mistyfox812: Because let’s be honest, there was absolutely nothing worth saying when it came to the intersection of something like Platonism and actual science, and frankly, John Walker74 had zero ground to stand on there. John Walker74: And who exactly am I supposed to talk to about this? You? The guy who struts around acting like he’s some big-shot physics expert, when even I—someone who doesn't have a single degree in the field—can see right through those ridiculous posts of yours?😂
mistyfox812: It’s a well-established fact that modern physics has essentially become nothing more than mathematical physics—a massive departure from the old-school Aristotelian approach we used to rely on. This whole shift toward treating math as the ultimate language of reality was actually driven by those Renaissance Neoplatonists, with Kepler being one of the most prominent figures to push that agenda forward. John Walker74: So, let me get this straight. If I’m following your logic correctly, we have Plato to thank yet again for basically paving the way for modern physics? Is that how it works? Do you just wake up every single morning, stare at his portrait, and offer up a little prayer of thanks for everything he’s bestowed upon us? And then, of course, we have to pin the blame on wicked old Aristotle because, apparently, nothing of actual substance happened in the world of physics for two thousand years—not even the development of a proper scientific method—simply because his brand of physics was the reigning authority until now.
As far as I can tell, Plato’s works have been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries, haven't they? It’s not like his influence just vanished into thin air; he actually established the Academy, held significant political sway, and produced a massive lineage of philosophers who all cut their teeth in his school. Even the Church ended up adopting his writings into its core studies, much like how physics—along with pretty much every other major science—has been shaped by the heavy hitters of classical thought. Is it any wonder his ideas still carry so much weight today? It’s honestly mind-blowing when you really sit down and think about it—nothing has actually shifted an inch in almost two thousand years. Are we seriously still circling the exact same drain? It feels like we're just running in place, pretending there's progress while the fundamental core of everything remains stubbornly frozen in time.So here we go again—after two whole millennia of waiting around, we’re supposed to act like Plato somehow paved the way for Kepler, and that this is somehow his massive, groundbreaking contribution to the field of physics? Give me a break. Is that really what we're calling it now? It took two thousand years just to get a spark of something useful, which basically means that when it comes to actual physics, Plato didn't contribute a single damn thing.
By the thirteenth century, Aristotle had become the Church's absolute darling, arguably even more influential than Plato himself, and for a few hundred years, his views on physics were treated like gospel, but let’s be honest—after all that buildup, the end result was nothing but a massive, steaming pile of nothing.
Plato, Aristotle, and even our friend mistyfox812 just don't get the core essence of physics. They seem to think modern physics is some kind of purely mathematical abstraction, but they couldn't be more wrong—it isn't just math, it's something else entirely. Mathematical and experimental physics—it’s one of those fields that really forces you to confront how much we actually know versus how much we just assume we know, doesn't it? You have the pure, elegant abstractions of mathematics on one side, and then you have the messy, unpredictable reality of experimental physics hitting you right in the face. It’s a constant tug-of-war between the perfect equations we scribble down in our notebooks and the actual, chaotic behavior of the universe when you try to measure it. How can anyone truly claim to understand the fundamental laws of nature if they aren't constantly wrestling with both sides of this coin? One without the other is practically useless; math without experiment is just beautiful guesswork, and experiment without math is just collecting data points without any clue what they actually mean.Mathematics is absolutely worthless if you aren't backing it up with actual experimentation. Think about it—science didn't truly undergo its massive revolution until Galileo stepped up and decided to ground physics in precise measurement and hands-on testing, rather than just obsessing over formal logic and abstract metaphysics. Why would anyone still cling to pure theory when real-world data tells a completely different story?
