No, its PhD major, inspired by my presence. Of course then accusing me for not being a man enough and not making stupid music about the waves of grain, with or without drugs.
Nice self-rape in fluent English. I bet Trixie is cheering up.
So pretentious.
That’s better Cezar.
What you engadged in just now is called an “Appeal to Ridicule”, and you knew instinctively to pull in Trixie, a fellow transexual, closer to your opinion, eliciting her as moral support to your augument. Does it exist? Unlikely, its up to the targeted individual… oftentimes this will backfire and they will reject you, other times they will remain neutral and reject you. However, given I appear to be pretentious, and the He-She is here for " Tom Foolery", you can find a potential ally in ‘it’, but one that is bound to bite back when the opportunity presents itself.
Likewise, you lost several good chances with Orb and Trixie to identify my open self identification of my faith, you could of triggered a cascade effect of opinion regarding my orthodoxy, self identify fixation, piety, consistency, and ignorance about a fundamental truth. Given this is in many people a unprotected underside to their sense of self, its a legitimate target.
A comparison of misunderstandings of my life to the life if St. Simeon or that of Jesus was a missed opportunity, you could of tied it in and built upon it.
The ability to tie in diverse negative opinions about a opponent is important in a “body politick” as it allows you a to build a platform of Demogaguery. Your attempt with Trixie shows you to be a natural, but you lack good instinct to expand.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
Now, in a rather pathetic Nietzschean since, a Demagogue is a “good” as they become egoists who pursue power and authority via manipulation. This made them enemies at times of the Athenian nobility, but since the modern world lacks nobility, and that you most definitely 100% are not one, these isn’t much if a Orthodox stance against it, as even the nobility exploited such techniques.
A valid form of demogogue isn’t building a platform for building ego or gaining political clout, but rather to coordinate excess mental agitation in a group for a cascade effect that results in “a call for reason” or “a call for insight”. In this mode, you have to build up that energetic platform, and as everyone’s emotions and logic start to turn unproductively against one another, as your directing and building on that logic, once everyone switched from individuals to a group, you make them aware of the phenomena, and ask them to question the validity of their behavior, and if there isn’t an alternative. This doesn’t result in nearly the clout or “power” a demogogue who seeks personal grandure and authority gets, it may not even get you any. But what it does get you is a platform and opportunity to present your ideas. This can be done exploiting only the information given to you by your opponent, no need for falsehoods… but you can also fish or lead a investigative excursion into the claims, exploiting satire in your comparative findings.
Look at Orbies and Arc’s post… related but not quite tied in. Are they correct, unlikely… but could it have a substance of truth to it, perhaps… latch on to find out.
You could of done this, and confronted me in their eyes, charged me with an impiety within the confines of their logic, denounced me, an in that place, lauded a Nietzschean ideal… and then use Trixie’s post to further devestate me.
The shock would of been great enough that potentially it could of forced a withdrawal from me for a few days as I searched for answers regarding such weakness of character on my part. In the meantime you could of been busy converting them.
The “sense of self” we possess is usually packaged, intentionally or not, with the ideas we offer. Exceptions exist… people will accept mathematical formulas from a pedophile or mass murderer, but that’s about it. This isn’t a logical fallacy, its a fact of our species, and it underlines all communications. Being aware if this isn’t invalid. Many opportunities arise to combine humor with the needs to project a message. As a “philosopher” you should always be aware of the opportunities inherent in speech and be prone to exploit them if the need arises to interject. Humor can act like a wedge against even the tightest of logical reasonings, allowing you room to get inside of logic from angles otherwise unavailable to do some serious deconstructive surgery on it. Satire and Critic are best under these circumstances, as this involves imagination, and imagination uses logic, but is much larger than logic, and can drawl upon a wider assortment of cognitive tools otherwise unavailable.
What on Earth are you babbling about? The topic is about how boring existence is. I didn’t ask for an active demonstration.
Hint, this topic isn’t about laughter, transsexualism, Catholism, or babbling about ancient philosophies.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGgzE7x3bM4
In Satire, and its resulting laughter, we find two elements at play, The Culling and The Coming.
