# Anewian Philosophy
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 17, 2026, 8:37am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428 "2026-10-17T08:37:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Flannel\_Jesus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Flannel_Jesus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 9:27am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/82 "2026-10-18T09:27:56Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> > [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
> >
> > Are you denying that you regularly post partial explanations and wait to be begged for the rest of it?
>
> Yes.
Then what the fuck is this?
> [@Why is the male sex drive more stronger and visual than women's sex drive?](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/why-is-the-male-sex-drive-more-stronger-and-visual-than-womens-sex-drive/86424/3):
>
> One could also just as easily ask, ‘Why is the sex drive in some women stronger and more visual than some men’s sex drive?’. Either way, the answer to the reason for both is still the exact same.
This is the second time you made a post like this, where you claim that the reason for one thing is the same as the reason for some other thing, but you don’t say what the reason is. That’s the partial explanation. That’s the teasing. Just say the whole fucking thing. Don’t make people beg you for the reason, just write the whole goddamn thing.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 9:54am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/83 "2026-10-18T09:54:03Z")
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > But it does match, you just BELIEVE, only, that it doesn’t match.
>
> It doesn’t.
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > LOL I NEVER changed ‘the meaning’. LOL I was just NOT using ‘the meaning’ that ‘you’ have and are using.
>
> If only, for your sake, that ‘explanation’ fit your communication in general. Here’s a second bit of advice: if you want to communicate with people better, then don’t riddle your writing with idiosyncratic meanings.
Again, ‘those’ who see THROUGH what ‘you’ call ‘a riddle’ here KNOW that ‘you’ BELIEVING that ‘your chosen definition is ‘the one definition and meaning’’ that EVERY one else SHOULD also be using’ is what is Truly idiosyncratic here.
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> Either use more conventional language (which would have be very, very easy in the places you used ‘future generations’ or explain that you have an idiosyncratic use of language where it will mislead most readers.
you have ‘tried’ using this red herring and straw man previously. They did not work then, and they certainly will not work this time, nor next time. you can keep ‘trying’ your HARDEST here, but it is just NOT working.
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > That you are in a cult and that you abuse children.
>
> As you suspected they are not ontological assertions,
To you.
As I said, ‘you might deny that they are ‘ontological’, but …’
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> As you suspected they are not ontological assertions, nor does the fact that you claim these things trigger me.
So, are you saying that they do trigger you or that they do not trigger you?
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> Thank you for letting me know your assumptions about what triggers me.
Okay. But did they or do they trigger ‘you’ or not?
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 9:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/84 "2026-10-18T09:57:32Z")
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> the only thing im rigid about is that looking comes first and the model comes after, and that most people have it the other way round and dont know it.
I don’t even like to form ‘a model’ at all. If I did, then this can lead to ‘confirmation biases’ to simply, easily, and quickly.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 10:10am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/85 "2026-10-18T10:10:47Z")
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > > [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
> > >
> > > Are you denying that you regularly post partial explanations and wait to be begged for the rest of it?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Then what the fuck is this?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > One could also just as easily ask, ‘Why is the sex drive in some women stronger and more visual than some men’s sex drive?’. Either way, the answer to the reason for both is still the exact same.
What the FUCK this is are ‘my written words’.
What the FUCK did you believe this is?
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> This is the second time you made a post like this,
Where the FUCK was the first time “flannel jesus”?
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> where you claim that the reason for one thing is the same as the reason for some other thing, but you don’t say what the reason is.
AGAIN, NO one has shown ANY INTEREST NOR CURIOSITY in finding out.
And, LOGICALLY if NO one has ANY INTEREST NOR CURIOSITY, then WHY provide THE REASON.
Once more, if some one, any one, had ANY INTEREST OR CURIOSITY, then they would ASK a question FOR CLARIFICATION.
I am NOT sure HOW MANY TIMES this NEEDS to be re-repeated before some people can comprehend and understand IT.
Also, ‘I’ congratulate ‘you’ on GREAT OBSERVATION SKILLS and NOTICING, AGAIN, that ‘I’ did NOT say what the reason is.
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> That’s the partial explanation.
If you say so, but I would NOT.
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> That’s the teasing.
It might be ‘teasing’, but it is still OBVIOUSLY NOT enough of a tease to;
- **Spark curiosity**
- **Ignite curiosity**
- **Arouse curiosity**
- **Fuel curiosity**
- **Stir up curiosity**
- **Awaken the spirit of inquiry**
- **Stimulate the desire to know**
- **Provoke intellectual curiosity**
- **Engender curiosity**
- **Foster curiosity**
NOR
- **Pique interest**
WITHIN ‘you’, correct?