Let’s look at a totally basic example to show how ridiculous this all is. Aristotle claimed that a heavy object falls faster than a light one of the same shape. Well, thank God there are rocks everywhere, so you could practically make a simple experiment out of them anytime you feel like it. You could write endless pages of philosophical debates based on Aristotle's claim, and some people would even go as far as questioning whether Aristotle was actually wrong. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people were born after Aristotle, and hundreds upon hundreds of scholars spent their lives breaking their heads over this exact problem, yet not a single soul in the following two thousand years bothered to just pick up a slightly larger rock in their left hand, a slightly smaller one in their right, and drop them both in front of them to see what happens. Even when the brilliant Galileo finally figured it out toward the end of the 16th century by dropping two stones of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa—where he was working as a math professor—to prove they fall at the exact same speed, there were still witnesses claiming they would rather believe Aristotle than trust their own eyes. Honestly, Aristotle's authority among Galileo's fellow professors was so massive that it actually cost poor Galileo his job, leaving him unable to continue teaching in Pisa. Can you believe that?
Because they completely ignored the importance of actual experimentation, Plato and Aristotle left behind a massive ocean of errors that managed to stay unchallenged for two thousand years. And now, here comes mistyfox812, ready to toss experimental physics out the window all over again just to reduce the entire field to nothing more than mathematical physics. As if matter isn't made of anything real, but is instead just a collection of spreadsheets filled with numbers?
mistyfox812: Look, this whole "particle is also a wave" thing is driving me up the wall. It’s so easy to just shrug your shoulders and dismiss it, isn't it? People just wave their hands and say, "So what?" But if you actually take a second to wrap your head around the implications, it becomes blindingly obvious that something simply cannot be both a particle and a wave at the exact same time. Think about it logically: two particles can't just pass right through one another, yet two waves can do that all day long. Waves can interfere with each other, but particles? They don't do that. Waves undergo diffraction, while particles don't. You get the idea. And let's be clear, nobody is actually claiming that light or an electron is simultaneously a wave AND a particle. What they're saying is that in certain experiments, light—or an electron—behaves more like a wave, and in others, it behaves more like a particle. Therefore, this concept is nothing like those little Democritus pebbles we were taught about in school. John Walker74: Look, you seriously need to go back and get that physics degree of yours updated. So, according to your logic, a particle acts like a wave on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, then switches to being a particle on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and by Sunday, it’s just sitting there contemplating its existence? Please. That kind of outdated thinking was left in the dust ages ago. You’re totally out of the loop, man. Physicists were actually trying to build one unified theory that works consistently seven days a week, and they succeeded with something you clearly haven't even heard of called quantum physics. Particles are still particles, they just have this wave probability function attached to them now, which basically describes the likelihood of finding a specific particle in a specific spot within a certain area.
mistyfox812: The vacuum is actually just massive "zero point" energy. It's constantly generating these "virtual particles"—what would Democritus even say to that? John Walker74- Whether they're virtual or not, it doesn't matter as long as we can measure them and they aren't breaking the principles Democritus laid down ages ago—specifically the law of conservation of energy, which nobody has ever managed to prove wrong. Physics laws change all the time and they'll keep changing, but that oldest principle established by Democritus hasn't been debunked yet. And that’s precisely his claim: that nothing can come from nothing. You think you’ve overturned that with your ridiculous claims, but even here, Democritus is outsmarting you.🙂
mistyfox812: Emptiness exists even less than those Democritus particles. John Walker74- I just saw a report on CNN saying that the latest physics experiments confirmed that the only true emptiness exists inside your head.
mistyfox812: First off, Relativity threw the idea of unchanging matter (atoms) out the window: not only can "particles" transform into one another—meaning none of them are truly "elementary"—but they can also vanish completely, effectively annihilating themselves. They turn into something non-material, like light, for example. John Walker74: ...like light, for example, which is itself material and made up of tiny little Democritus spheres called photons, which possess energy, possess momentum, which we can actually measure, and which are, obviously, material, real and tangible. It's clear you don't know anything.