In thus, we can speak great truths of the obvious that our societal pretensions otherwise will disavow.
Some of the characteristics of demogaguery lend themselves well to philosophical discourse, while others do not. There isn’t a way to verify its philosophical appropriateness in the statement alone, without studying its grammatical structure against Peto’s Paradox
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto’s_paradox
m.youtube.com/watch?v=fMMPKJFYzdY
In grammar, we project and elude to senses of “Thingness” and its activities and wider causal field it exists in, and assert a sense of self into the mix. It only needs to be apparent, not presumed to be real. Grammar doesn’t prove, it only presents the logical ordering of statements. Languages that have tried to enforce greater truths have merely produced greater liars, such as the French language. Observe this picture, the thoughts going through your mind:
Many senses of reality, but none defiantly correct above the other as far as language itself is concerned, correct? Its your uptight morals at best that restricts, not the grammar and syntax as a means to expression.
Peto’s Paradox governs communication’s acceptability, as a delimiting factor in the growth of ideas. This is apparent in every election cycle, especially in the US. We have a bi-cameral legislator, with three separate tiers of government, 50 states, each with counties or municipal/tribal corporations (Alaska uses it instead of counties).
Any great idea a philosopher comes up with is expected to explode and spread, right? Why, because he is a philosopher, he specializes in thinking, and his insights should in a random environment increase exponentially upon the strength of his arguments… right? Wrong. The philosopher is essentially a cancer upon the body politick, aligning himself with the same growth rate and means of reproduction as a cancer. Some are malignant, others spread and don’t do much, but some form tumors locally or become terminal to the body.
As most philosophers never become big, most philosophers have never experienced the stress arising from friction and varied antagonisms. As a result, most philosophers are invariably wrong, as their messages are incomplete or infantile in their immaturity and lack of awareness.
However, we tie our sense of self, especially our self worth into our ideas in presentation, and invented a off-balanced, absurd array of logical fallacies that society on the whole rejects in our daily behavior, but need to preserve for our sense of emotional security, and to save face. Some oaracites, like academics, have built careers around exploiting them to present themselves as right minded and correct. However, most can’t last in sustained argument, as their methods are counterproductive to natural philosophy. Humor is a part of natural philosophy, it is a aspect inherent in all of us, and is a resource we can all reach for to undue the damage these con-artist wreck upon society.
The reason why cancer fails in large bodies, for the same reason communications fail in large societies, it because if the limiting factors of localised receptibility. In order for a local demogague in one tiny region to project his ideas across a very wide spectrum, his ideas would have to be universally valid… which grammar and syntax severely limits a meaningful timely expression of this, in order to spread, or the ideas the allow for effective local inundation to spread everywhere… I.E. the specific local conditions if the message are not felt to be region specific, but acceptable by a much larger society, despite the limitations.
Each message we send out that involves “values” are encoded for specific populations, as determined by degrees of receptive compatibility on their end. In time, their sense if self identification can bond to it. Same for our bloodstream… yes, nutrients flow randomly, but peptides work and activate specific regions of types if cells. Your fat cells can’t grow or stop growing without specific peptides (messages).
This has a modulating effect on large, long lasting bodies… be it political or biological, as it significantly reduces the degree of influence a cancer can have on large bodies, while explaining why is occurs so quickly on small ones.
In the US, demogagues have a very rough time, not so much in getting themselves local influence, but spreading their ideas to tiers of government beyond their starting areas, or even into both houses of legislation on the state and federal level. Why? The message doesn’t reflect the needs of those constituents. A demagogue is aware of these needs, exploits them, triumphs them. The next region over has different needs, and thus a different range of philosophy, but some overlap expected.