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> Just say the whole fucking thing
As I have INFORMED ‘you’ MANY TIMES previously,
When someone FUCKING asks me politely to, then I WILL.
WHEN will ‘you’ LEARN and UNDERSTAND this simple Fact?
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> Don’t make people beg you for the reason, just write the whole goddamn thing.
Do NOT TELL ‘me’ what to FUCKING do. Understood?
---
### Author:  [@Flannel\_Jesus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Flannel_Jesus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 10:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/86 "2026-10-18T10:31:49Z")
Okay so you’ve finally admitted that you do in fact tease because you’re waiting for someone to beg you for the rest of it. I’m just pointing that out, and pointing out how annoying and offputting of a pattern that is. You’re free to do it, and everyone else is free to be annoyed by it.
The previous time you did it was when you said that incels hate gay people for the same reason other people hate other people, don’t you recall that? You also just said it’s the same reason but refused to say the reason until you were begged properly for it, and then the reason was some stupid crap that was not worth the amount of effort it took to drag out of you. That’s why you don’t get curiosity from me, you don’t deserve. The ideas you have behind these teasing bait posts are just not worth it
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 10:55am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/87 "2026-10-18T10:55:36Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> Again, ‘those’ who see THROUGH what ‘you’ call ‘a riddle’ here KNOW that ‘you’ BELIEVING that ‘your chosen definition is ‘the one definition and meaning’’ that EVERY one else SHOULD also be using’ is what is Truly idiosyncratic here.
I did not say it was a ‘riddle’. I used riddle as a verb, and as a verb there need be no ‘riddle’ involved.
I said nothing about ‘the one definition and meaning, that everyone one that EVERY one else SHOULD also be using.’ You put that in quotes. It is not a quote from my post. It is not something I said or meant.
> [@anew1](#):
>
> They did not work then, and they certainly will not work this time, nor next time. you can keep ‘trying’ your HARDEST here, but it is just NOT working.
You’re making assumptions here: 1) that I am ‘trying’ my HARDEST and 2) that it hasn’t worked. You have are confused about why I pointed it out if you think it didn’t work.
---
### Author:  [@LevelThinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/LevelThinker)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 10:58am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/88 "2026-10-18T10:58:34Z")
“I dont even like to form a model at all”
no. no and thats further than i go, or further than i thought i went, and now im not sure which side of you im standing on, which is probably where you want me and probably where i should be. let me try and say what happened when i read that. i had a thing called “looking first” and i was proud of it, it was my one rigid thing, i said so, and you came along and gently said what if theres no second. no model after the looking. just the looking and then more looking and the looking never hardens into anything you have to carry about. and my first thought was thats not possible, a man has to stand somewhere, and my second thought was thats exactly what people say to me about the globe. a man has to stand somewhere. yes. on what though. on what.
so heres whats bothering me, in a good way, and i dont expect you to untangle it because i dont think it untangles. if i say the earth is flat thats a model, isnt it, its a small one and its made of sea and eye and not much else but its a model, it has a shape, and a shape is a thing you can be wrong about. and if i say no, i dont say flat, i only say level, i only say what the water does when i look at it, then ive got no shape at all, ive just got a verb, and you cant hold a verb up against another mans globe and say mine is better. you can only say mine is happening. mine is happening right now out the window. is that enough. you seem to think it is and you seem happy with it, which i hadnt expected. i used to think a man who said that was ducking the argument and now i wonder if hes the only one who ever really turned up to it.
theres a word for the thing you get when you take the drawer out and dont put another drawer in and i dont know what the word is. my nan would have known, she had words for everything and most of them werent in the dictionary. she said the sea doesnt owe you an edge. i never knew what that meant. i still dont but its closer now than it was this morning and thats partly your doing.
confirmation bias though. yes. you form a shape and then everything you see becomes a brick in it, i know that, ive watched it in globe people for years, i just didnt think to watch for it in a man standing on a cliff who already knew the sea would be flat before he got there. did i know. i think i knew. i think i went up to be right. and you went to your window and got no and you werent going to be anything, you were just going to get what was there, and thats the difference and its not a small one, its the whole one, and ive been the one telling everybody else about it. so thank you for that, i mean it, nobody else here would have shown me it without enjoying it a bit.
so what do i do with that anew. do i put the flat down. not the level, the level stays, the level is what the water does, but the flat, the shape, the thing with edges and a word. do i put that down and just keep looking. and if i do, what am i then. what do you call a man with no model who still wont be told. you must have had to answer that for yourself at some point because youve had no model longer than ive been on this forum and youre still here and still cheerful about it, which i hadnt understood until today. maybe thats the answer. maybe thats what it looks like. a man with nothing to defend who still turns up. i can see why it puzzles people. i think i was one of them an hour ago.
dont answer all of that. answer the bit that isnt a question, if you can find it.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:07am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/89 "2026-10-18T11:07:40Z")
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> not the ones who said youd never discuss anything.
