Philosophy Now Forum

In our modern day society, we have a two fold
actions going on... first, we have those who follow Nietzsche
and attempt to become who they are.... by this I mean, if you are
gay or trans or something outside of the ''traditional" roles that society
has for us, then to become yourself is to do just that.. be it gay or trans
or just becoming something different... and I would include actions like
abortions into this mix... being true to who you are.. that is but one path..

and we have the second path, the path of our modern society/state...
in which we deny who we are... becoming who you are, being true
to yourself is not acceptable or wanted by our modern day society/state...

the state/society has certain rules/ functions that we must be, and the
state/society refuses people the possibility to become who they are..
in other words, the state/society want us to lie, to the state/society,
it wants us to lie to ourselves.. in demanding that people deny being
gay or trans or something different than the roles the state/society requires
of us, is to demand that we lie... the state/society wants us to lie,
about who we are to ourselves and to the state/society...

to demand an end to abortions, we must not be true to ourselves..
for getting an abortion is to be truthful to oneself... to force women
to have babies is to force women to lie to herself and to the state/society...

to force people to be something that they are not, is to force people to lie...
the modern state/society is not interested in the truth or reality..
in wanting to end abortions, gay/trans people, it/state/society wants to force people
to lie...

and why? Because you feel uncomfortable with others living their truths...
instead of following the truth, you want people to lie, to live untruths,
to make others live a lie, for your benefit...

which leads us to another question, if you want others to live a lie to
benefit you, you are clearly in favor of lying, avoiding the truth,
so, that leaves us with thinking you are lying to yourself also....

to demand others to walk away from their truths, to become something
they are not, is to demand others to lie... so why do conservatives want
people to lie? So telling the truth is anathema to the right wing...

If I were gay or trans, (which to note I am not) but if I were
to be either gay or trans, and the society/state wants me to lie
about being gay or trans, I must ask, what else is the state asking me
to lie about? A state/society that demands its citizens to lie about who
they are, that is not a state that believes in truth... it wants people to hide
and become something that they are not...

the conservative need to have purity test for its members.. is just another
exercise in forcing people to lie, both to themselves and to the state/society
If you don't hold to the messianic belief in IQ45, you are disowned,
tossed out of the party.. the GOP/MAGA party demands complete and total
faith in IQ45 being the messiah... and failure to do so, means one is a "commie scum"
a "traitor" a "liberal" "un-American" all of which I have been called over these last
5 years... for not holding to the divinity of IQ45... the right wing want me to
lie about my own beliefs and then lie to others about that belief....

The basic, fundamental aspect of conservatism is to force people to lie...
to lie about who you are and what you believe in...

One might ask, why are you not a republican? I do not believe in lies, or lying...

and now the reason I place this in the general philosophical discussion is this,
one of the primary questions of philosophy, since Plato, actually has been
this question of the value and purpose of lying...Plato wanted to prevent
poets from being in his "Republic" and why? Because poets told the truth,
they didn't lie about what it means to be human and what it means to be
Greek or American or German or British.. Plato wanted people in his "Republic"
to lie and be happy to be lied to... From the very start of Philosophy, has been
this question of lies and lying....

To become who you are is a basic and fundamental aspect of being human..
and lying about that, either to lie about being gay or trans or liberal or about
what values are actually important, is key to me... modern society/state wants me
to lie and I will not do that... I will not lie about being liberal or being an atheist
or to hold a false belief that America is the greatest country on earth because it isn't...

So, what is at stake here? The question before us is this question of lying, to oneself
and lying to the state/society.... I will not... and what will you do?
lie or be honest about who you are?

Kropotkin

yes

For starters, your original statement is patently false.

What may be predicate of anything, even that thing called mind, is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.

You automatically inform the world that you cue not from the principles of reasoning, but from something other, opinions of the masses or other individuals.

A true philosopher learns the facts concerning grammar systems and simply applies what some errantly call mathematical operations. These operations are identical across our Grammar Matrix of Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Plato did not give you an opinion, he was trying to teach you grammar by these principles. Plato was giving you examples on how to examine any statement. What is good or bad, right or wrong, is not anyone's opinion, and whatever you say, as binary recursion produces a binary result, is derived from the very principles of grammar used. A philosopher don't give a shit who said what, and when they quote, it is not to claim them as an authority, but a recognition of the correctness, or incorrectness of their statement in accordance with the principles of grammar, which as Plato noted, and as the Bible demands, as your own brain, when functional demands, is independent of both gods and men.

By biological fact: Psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language which are functional in the mind as grammar systems. By them you learn judgment in accordance with principles common to all sapient life.

The mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible, it also takes longer to evolve and takes the longest to mature. Mankind has not yet reached a cusp point in evolution as outlined in the Judaeo-Christian text, a work which is deliberately used to aid in guided evolution, however, as mankind cannot generally comprehend it, neither can they for the most part believe or understand it. The stress which is the driving force for evolution is environmental, and part of the environment of a species developing a functional mind is specifically aimed at the intelligible and uses the principles of grammar which will not be functional in a mind during that evolution. The one philosopher who understood this very well was Plato, who divided the content of his dialogs to the higher levels of intelligence and the lower levels of intelligence in the same dialog, and he tells you he is doing this, see Phaedrus for his own explanation.

