doubt it, tipped-over one-foot-standing pink …
flaming-o
pink feather burning
A flamingo is beautiful. An ostrich is ridiculous.
Now let’s make it truly comical 
:
An ostrich stands on the asphalt of a modern city street, surrounded by skyscrapers 
.
In its wings, it clutches a pot — filled to the brim with the sand of faith.
And then… it shoves its head deep into the pot.
“I hear nothing, I see nothing, and I want to understand nothing — except dogma.”
Its feathers? All plucked. Every last one.
Except for one single feather… the one the Demon has set ablaze 
—
now smoking with the stench of pious posts 
.
The right? More like the state of affairs. No?
Like… if someone says… you can’t be real! Just stop!… and you say… Oh but I can, and I am, and I’ma keep doing it, too!
Even though they just burned your last pink tailfeather.
And by the way—who told you that a tree on planet Earth doesn’t move? The planet itself spins, doesn’t it?
but its movement is not fundamental to its existence.
i am not talking about science i am talking about philosophy.
i am not talking about whether or not quarks must be moving in order to exist.
Amusing. So the fundamental motion of the planet is not considered fundamental to what grows on it or exists upon it?
One might have to be wooden-headed to make such a claim.
Perhaps a great “discovery” has been made here:
Apparently, trees don’t experience day and night. Nor do they encounter the changing of the seasons?
But more importantly—what exactly do you mean by “movement”?
Because it’s possible we’re not even talking about the same thing.
Please provide a definition.
History remembers a so-called “fool” who was burned at the stake for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Now, ironically, everyone believes it without question.
Does that mean we’re all collectively fools now?
It’s worth noting: movement is always relative.
And faith and reason—they do not coexist well. One cancels out the other.
Gosh - I suppose this must be your answer…
Plato’s division/harmony is everyone else’s. He’s neither the first nor the last to articulate it.
Substances/characters (reason), essences/forms/force (appetites), and actions (spirit).
Ref: the Republic (not exclusively)
I have to call bullshit. Because I am well aware of Plato’s tripartite “division” of the soul, which appears in Book IV of the Republic, but the OP does not describe this and talks of TWO divisions.
Additionally - what Plato is talking about is something quite different.
Love is the insinuations of the mind on the topic of property. A ridiculous criterion. There is no such thing as reasonable love. Everything that is not reasonable is ridiculous.
No matter how many idiots invent forms, the content – what is – has the right to be the totality of presence. The content is one.
The material/substance of being that doesn’t change, but subsumes all change… that which/who can willfully reclaim/renew … or bring to development/fruition … via willful change/action … is that which/who never changes. Anyone who can do that has something that never changes about them. An identity.
Reason why, reason how, and reason what are three different things, and all are required… distinctly. Aristotle‘s four causes and three substantia maintain the difference between matter — or what it is (which is dually considered an explanation or reason or cause… the material cause) — and form — or why it is (which is dually considered one of the three substantia) — and instead of an efficient cause being the third substantia, he had a composite of matter (what) and form (why) …. and some “blame” this how (willful change/action) on Descartes, heh, while simultaneously claiming that he left it (how) out. Was he being ironic…or were/are they?
Idiots do not change because they are cretins. But even they grow old and die. That’s a good thing, because the planet is getting rid of shit.
1 Like