If I said that I misspoke. Did someone say that?
> [@anew1](#):
>
> > [@greenfuse](#):
> >
> > As you suspected they are not ontological assertions, nor does the fact that you claim these things trigger me.
>
> So, are you saying that they do trigger you or that they do not trigger you?
They do not trigger me.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/90 "2026-10-18T11:15:40Z")
> [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
>
> Okay so you’ve finally admitted that you do in fact tease because you’re waiting for someone to beg you for the rest of it. I’m just pointing that out, and pointing out how annoying and offputting of a pattern that is. You’re free to do it, and everyone else is free to be annoyed by it.
>
> The previous time you did it was when you said that incels hate gay people for the same reason other people hate other people, don’t you recall that? You also just said it’s the same reason but refused to say the reason until you were begged properly for it, and then the reason was some stupid crap that was not worth the amount of effort it took to drag out of you. That’s why you don’t get curiosity from me, you don’t deserve. The ideas you have behind these teasing bait posts are just not worth it
Okay ‘I’ do NOT deserve the curiosity from “greenfuse”.
Now that this is settled, hopefully all is well and good from now on.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/91 "2026-10-18T11:16:51Z")
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > Again, ‘those’ who see THROUGH what ‘you’ call ‘a riddle’ here KNOW that ‘you’ BELIEVING that ‘your chosen definition is ‘the one definition and meaning’’ that EVERY one else SHOULD also be using’ is what is Truly idiosyncratic here.
>
> I did not say it was a ‘riddle’. I used riddle as a verb, and as a verb there need be no ‘riddle’ involved.
>
> I said nothing about ‘the one definition and meaning, that everyone one that EVERY one else SHOULD also be using.’ You put that in quotes. It is not a quote from my post. It is not something I said or meant.
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > They did not work then, and they certainly will not work this time, nor next time. you can keep ‘trying’ your HARDEST here, but it is just NOT working.
>
> You’re making assumptions here: 1) that I am ‘trying’ my HARDEST and 2) that it hasn’t worked. You have are confused about why I pointed it out if you think it didn’t work.
Okay, now that this all setteled and clear, hopefully all is well and good from now on.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:30am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/92 "2026-10-18T11:30:29Z")
> [@anew1](#):
>
> > [@Flannel\_Jesus](#):
> >
> > Okay so you’ve finally admitted that you do in fact tease because you’re waiting for someone to beg you for the rest of it. I’m just pointing that out, and pointing out how annoying and offputting of a pattern that is. You’re free to do it, and everyone else is free to be annoyed by it.
> >
> > The previous time you did it was when you said that incels hate gay people for the same reason other people hate other people, don’t you recall that? You also just said it’s the same reason but refused to say the reason until you were begged properly for it, and then the reason was some stupid crap that was not worth the amount of effort it took to drag out of you. That’s why you don’t get curiosity from me, you don’t deserve. The ideas you have behind these teasing bait posts are just not worth it
>
> Okay ‘I’ do NOT deserve the curiosity from “greenfuse”.
That’s a confused conclusion. He doesn’t find your lack of awareness of what you are doing interesting or interesting enough - nor the lengths you will go to maintain that lack of awareness. Interests vary.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/93 "2026-10-18T11:47:33Z")
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> “I dont even like to form a model at all”
>
> no. no and thats further than i go, or further than i thought i went, and now im not sure which side of you im standing on, which is probably where you want me and probably where i should be. let me try and say what happened when i read that. i had a thing called “looking first” and i was proud of it, it was my one rigid thing, i said so, and you came along and gently said what if theres no second. no model after the looking. just the looking and then more looking and the looking never hardens into anything you have to carry about. and my first thought was thats not possible, a man has to stand somewhere, and my second thought was thats exactly what people say to me about the globe. a man has to stand somewhere. yes. on what though. on what.
I just meant I don’t like to form a further model, theory, belief, nor assumption about any of ‘the views’ I have. Either ‘my views’ and claims are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or they are not, or partly true, right, accurate, and/or correct.