Political party coordinators are aware of this, and know enough regions have shared lovelappind depositional values, and these regions produce certain brands of ideas that seem great to them, but is distasteful to most everyone else. In order to have a dominant political party, you need to pool these patchwork coalitions together into a sense if unity. Its impossible, can’t be done. What they do is exploit the variability in the political system… these “radical core regions” focus their policies on a tier of government, or a house, and go all out, while other aspects push elsewhere. This gives them a sense of preserverence and activity, and allows for the shared sense of party. If these factions start noticing they are competing against other regional identities, are pushed out influentially, and are ignored, they either break away and form their own group, they flip and join a opposing party, or they devolve and except the status quo, which doesn’t last more than two generations.
Cancer in the body is similar, but it’s also non-sentient, so its activities are dumber.
In philosophy, the ideal is to be either a local demogogue of specific ideas (values) limited to a region and circumstance (a area in a war zone isn’t the same as a region in peace, in winter as in harvest, in drought as in flood, even if its the same geographical location), or a universal leader if ideas. Nietzsche tried both, and had limited success on the local front, more on the universal… but was a “lowly demigague” in both cases.
Let’s look at two historical cases from Athens:
Athens was a small state, a little fucking rat. Rats are undone by cancer as small creature faster, than large whales who have to command and control functions of a larger subset of cells, and have less room for fluctuations in their stores than mice do… Larger bodies, lower metabolism… limited digestive resources. They can’t as quickly source on cancer as a small creature can. It comes down to logistics and coordination.
A large state, such as the Persian empire, or the Soviet Union, or US, is less prone. Why? Territorial divisions, much larger population, limited ability for demogagues to collect wide support.
As all nobility is based inherently on this function, it becomes a means for their displacement and assention. Sparta couldn’t prevent thus, so instead rearranged their constitution to limit while harnessing this thrust, leaving aristocratic stability. While this eventually lead to a complete exhaustion of the Spartan state, it did last longer and was more stable in its time, but lacked from that point on the natural capacity to evolve all strong states do. Athens still had it, and it is why we identify them as the heart of Greek civilization, as they courted change and new ideas, despite the threat occurring to their small size of being completely overwhelmed.
We now live today in a world community of billions. Thousands of territorial divisions exist. All ideas are in conflict, but at the same time, all ideas carry pretentions, and are advocated by individuals with real world tangibility… they are real, and carry the ideas firth for limited reasons, however universal they think they are.
So… Say we look at the link in the post above, made by Swift on “Meditations Upon a Broomstick”… he us poking fun at another work, that tried to fit technological artifacts within a divine, hugh culture… which swift rightfully observed was absurd. He isolated parallels, and built up from it, anthromophised object to the next, then he exits… carrying the momentum to other absurd human behaviors, until it becomes a critic of society and human behavior at large.
He made the transition. Next to impossible to be taken seriously as a humorous philosopher tackling the great ideas of society. Nietzsche went after small universal aspects everyone shared, such as faith and religion, and built up.
Satire and parody has a legitimate function in large states, as this becomes a healthy tool of exoression. However, in a small, uncomplicated state, it us a tool for damnation.
The only thing the cancer rats have going for them is they share as much specialization of organ types as the big whales, if they didn’t, their cancer will quickly overwhelm them.
Consider this when considering the impact of memes, or why you never seem to get that much support for your ideas. You not just unfunny, but you lack a fundamental awareness of how philosophy works on a large scale. Its opinion driven, and nothing drives that engine like passion, and humor almost always attracts the attention of others. You always sim to be a isolate and therefore weak thinker. You think your up high, but are really quite down low as far as people seriously considering you is concerned.
By doing this, you do a disservice to philosophy, as you fail to express your ideas. Its about the excitement, usefulness, willingness to relate. Humor can do this, on a small scale, and large. But if you don’t adapt your humor, to the scale, you become influentially infertile. We have comedians and actirs elected to office, and they don’t do nearly as well, as they aren’t aware the nature of spreading influence changes once you switch up your level and the receptivity of others, as yoyr peers share traits, possess specialization, and aren’t nearly as impressed. Its why most people don’t die if cancer, or if they do, its organ specific. Very hard to universally spread an idea. Let’s hope cancer doesn’t discover jokes.
Ancient philosophy gets bored by you modern people. You don’t know in which context to put it in.
Did you just drink a cup of word salad puree?
I think people get bored by philosophy not the other way round.