mistyfox812: Actually, particles are just a collection of properties that we express numerically. These properties have absolutely nothing to do with anything we can see, hear, touch, or taste. We can only conceive of them through thought. John Walker74- Honestly, Heisenberg would be turning in his grave if he saw how you're interpreting his matrix mechanics. All you care about is the fact that he was also a fan of Plato's, regardless of the fact that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is just another theory that will force you to update that degree of yours. Every time you read the name Plato, you cling to it like a moth to a flame. You lose all sense of direction and lose any capacity for critical thinking regarding such people, choosing instead to Platonic-idealize them all. Because of that, you fail to see some of Plato's totalitarian ideas that are eerily similar to Hitler's, just as Heisenberg unnecessarily idealized Plato and ended up working on Hitler's atomic bomb project, dragging his undeniable scientific reputation through the mud.
So, you'd better watch out with Plato, because he's a top-tier con artist. He managed to fool plenty of brilliant minds, so why wouldn't he get you too?
John Walker74 said in previous posts: Especially when dealing with a man who went down in history nicknamed "The Laughing Philosopher," or what some call "The Merry Philosopher." Some even called him the Mockingbird. He was the complete opposite of the eternally serious, stiff, and self-important Plato. Democritus earned that nickname because of his cheerful philosophy and because he would loudly laugh at all human stupidity and superstition during public appearances.
mistyfox812: Not if he had spent years grabbing coffee with every single one of them. What nonsense. John Walker74: If I had the choice, I’d definitely rather grab a coffee with Democritus than with Plato. You’re more than welcome to go grab coffee with Plato, but I’d strongly suggest you keep your back to the wall (You really ought to read Plato's Symposium😂, unless you're planning on being ungrateful to Plato for all the sheer joy he’s provided us through his work.
mistyfox812: John Walker74 has this incredibly blunt way of looking at everything. He basically strips the world down to its bare bones and sorts people and their entire existence—every single thought and action they take—into two strictly defined categories. It always seems to come down to this endless, exhausting tug-of-war, doesn't it? On one side, you’ve got the progressives—the ones riding the wave of democracy, materialism, hard science, and feminism—and then, on the other, you have this complete reactionary counter-movement made up of metaphysicians, religious zealots, anti-science types, and anyone chasing totalitarian control. Is it even possible to find any middle ground when the two sides are fundamentally built on such polar opposite foundations? John Walker74: Of course I have a clear-eyed view of how things work and can easily tell the difference between progressive ideas and those that are just dragging us backward, but I’m certainly not going to let you sit there and dictate the criteria to me when your own standards aren't exactly through the roof, are they? And honestly, what exactly are we dealing with here when it comes to your own perspective—is it just vaguely unclear, or is it completely and utterly muddled?
mistyfox812: She doesn't even bother with actual arguments because she treats everything like it’s just common sense. It’s always the same tired routine with her—"even a child would know that," "it's basic knowledge," or "everyone knows this already"—as if those condescending little jabs actually count as reasoning. How is anyone supposed to have a real conversation when her entire strategy is just implying that if you don't already agree with her, you're simply too ignorant to understand? John Walker74: Look, I already said that anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy knows Democritus was a contemporary of Plato, and honestly, it’s common knowledge that Plato never once mentions him in his writings, even though he manages to touch on almost every other minor philosopher out there. I’m not exactly going to brag about being ignorant regarding such a massive oversight, but it really rubs me the wrong way that Plato completely ignores a thinker whom so many people considered his equal. Of course, someone as narrow-minded as you wouldn't notice that, since you're too busy believing that Plato's idealism is the absolute truth to care about any other philosopher who dares to hold a different perspective.