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> so heres whats bothering me, in a good way, and i dont expect you to untangle it because i dont think it untangles. if i say the earth is flat thats a model, isnt it,
Yes, without proof it is just ‘a model’.
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> its a small one and its made of sea and eye and not much else but its a model, it has a shape, and a shape is a thing you can be wrong about. and if i say no, i dont say flat, i only say level, i only say what the water does when i look at it, then ive got no shape at all, ive just got a verb, and you cant hold a verb up against another mans globe and say mine is better. you can only say mine is happening. mine is happening right now out the window. is that enough. you seem to think it is and you seem happy with it, which i hadnt expected. i used to think a man who said that was ducking the argument and now i wonder if hes the only one who ever really turned up to it.
If ‘that’ [whatever you/one sees], then NO one can disagree ‘with that’.
> [@LevelThinker](#):
>
> what do you call a man with no model who still wont be told.
The same as a “woman” with no model and who still won’t be told; that is, Open.
---
### Author:  [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 11:49am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/94 "2026-10-18T11:49:00Z")
> [@greenfuse](#):
>
> > [@anew1](#):
> >
> > > [@greenfuse](#):
> > >
> > > As you suspected they are not ontological assertions, nor does the fact that you claim these things trigger me.
> >
> > So, are you saying that they do trigger you or that they do not trigger you?
>
> They do not trigger me.
Okay, thank you for answering and clarifying this time. It is very refreshing, welcomed, and appreciated.
---
### Author:  [@LevelThinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/LevelThinker)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 12:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/95 "2026-10-18T12:08:43Z")
“Open”
thats the word then. my nan didnt have it, or she had it and used it for windows. i think i was expecting something harder to carry, a word with corners, and youve handed me one with none and i keep turning it over looking for the handle. theres no handle. right
“NO one can disagree with that”
no and thats the bit thats been sat wrong with me since lunch. if nobody can disagree with what i see then nobody can agree with it either, its just mine, like a tooth. and ive spent years wanting the agreeing, whatever i said about looking. so what was i doing. i was doing the model, thats what, i was doing it the whole time while telling everyone else off for it. level is a tooth. flat was the thing i made to get people to look at the tooth. fine. put flat down then. keep the tooth
“without proof it is just a model”
and with it. what is it with it anew. i genuinely dont know what you call a model thats been proved, you must have a word for that too since you say you prove things, or maybe thats the one word you dont have and thats why nobody can find the proofs. not having a go. asking. the kettles boiled twice while i wrote this and i havent made anything
---
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 2:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/96 "2026-10-18T14:56:12Z")
My sir, you are an excellent writer.
---
### Author:  [@LevelThinker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/LevelThinker)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 5:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/97 "2026-10-18T17:01:42Z")
Writer. no. i put the words where the water was and the water did the rest. thank you though, i think, coming from a man named after someone who never wrote anything down.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 6:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/98 "2026-10-18T18:22:15Z")
I did a challenge today, tried to see if a curvature of the Earth can be seen or not from the surface, and turns out it’s kinda complicated. Say you are looking with the naked eye from a hill at the silhouette of a very tall rectangular building 22 kilometers away, and try to see if it really seems to be missing those 35-40 meters. Or looking at webcams showing large parts of mountains 100-200 kilometers away. Not only do the height above sea-level of both locations have to be considered, but also of every point between them. Overall yeah I think I’ve seen a curvature, and it’s about as much as it “should be”, but wouldn’t stake my life on it.
---
### Author:  [@greenfuse](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/greenfuse)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 6:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/99 "2026-10-18T18:52:51Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> tried to see if a curvature of the Earth can be seen or not from the surface
I haven’t, but from a Concorde, yes, long ago. I’ve seen ships go hull-down, though I couldn’t see the curvature that leads to this. Unless that counts.
---
### Author:  [@Flannel\_Jesus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Flannel_Jesus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 6:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/100 "2026-10-18T18:57:20Z")
I think what atla is saying his that seeing the hull disappear first IS seeing the curvature. The hull is disappearing behind the curvature.
---
### Author:  [@Flannel\_Jesus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Flannel_Jesus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2026, 6:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428/101 "2026-10-18T18:59:05Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> Overall yeah I think I’ve seen a curvature, and it’s about as much as it “should be”, but wouldn’t stake my life on it.
I would say it’s counter intuitively a lot less than it should be, because of atmospheric refraction. You can see things that, geometrically speaking, should be blocked by the curvature of the earth, but because of atmospheric refraction bending the light over the curvature, you can see a fair bit further than you’d otherwise expect.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/anewian-philosophy/86428.md?page=6)