Note to my Philosophy Now forum brothers and sisters:
Let this be a warning of what can happen to a philosophy discussion forum when the Kids, the fulminating fanatic objectivists and the pinheads take it over.
Well, in a free will universe anyway.
Not to worry though. I’m only here to humor him.
See?
=D>
See?
=D>
Nothing
I agree, albeit, a designation of the familial to the more familiar (image replacing the role they play in a deconstructed memory) is perhaps a more sensible way of putting it, not involving subabstracted perhaps unrecoverable emetic-genetic bonds, which are still a hotly debated what if.
All begins with the act - interaction.
All is energy.
Energy that is ordered - patterned - and energies that are chaotic - random, lack order.
Consciousness only perceives patterns because life feeds on patterns, needs patterns, is a unity of patterns.
Mind interprets patterns as scents, textures, sounds, images etc.
Those faster than his mind’s processing speed - his metabolic rhythms - it interprets as energies…those slower it interprets as matter…with a range in-between, for air, liquid etc.
The patterns sequence, rhythm, speed, is interpreted as a kind - ειδος.
Different patterns = different types of phenomena - apparent.
Appearance is how the mind interprets presence of patterns.
Chaotic energies cannot form complex unities so they remain on the infinitesimal scale, affecting patterns inconspicuously.
What we call free-will - choice - deals with these chaotic effects, manifesting the novel, the unforeseeable, requiring real time adjustment to interactivity.
Philosophy uses words to create meaning
Meaning is the interconnected matrices of phenomena/noumena.
Metaphorically.
Philosophy is a mental map of a geography.
Nihilism’s map is a fantasy map or an anti-map, rep[resenting no experienced geography.
Points on the map are phenomena in the world.
Distances, elevations, terrain etc. represent connectivity.
all these connection establish meaning.
A philosophy that cannot define its own concepts is not a philosophy - it is an anti-philosophy
Anti-wisdom.
No lover of wisdom.
A definition that cannot connect the concept to experienced reality - world - is all theory.
If it is used to replace the world it is nihilistic.
Example:
A spirituality that proposes a singularity, negating the world’s multiplicity, is anti-world.
A philosophy that proposes an immutable, indivisible, thing-in-itself, or a god-particle, or a one/nil - an absolute. Is anti-world.
a philosophy that constructs an elegant, magical fantasy map that corresponds to no existing geography, yet offers the mind an alternate world, i.e., Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or DC MARVEL Universes, or Rowling’s Harry Potter overlapping fantasy world, is nihilistic if it is literally believed and considered to be more real than the real world.
Semiotics - words, symbols, codes - are mediating connectors between the mind’s representations - abstractions, concepts - and the world outside the mind, experienced via a mediating interactive phenomenon e.g. light, atmosphere.
The map is a noetic representation of the world, not the world itself; nor is it a replacement alternate world.
Like a map it uses symbols, converting mathematically, the world to a representation of the world - an interpretation.
The interpretation - like any good map - is not arbitrary, nor is it imposed upon people by some collective; its utility is based on its accuracy and its accuracy is easily evaluated by every mind independently.
A map requires constant updates because all is in motion - dynamic. It requires constant reaffirmation.
The utility of the map is not determined by its popularity, like fantasy maps that use the map to escape the real world, not to engage it.
Three levels.
Physis… primary - ground, dynamic, interactive, existent.
Metaphysis…foundation of physis. Aligned with, not contradicting physis. Secondary - foundation.
ideal…aligned with the first two, projected as an objective - an orienting goal. Tertiary - ambition, destination.
These three bring us to Plato’s psyche:
Reason (charioteer) - Will (reigns) - Passions (steeds)
Past (immutable, determined) - present/presence (dynamic interactive becoming, determining) - Future (projection, yet to be determined)
Past manifests presence - perceived as appearance - moving towards the forever distancing future (space/time expanding outward, from a near absolute point that never finalized - Yin/Yang.
Chaos/Order
Patterned/Non-Patterned Energies.
Chaos is not complexity, it is the absence of pattern (order) which a conscious mind cannot perceive directly and so interprets it as void, darkness, abyss.
If only philosophically.
See, a-philosophy
Just mock, nullify, undermine…she’s a typical Americanized cunt.
When I leave this shit-hole all that you people will have is this.
No definition of words, just gibberish, quotes and some laughable commentary that pretends to be saying something relative.
The Limits of Language?
Ronin Winter
And yet we all know that in regard to countless contexts in our actual lived lives, language does reflect reality with a precision that if not the “absolute truth” will do into it finally shows up.