mistyfox812: She’s managed to cram both Plato and Democritus into that hopelessly naive little scheme of hers. I mean, seriously, where does she even get this stuff? She probably overheard a snippet about how Democritus deals with atoms and immediately jumped to some ridiculous conclusion like, "Oh, atoms! That means science, progress, and democracy!" And then, because she likely caught wind of Plato’s "world of ideas," she twists it into something else entirely, deciding that "an alternative world" must automatically equate to religion, anti-science, and totalitarianism. How can anyone be so spectacularly wrong? John Walker74- Are you actually arguing against what I’ve written, or are you just fighting some imaginary version of me that exists only in your head? Get a grip. It is blindingly obvious that I know significantly more about Democritus's contributions to science than you ever will, especially since I went out of my way to provide you with a full list of his works just so you could see the sheer scope of his intellect. As for why I believe Plato's Republic is nothing short of totalitarian, I laid it all out using direct quotes from the text itself, so please, don't even bother trying to defend those monstrous ideas—you're just wasting your breath. You glided over the facts I presented from Plato's Republic so effortlessly that it honestly feels like I’m writing to you in invisible ink. Why don't you have the guts to just admit that, on this issue, Plato is nothing more than a complete loser?
mistyfox812: Look, I’m not even talking about what Democritus actually said regarding this specific topic; I’m looking at his broader "natural philosophy," which honestly has nothing to do with this subject at all. But of course, because for John Walker74, the equation always boils down to "materialist equals democrat." John Walker74 Look, you’d be better off just writing out both my responses and yours in one go, because right now you’re basically just having a one-man conversation with yourself like Plato in those endless dialogues of his. Seriously, "Yes, mistyfox812," "Certainly, mistyfox812," "I totally agree with mistyfox812"—it's ridiculous. You end up blathering some nonsense and then immediately pinning it on me. And let's get one thing straight: being a materialist doesn't dictate whether someone is a democrat or an autocrat; that specific philosophical stance doesn't strictly determine a person's ethics. That said, there's no denying that for Democritus, his views on nature almost certainly shaped his ethical outlook. We can see that clearly by looking at the thinkers who carried his torch and piecing together what little remains of his actual work. Honestly, you barely have a grip on this subject, and since you've started off on such a shaky footing, I doubt you're ever going to wrap your head around it. It's a real shame, really.
mistyfox812: Let’s get back to the reliability of Diogenes Laertius’s accounts, because honestly, I feel like we haven't fully interrogated the mess he left us. Is there any reason to actually trust the way he pieces together these lives, or are we just swallowing his word because it’s convenient? When you look at how he compiles these anecdotes, doesn't it feel like he's more interested in the drama of the story than the actual historical accuracy of the man? It makes you wonder if we're reading history or just an ancient version of a tabloid rag, where the goal is to make the philosopher look legendary rather than making sure the facts actually line up. The idea that Democritus's writings vanished simply because Plato's followers went on some crusade to destroy them is, quite frankly, total nonsense. It’s a ridiculous notion, isn't it? The reality is much more mundane and far less conspiratorial: they weren't preserved because there just wasn't enough interest to keep the scribes busy. People only bothered to copy what they actually found interesting or useful at the time, and clearly, his work didn't make the cut. John Walker74- Honestly, there is just no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you. You spent the whole time demanding a specific quote to prove that Democritus was a thorn in Plato's side, acting like you’d never even heard of the concept before. But then, as soon as you finally tracked down the quote and realized it actually supported my point, you suddenly pivoted to screaming about how unreliable the source is simply because it doesn't serve your agenda. Now, you're leaning on this "question of credibility" as if it's some kind of silver bullet, but tell me this: if we start tossing out sources every time they don't fit your narrative, why on earth should anyone believe a single word written by Diels or any other historian or biographer? Could those perhaps be firsthand accounts?
I wrote quite ironically that when you look at what remains of Democritus, one might think Plato's followers actually succeeded in wiping out his works—and you took that literally, even though I clearly stated that Plato backed away from such a thing after being talked out of it by his friends. Do I really need to draw this out for you, since you obviously have no idea how to read?
