Philosophy Now Forum

One of the key components of Religion is the distinction between a virtual person and a perceptible person. For example, Corporations are considered virtual individuals. The religious idea that the virtual person and the perceptible person are equitable is a primitive fallacy, yet is treated as if it were not.
Individuals routinely take on the persona, of the virtual person, and individuals in our legal systems routinely claim to be representing these virtual persona's.

I do not believe that there is anyway to change this outside of setting standards for grammar. Most people seem to think that creating mountains of gibberish will make mankind intelligent, which is, again, a religious belief.

Do you really believe that freedom of Religion is even a grammatically correct statement? If the mind has one, and only one tool, to do its job, then the answer is no.

These virtual persona's are actually ghost stories. Can any government survive which cannot distinguish the difference between a ghost and an actual person?
How much news do you get hyped about which are actually ghost stories?

Imagine continually coming into a philosophy forum, presenting premises that are not True, show how the premises are not True, and then believing that you had actually accomplished and proven some thing.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:59 am Imagine continually coming into a philosophy forum, presenting premises that are not True, show how the premises are not True, and then believing that you had actually accomplished and proven some thing.

See my point then, tell me Obi Wan, as both Plato and Aristotle noted, is the universal ever equitable to the particular? Is a noun ever equal to its own verb?
Your illiteracy is unmatched.
The Intelligible is Universal, the Perceptible is particular. Try studying those who tried to teach you grammar.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:59 am Imagine continually coming into a philosophy forum, presenting premises that are not True, show how the premises are not True, and then believing that you had actually accomplished and proven some thing.

See my point then, tell me Obi Wan, as both Plato and Aristotle noted, is the universal ever equitable to the particular? Is a noun ever equal to its own verb?
Your illiteracy is unmatched.
The Intelligible is Universal, the Perceptible is particular. Try studying those who tried to teach you grammar.

Let 'us' not forget that you have failed every time to just explain whatever 'the purpose' is, for whatever 'it' is that you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain, here.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:32 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:59 am Imagine continually coming into a philosophy forum, presenting premises that are not True, show how the premises are not True, and then believing that you had actually accomplished and proven some thing.

See my point then, tell me Obi Wan, as both Plato and Aristotle noted, is the universal ever equitable to the particular? Is a noun ever equal to its own verb?
Your illiteracy is unmatched.
The Intelligible is Universal, the Perceptible is particular. Try studying those who tried to teach you grammar.

Let 'us' not forget that you have failed every time to just explain whatever 'the purpose' is, for whatever 'it' is that you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain, here.

Explaining is not distinct from expressing ideas through communication.

Communication is a skill. You can go great lengths if you can individualise your message for every person in every moment. You can also achieve a lot when your general baseline communication is calm, open, non-aggressive, non-threatening, non-preaching. Then less individualisation is required because you already have in mind not triggering the defence mechanisms of the human psyche.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:07 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:32 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 5:23 am

See my point then, tell me Obi Wan, as both Plato and Aristotle noted, is the universal ever equitable to the particular? Is a noun ever equal to its own verb?
Your illiteracy is unmatched.
The Intelligible is Universal, the Perceptible is particular. Try studying those who tried to teach you grammar.

Let 'us' not forget that you have failed every time to just explain whatever 'the purpose' is, for whatever 'it' is that you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain, here.

Explaining is not distinct from expressing ideas through communication.

Communication is a skill.

Of which if one can not just communicate and be understood about what 'it' is, that they want to communicate, then their communication skill is nonexistent. However, and of course, maybe 'their communication skill' is sufficient, but it is 'the others' who are just not Truly interested in at all.

But, if one is Truly curios and wanting to comprehend, learn, and understand what 'it' is that 'you' are obviously so desperately wanting to share, here, then when 'you' are asked to clarify things, and 'you' do not, then it is obviously 'you' who is lacking, severely, in communication skills.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:07 am You can go great lengths if you can individualise your message for every person in every moment.

Well 'we' are in a philosophy forum, on the internet, with the absolute beauty of being able to specifically 'individualise' our messages with each individual other.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:07 am You can also achieve a lot when your general baseline communication is calm, open, non-aggressive, non-threatening, non-preaching.

Honestly "phil8659" do you believe that you have communicated absolutely any thing, here, with absolutely one, here? (Besides of course you believe, absolutely, that you are far more superior to anyone else, here.)

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly, which you believe you have communicated, and 'to who', exactly?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 9:07 am Then less individualisation is required because you already have in mind not triggering the defence mechanisms of the human psyche.

All I said and wrote was, 'Let 'us' not forget that you have failed every time to just explain whatever 'the purpose' is, for whatever 'it' is that you are so desperately 'trying to' say and explain, here.

Now, if you want to replace the word 'explain' with the word 'communicate', here, then just do it. It would make absolutely no difference to 'the point' that I am making.

If you can not communicate just 'the purpose' for whatever 'it' is that you want to express and share, here, especially when asked for, then you are lacking in communicating skills, absolutely.

Okay Age, whatever you say no problem hearing myself.

There’s only one mind, after all, or is that before all, or is that neither after or before, just present. Not tense.

Age can be likened to a deaf person who preaches that people do not talk.