all of the simple questions, which I have posed, and asked you here?

If no, then is this because you imagine that you are smart, or, because you realized that until you learn the actual and irrefutable Truth of the matter here, you are simply a fool?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm What educational system, on this planet today, actually teaches anyone how to read, process, and write information, with their whole body, mind and soul?

I am not sure how one reads, processes, and writes information with the elbows, for example, but maybe you are able to elaborate and/or explain further about how one does these things with the 'whole body'?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm From perception to expression? And since a unit is a standard of behavior, how is it possible, as Socrates noted, for there to be discord among a species claiming to be literate?

As I have previously explained presumptions and/or beliefs plays a huge part in the discord among the self-proclaimed literate species called human being.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Simple facts that fools always deny because it leads to simple truth about our own primitive state of being. Only the insane flatter themselves.

Have you not attempted to flatter, praise, or boast about "yourself" here in this thread?

Also, what are some 'simple facts' that 'fools' always deny?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm So, let us go back to this attempted obfuscation of fuzzy logic. You are claiming, by the use of an adjective, that its correlative pair is clear logic. And, as Plato noted, if you claim to know the one, you are also claiming to know the other. Factually there are two types of equality, again a binary. Arithmetic and Geometric, i.e. absolute and relative which in common grammar is called literal and metaphorical. Pretenders of thought imagine that they can invent names in order to weasel their way out of an argument, but grammar systems always depend upon arithmetic equality between the perceptible and a system of naming via a grammar system. The ability to manipulate those names cannot be hidden by the simple inability to agree upon a convention of names to start with. So, if you cannot, will not, do the first required step in the use of names, then you cannot, and do not, know how to use them.

Okay, if you say so.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Every life support system of a living organism must acquire what that organism needs to survive.

And what is it that you, organisms, need to live?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm It must process what it has acquired for the life of the body, and that product must be life supporting. There is no choice in what is needed. No choice in how to process it. No choice as to whether or not it is good or bad for the body. It just has a well defined job to do, and well defined means of doing its job. The mind is no different.

What is the other thing that you have been talking about here, which is supposedly no different from what the mind is no different from, or to?

you just referred to an 'It' here.

If 'it' is a life support system, then how many different life support systems are there here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm However, the mind differs in one respect. Every other life support system has a particular part of the environment it has to use, but the mind has the whole of it, i.e., it is, when functional, the most powerful, and most demanding life support system possible, therefore, it takes longer to evolve, longer to mature.

What was the mind previously before it began to evolve, how long has it been in existence, and when does it mature?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm During the stages of becoming it imagines that it is working, but it is provably not.

So, the mind at some particular moment or stage is imagining it is working, when it is not working, right?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm Every system of grammar is designed for virtual modeling, in order to predict our behaviors prior to committing them to insure survival. You can say that we have to learn to be rational, or that we have to learn the Art of Prophecy, just two different ways of saying one and the same thing.

Which is what, exactly?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm So, if you cannot learn the simplicity of a grammar system, you certainly cannot learn the complexities of the products they are capable of. You simply cannot do the minds own job, a job you do not choose, but which you are responsible for learning.

Okay. But just so you are completely aware, a lot of this here makes no actual sense to me at all.

Although I know, exactly, what you are trying to talk about and refer to, fully, the words that you choose to use here, or in other words, 'your own grammar' I think is not helping you at all here.

But, please carry on here how you want to.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:48 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm To insure that this forum and I are both using the name Philosopher in the same manner, I will define the term. A philosopher wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose, for as Aristotle learnt from Plato, That which has a function, exists for that function. Read Cratylus.

...

So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension, but most people are offended by it, and the simpler minded they are, the more I tend to annoy them.

Philosophers are simple minded creatures. They want to know what they are, but then they displace their identity onto others.

You don't annoy others. You are annoying.

Now you know what you are. An annoying philosopher.

The kind of methods you are using to arrive at 'truth' died 300+ years ago together with Platonism. Functions are just another platonic form.

All in all, philosophy starts anywhere and leads nowhere. It's a stupid activity...

As I said earlier:
I do not see how the whole forum is going to just suddenly and from now on use the word 'philosopher' in the same manner that you, personally, define the term 'philosopher'.

But let us see what happens and occurs here.

In fact I do not think you will get all the participants in this thread to keep using the term 'philosopher' in the way you define that term. But I will keep attempting to here.

"phil8659" could not get just one person known as "skepdick" to just begin to use 'their definition' for the word and term 'philosopher', in just this one thread, let alone in this whole forum, so getting the whole forum to begin and keep using "phil8659's" 'own specific definition' for that word and term did appear a big ask.

But at least you revealed your own perspective of what the word 'philosopher' actually means or refers to, to you. Which is quite unlike most posters here.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:06 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:48 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:23 pm To insure that this forum and I are both using the name Philosopher in the same manner, I will define the term. A philosopher wants to know what they are, why they are, and how to effect a life with that purpose, for as Aristotle learnt from Plato, That which has a function, exists for that function. Read Cratylus.

...

