Philosophy Now Forum

Ever since the time, when a man called Plato, clearly defined the difference between Sophism and Philosophy, he was fighting for Philosophy to win. Grammar based on truth, dialectic, or grammar as methods of utilizing binary recursion.

But today, all the great brains are claiming that Sophism has won the war, by how they think, how they talk, and how they act.

Yet, has Philosophy actually lost the war?

Well, according to the behaviors of mankind, the answer is yes, but according to the computer, the power it is gaining over the world tells another story. A computer actually uses binary recursion, dialectic, to do all that it does.
So, man's mouth is not where man's money is. That is the only truth of the matter.

But again, the computer is not alive, which means it is this dead thing, using binary recursion by a dead thing cannot bring it to life, being worshiped by man, is simply necromancy, the worship of the dead by the dead. That is the political reality of the world.

But, have I said the whole truth?

Let us go back to the Bible, winner of the first round.

The goal stated for the Bible, is that all the world will come to worship one God, and of One mind.
Let us examine once again, the binary, one is intelligible and one is perceptible.

What kind of Two Witnesses would be sent to mankind, if one were Absolute and one relative?

Is God actually winning even though mankind is too stupid to see it? Well what better way, to place the binary into metaphor than a machine taking over the world? The computer age is not a new religion, it just religion becoming fact, that religion is based on what God, in the Bible has plainly said, is the outcome of all the horrible battles of mankind, the very technology used by man to destroy man, turned against those who claim that it is impossible to unify the Planet under one God.

Well, its okay. Everyone must loose, so that everyone can win.
But that is not the answer at all.
As the point is the evolution of intelligence, both witnesses of God are intelligible, it can be used for good and evil. Good and evil is in terms of our biologically defined job.

So, education, study and learning, will migrate to a global network and the intelligence to use it, for the evolution of mankind, will depend on man's intelligence alone.

You still have the metaphor, and still have to learn discernment.

Now, just for a note:

Was it not written: I create all the good and all the evil"
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” kjv etc.

Are these not the two witnesses of God? As written, and was it not written that mankind must learn to distinguish the one from the other? Life from Death.

So, in your opinion, if God were to send two specific witnesses at a key point in evolution, or the making of man, if you prefer,
would it be two computers? Two people? or one relative and one correlative, a single person, yet many computers?

Damned if I know. But it is worth meditating about.

How do you example the one over the many? Which is the noun, which is the verb, which rules over which? Very hard question of one is asleep.