Language:
[b]"Spoken words are produced when air expelled from the lungs passes through a series of structures within the chest and throat and passes out through the mouth. The structures involved in that process are as follows: air that leaves the lungs travels up the trachea (windpipe) into the larynx. (The larynx is a longish tube that joins the trachea to the lower part of the mouth.) Two sections of the larynx consist of two thick, muscular folds of tissue known as the vocal cords.
“When a person wishes to say a word, muscles in the vocal cords tighten up. Air that passes through the tightened vocal cords begins to vibrate, producing a sound. The nature of that sound depends on factors such as how much air is pushed through the vocal cords and how tightly the vocal cords are stretched.”[/b]
True for all of us except those who are afflicted with medical conditions that prevent them from speaking.
And the limits of language in the either/or world revolves mostly around the extent to which someone actually does know what they are talking about. But the crucial point is that there is in fact an objective reality that can be conveyed with language.
I must be missing something here. Probabilistic truth? Joe Biden wanted to be president. Joe Biden campaigned to be president. Joe Biden won the election and became president. Joe Biden, the president, now occupies the Oval Office. That’s probably true?
No, instead, where language here becomes problematic is when it shifts from what some insist are these actual historical facts to another set of alleged facts altogether. The ones coming out of the mouths of those who insist that the democratic process was corrupted by the Democrats and that in fact Donald Trump really won the election.
And here, in the absence of an omniscient God, mere mortals do the best they can in trying to accumulate a set of facts that comes closest to the objective truth. But it’s generally understood by both sides that there is an objective truth. Biden either did win fair and square or he cheated.
And then language becomes especially problematic [given my own moral philosophy] when it is used to judge the social, political and economic policies of Joe Biden as either more or less rational and virtuous.
A constant stream of commentary and critique.
This is what she considers “philosophy”.
If she were commenting and critiquing art she would consider herself an artist.
She has nothing.
Literally, nil is all she has.
Her motive is to undermine, reduce confidence, seed uncertainty, to make her “compromises” possible.
She’s a Neo-Marxist, opportunist.
An anti-philoospher…an a-moralist that contradicts herself.
This 
clown!
Following me around like she does!!
How can he not know how ridiculous I make him look here?!!!
At least the clowns in the circus know that they are clowns. The whole point is to laugh at them.
Right?
_
Will the real Iambiguous “please stand up, please stand up, please stand up”?
I’m always where I need to be… which is where I always currently am… at any given moment, in time… indeterminable. 
Where should you be?
Well, given that philosophy is a subject that [existentially] has always been an interest of mine, about ten years ago I thought I should be here. Now, however, I’m more inclined to think I should be here…
…instead.
[Now, your own last post there was “Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:04 am”]
And in part because ILP today is an intellectual wasteland. If I do say so myself.
Still, I do what I can here…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175006
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175121
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195600
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=198238
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 4&t=198034
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=196522
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197767
…to keep the forum focused on actual substantive exchanges.
How about you?
Allow me to introduce “serious philosophy”;
In bold it is more impressive.
This, my friends, is what the imbecile considers philosophy.
At some point all she did was cut & paste the.
She filled every thread with it, including on KTS.
She still believes that this is indisputable…that she’s made some devastating point.
That’s good to know… thank you for your response.
How about me, what?
Quite talkative currently with me, aren’t you… a very rare thing for you to be, with me… to what do I owe all this [uninvited] attention the pleasure?
What’s so exciting over at PN, that dictates I should be there? …the same catfishing that happened over at KTS?
Can Language Affect Morality?
BY STEPH KOYFMAN at +Babbel magazine
Here he is writing about morality using language and then asking whether language can affect morality.
What am I missing here? How could any discussion of morality bursting at the seams with language – words – not impart consequences?
Words like these: “How ought one to behave morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
Given a particular context.
A context is chosen, the arguments are made. And depending on how successful we are at conveying our points, after the discussion we might actually prompt some to change their behaviors.
Indeed, the whole debate about subjective/objective morality itself…try to imagine it unfolding if no language at all was used.
So, of course language can affect morality. The real question is how successful we are at connecting the dots between words and worlds.
With religious language, however, the point is less regarding the words used to champion “commandments” here and now and more regarding the words used to champion “immortality” and “salvation” there and then. Words used to describe Heaven and Hell too. Morality before and after you die.
And then the part where, over time, historically, the language of morality can also shift dramatically. And then the part where each of us as individuals can encounter personal experiences so different that “good” and “bad” revolve around ever more problematic exchanges of language.
Thus, for philosophers, the invention of deontology. The belief that, say, ethicists, if they think, really, really hard enough, they might become the next Immanuel Kant.