So yes, I have a very high level of reading comprehension, but most people are offended by it, and the simpler minded they are, the more I tend to annoy them.

Philosophers are simple minded creatures. They want to know what they are, but then they displace their identity onto others.

You don't annoy others. You are annoying.

Now you know what you are. An annoying philosopher.

The kind of methods you are using to arrive at 'truth' died 300+ years ago together with Platonism. Functions are just another platonic form.

All in all, philosophy starts anywhere and leads nowhere. It's a stupid activity...

As I said earlier:
I do not see how the whole forum is going to just suddenly and from now on use the word 'philosopher' in the same manner that you, personally, define the term 'philosopher'.

But let us see what happens and occurs here.

In fact I do not think you will get all the participants in this thread to keep using the term 'philosopher' in the way you define that term. But I will keep attempting to here.

"phil8659" could not get just one person known as "skepdick" to just begin to use 'their definition' for the word and term 'philosopher', in just this one thread, let alone in this whole forum, so getting the whole forum to begin and keep using "phil8659's" 'own specific definition' for that word and term did appear a big ask.

But at least you revealed your own perspective of what the word 'philosopher' actually means or refers to, to you. Which is quite unlike most posters here.

I couldn't understand a word of what you wrote.

Could you begin with your definition of the word "definition".

Then define all the other words in your post.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:06 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:48 am
Philosophers are simple minded creatures. They want to know what they are, but then they displace their identity onto others.

You don't annoy others. You are annoying.

Now you know what you are. An annoying philosopher.

The kind of methods you are using to arrive at 'truth' died 300+ years ago together with Platonism. Functions are just another platonic form.

All in all, philosophy starts anywhere and leads nowhere. It's a stupid activity...

As I said earlier:
I do not see how the whole forum is going to just suddenly and from now on use the word 'philosopher' in the same manner that you, personally, define the term 'philosopher'.

But let us see what happens and occurs here.

In fact I do not think you will get all the participants in this thread to keep using the term 'philosopher' in the way you define that term. But I will keep attempting to here.

"phil8659" could not get just one person known as "skepdick" to just begin to use 'their definition' for the word and term 'philosopher', in just this one thread, let alone in this whole forum, so getting the whole forum to begin and keep using "phil8659's" 'own specific definition' for that word and term did appear a big ask.

But at least you revealed your own perspective of what the word 'philosopher' actually means or refers to, to you. Which is quite unlike most posters here.

I couldn't understand a word of what you wrote.

Okay.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:15 am Could you begin with your definition of the word "definition".

Yes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 9:15 am Then define all the other words in your post.

Yes.

But if you could not understand absolutely any word that I have used so far here, then by me just defining each and every one of them, for you, then this will obviously not help you.

See, you have to learn and understand things, from your own perspective, or from your own point of view of things. Otherwise 'you' would just end up being another version of 'me', and you would not want that, would you?

"Could you begin with your definition of the word "definition".Then define all the other words in your post."

It would make no différance becuz....

"Words and signs are not identical with what they signify, and only acquire meaning through their differences from other words and signs; meaning arises from the differentiation of words from one another, and the consequential engendering of binary oppositions and hierarchies. Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. Derrida refers to this process as espacement or "spacing" and temporisation or "temporising"."

Thus it would be unfair to aks Age to define anything he writes. At most he can attempt a detemporisation of his text to reach a state of nonespacement, and good luck with that.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:42 pm "Could you begin with your definition of the word "definition".Then define all the other words in your post."

It would make no différance becuz....

"Words and signs are not identical with what they signify

Sure. So what does the sign "signify" signify?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:42 pm and only acquire meaning through their differences from other words and signs; meaning arises from the differentiation of words from one another, and the consequential engendering of binary oppositions and hierarchies. Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. Derrida refers to this process as espacement or "spacing" and temporisation or "temporising"."

Thus it would be unfair to aks Age to define anything he writes. At most he can attempt a detemporisation of his text to reach a state of nonespacement, and good luck with that.

That's not true. The most basic form of meaning-acquisition - one that every baby knows, but not you - is by pointing to objects and uttering words.

Ostensive definitions.

The colour this sentence is written is is called "red".

The semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce were never a closed-loop language game. It is only idiot-philosophers which keep reducing it to that. Because they never leave their armchairs.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:42 pm "Could you begin with your definition of the word "definition".Then define all the other words in your post."

It would make no différance becuz....

"Words and signs are not identical with what they signify,

Is there even a human being in this forum who believed, or was thinking, that words and/or signs are identical with what the words and/or signs signified?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:42 pm and only acquire meaning through their differences from other words and signs; meaning arises from the differentiation of words from one another, and the consequential engendering of binary oppositions and hierarchies. Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. Derrida refers to this process as espacement or "spacing" and temporisation or "temporising"."

Thus it would be unfair to aks Age to define anything he writes. At most he can attempt a detemporisation of his text to reach a state of nonespacement, and good luck with that.

I do not see any 'unfairness' here.

Also, there is not a so-called 'endless chain' of signifiers, at all. As can be shown, and proven True.