Orbie, is this in response to what I said above? IF so, according to christian doctrine, he wasn’t actually set up. It was an agreement (for lack of a better word) between his father and himself and a covenant which the creator made with his people. It was according to his will too. I was just putting a different slant on it and didn’t mean any disrespect. We all come from different perspectives insofar as Christ’s mission is concerned. Some call Christ a scapegoat, some think he was set up or manipulated. We think according to our own projections, psychological leanings, shortcomings, weaknesses, etc.
No need to be an apologist. I sometimes find myself defending Christ and I don’t even believe anymore.
Just so long as we remember - one can be an atheist or an agnostic and still share and believe in some of those values.
We all see with different eyes and there are also residuals floating around within us.
Modern people are capable even to bore dead people. Some of them are spinning in their graves.
But honestly, which one of this greatest authors is not understandible for you? - Aristotle, Aristocles or Aristophanes? I understand why they are so boring to you and why you don’t get them.
On second thought…?
Seemed like a very unnecessary thing to say, no?
Hi. Not assuming you’re talking to me but IF you are, what’s that unnecessary thing…
Cezar, we both know I’ve read far more ancient works from around the world than you, as well as medieval, renaissance, and enlightened.
You might have an edge on me in regards to 19th century German language philosophers, but its largely because I don’t give a fuck about them.
Hell, I’ve read philosophy books that were just as ancient to the Greeks and Romans as the Greeks and Romans are ancient today.
What is remarkable to me is, you read the books, but lack comprehension of them. Your unable to process their insights into your outlook, you merely point at them and say “this is how it should be”. You don’t become it, by incorporating it into who you are… you’ve yet to separate the wheat from the chaff, and clearly incapable of adopting it directly into your outlook.
You end up as less than a man.
You treat these works like their a “princes mirror” but fail in assimilation. Hell, you would probably be better off just switching to prince’s mirrors, they were created to teach young princes how to be wise rulers, its what Machiavelli was doing when he was all “Young Prince”.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes
I believe the Bosnjak Savjetuje Sultana applies to you?
amazon.com/Bosnjak-savjetuje … 1511964669
Read that shit and stop pestering people on reading classical works until you yourself are capable of really reading them.
See and this is why I think you’re an alchemist. lol
btw, I didn’t understand the orange thingy and I couldn’t ask.
You don’t get ‘worthy’ no ‘worthless’ people, you only ever get varieties. The person with one vice is the same as everyone else, and doesn’t have all vices. just thought I’d point that out.
Look kiddie, Nietzsche was for the creation of a race of classical philologists. Enough said. Your squint-eyed reading of such works is again a self-rape. I admit, you are good at it.
The “19th century German language philosophers” I read are all classicists. Now go and hook yourself.
lol
What you call philosophy is just what a bastard would call a family.
A Master Race of Philologists?
Who you bullshitting?
Take your love for Alexander the Great. Under your theory, he is Buddhist, because our main textual source for him comes from Arrian, who was a Stoic. He was a student of the Stoic Philosopher Epictetus, and wrote the Discourses in honor of him (There is a old, crabby Irish Stoic-Nietzschean I can introduce you to, he is even more shit headed that you, an art collector):
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrian
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus
Yet you as a master-race philologist must do away with the Stoic, as its Nihilistic (in your mind at least), meaning you’ll have to do away with your understanding of his psychology, which is from Arrian’s tradition
So as a master-race philologist, Alexander is just some guy who took a walk to India, then all the guys started dressing like girls.
You are a incredibly short sighted man, ignorant of historical methods, philological standards, the historical corpus we study from, and lack the capacity for a competent comparison, as you lack all insight into the texts you read as you are a utterly incompetent psychologist, and live in ignorance of the era of study.
In regards to your master race philologists, I will rip their fucking heads off. They are utterly worthless and detestable in the sight of a real historian, and are incapable philosophers, unable to see beyond Nietzsche. I shall be the Anti-Christ to this feeble and most backwards, detestable, degenerate race of idiots.
You just changed your message Mowk, had already responded.