No rational person cites another person as an authority, or as written in the Bible, is a respecter of persons great or small, they examine everything by through grammar systems, each a method of utilizing simple binary recursion. Judgment has absolutely nothing to do with any so called saint or sinner who uses them, but whether they know them and use them correctly or not and all of this, by fact, can be grammatically demonstrated.

No man, great or small, is the measure of anything, man is capable of being a measurer which, as Plato and the Bible not, is the function of grammar systems, the results of which allows him a choice which either complies with his definition as a life support system or not. Only a moron claims to be true to themselves, while never defining that a mind has one and only one definition regardless of the person claiming to even have one.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 11:17 pm For starters, your original statement is patently false.

What may be predicate of anything, even that thing called mind, is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.

You automatically inform the world that you cue not from the principles of reasoning, but from something other, opinions of the masses or other individuals.

A true philosopher learns the facts concerning grammar systems and simply applies what some errantly call mathematical operations. These operations are identical across our Grammar Matrix of Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Plato did not give you an opinion, he was trying to teach you grammar by these principles. Plato was giving you examples on how to examine any statement. What is good or bad, right or wrong, is not anyone's opinion, and whatever you say, as binary recursion produces a binary result, is derived from the very principles of grammar used. A philosopher don't give a shit who said what, and when they quote, it is not to claim them as an authority, but a recognition of the correctness, or incorrectness of their statement in accordance with the principles of grammar, which as Plato noted, and as the Bible demands, as your own brain, when functional demands, is independent of both gods and men.

By biological fact: Psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language which are functional in the mind as grammar systems. By them you learn judgment in accordance with principles common to all sapient life.

The mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible, it also takes longer to evolve and takes the longest to mature. Mankind has not yet reached a cusp point in evolution as outlined in the Judaeo-Christian text, a work which is deliberately used to aid in guided evolution, however, as mankind cannot generally comprehend it, neither can they for the most part believe or understand it. The stress which is the driving force for evolution is environmental, and part of the environment of a species developing a functional mind is specifically aimed at the intelligible and uses the principles of grammar which will not be functional in a mind during that evolution. The one philosopher who understood this very well was Plato, who divided the content of his dialogs to the higher levels of intelligence and the lower levels of intelligence in the same dialog, and he tells you he is doing this, see Phaedrus for his own explanation.

No rational person cites another person as an authority, or as written in the Bible, is a respecter of persons great or small, they examine everything by through grammar systems, each a method of utilizing simple binary recursion. Judgment has absolutely nothing to do with any so called saint or sinner who uses them, but whether they know them and use them correctly or not and all of this, by fact, can be grammatically demonstrated.

No man, great or small, is the measure of anything, man is capable of being a measurer which, as Plato and the Bible not, is the function of grammar systems, the results of which allows him a choice which either complies with his definition as a life support system or not. Only a moron claims to be true to themselves, while never defining that a mind has one and only one definition regardless of the person claiming to even have one.

K: two points. A. I don't hold to analytical philosophy.. language "games"
and "grammar" hold Zero interest to me..none, whatsoever..
In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that language games and grammar,
have no value in philosophy.. they don't tell you anything interesting about
the questions of the universe.. "WHY"... ''Why am I here?''
"Why is there something as opposed to nothing"
"What is the point of existence?" "What values are worth holding?"
"Why the value of love over the value of hate?"

For me, analytical philosophy is, well frankly, sterile... It doesn't lead one
anywhere... and I like my philosophy to have a point, I am funny that way...

The second point is I will wait for the English translation of your post, to
actually make a second point...

Kropotkin

Kropotkin

LMAO, you are completely innocent of any and every analytical ability. Has anyone ever introduced you to the ground under your feet?

Have you ever imagined, that this is a public forum, so that when people respond to any particular person's post, that may not actually be the intended audience? It is very clear, you have never even imagined how to think, so, no, my remark was not aimed at you, that would have been wholly pointless.

What is the import of the statement: Psychology is commensurate with the principles of language which are functionally resident in the mind as grammar systems? Who used that principle, in history, to formulate a parable? Hint "It is not what goes into the mouth of man that defiles him, but what comes out of it."

It is not a saying one has to invent, it is just an observation that since all a mind can do is read, process and write information, there is not even such a thing as Analytical Philosophy, which is a term only the illiterate would even think of using.

I have been on philosophy websites for over 30 years..

I have learned that two types of people go on such websites...
One group actually is interested in philosophy and does it because
they have no choice.. as writers write, shooters shoot, thinkers think
and philosophers philosophize... for me, a day without some wondering
about what it means to be human, is a wasted day..

The other group is here to show off, to make others feel bad about
themselves, to impress us with their 5-dollar words..

Einstein once said, (true or not) that unless one can explain
a theory to a 10-year-old, one really doesn't know that theory..
my theory is to make any ideas I have, simple enough for
a ten-year-old to understand..
I have no interest in dazzling people with bullshit..

or as a wise man once said, KISS... keep it simple stupid...
as I have no pretensions, I keep it simple..


Kropotkin

Another wise man said keep it simply stupid, no comma required.