Then you end up spouting absolute nonsense, claiming that Democritus's manuscripts weren't preserved simply because there weren't enough people transcribing them. Apparently, they just chose to copy whatever caught their interest. My, what refined taste those scribes had! Out of roughly seventy manuscripts by Democritus, not a single one was deemed worthy. Give me a break. "Ugh, atoms," "ugh, physics," "ugh, mathematics." And Epicurus fared even worse, despite having an oeuvre that rivals Aristotle's. From over three hundred works covering physics, justice, love, and the gods, nothing appealed to those copyists. It’s one thing that they refused to transcribe his work, but they went as far as attaching an entirely different philosophy to him—one he never even advocated for. If you look up the term "Epicurean" in any dictionary, it defines them as gluttons or people seeking physical indulgence, which is a far cry from the type of hedonism Epicurus actually preached. What a tiny, pathetic little liar you are, and a blind, religious fanatic at that. Why don't you just tell people openly that these works were systematically destroyed and erased by the state and the church? The answer is simple: it doesn't look good to publicly side with those who burn and destroy books.
It is far from true that the ideas presented in those works weren't popular. Nietzsche didn't write without reason that every honest spirit in the Roman Empire was an Epicurean. The Church Fathers realized exactly where the real philosophical resistance to their spreading faith would come from, recognizing that their religion was merely a raw myth cobbled together from various old-world myths, inherently inferior to the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Therefore, they reached for Plato, whose ideas would play a pivotal role in the development of Christian theology. That is precisely what I meant when I said Plato is Christianity, yet you took it literally. Plato was the perfect choice because, much like any successful religion, he possessed the absolute truth, he was so full of moralizing, so essentially Christian, as Nietzsche would put it.
What an absurdity, that the ideas of Democritus and Epicurus survived thanks to the Roman poet Lucretius, who, in his poem On the Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura), described the essence of their philosophy. A few copies of this poem are all that remained of their work during the Middle Ages. Yet, it was enough to ignite the spark that would eventually give birth to modern atomic science.
So this is what that supposedly "just" American state looks like—this utopia where equality between men and women is meant to flourish? I have to hand it to you, though; you aren’t wrong about one thing: men and women are perfectly equal in their complete lack of rights, both being crushed under the exact same rigid, inhuman set of rules. You seem so head over heels for this social order that you might as well declare Plato the founding father of feminism. Honestly, it would be just as valid to call him the father of communism given his obsession with abolishing private property. But that would be a joke, wouldn't it, considering his state was strictly partitioned into an elite aristocracy and the oppressed masses who spent their lives grinding away for them?
The label that fits Plato's ideal state most accurately is totalitarianism. Every single hallmark of a totalitarian regime is present: the brutal class stratification where the fate of the entire nation is tethered solely to the interests of the ruling class, the constant surveillance and vetting of those in power, the draconian regulations controlling reproduction and education, the censorship of all intellectual pursuits, the relentless propaganda, and the use of lies and violence whenever they serve the interests of the state. It’s all there.
Fortunately for us, nobody ever actually managed to pull off these "progressive" Platonic ideas, not even Plato himself, despite how hard he tried on several occasions. However, Adolf Hitler was certainly on the right track to implement at least one of his many "progressive and feminist" notions—that ancient Platonic concept regarding the selective breeding of the human race:
"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind."Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10
translation: “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring. . . represents the most humane act of mankind.”
Adolf didn't just stop at theory, though; he took it to the extreme. We all know exactly how his experiment with his own people ended. Only pure-blooded Germans were permitted to marry, while "defective" men and women were sterilized or murdered, often over something as trivial as a minor illness; "defective" newborns would simply "vanish into mysterious places," to use a Platonic euphemism. Young Aryans were indoctrinated with Nazi ideology from the moment they could walk, and young German women were taught that their bodies were no longer their own, but belonged to the state, with their primary purpose being to produce children—all in the name of maintaining a pure Aryan race.
Now, I am certainly not blaming Plato for the crimes of Hitler, but it is almost certain that his *Republic* served as a blueprint and a way for many Nazi leaders to justify their actions to their own consciences.
My dear N&N, I hope you realize that Democritus' version of "feminism" is nothing compared to Plato's brand of it. Democritus argued that the universe is infinite. Some people argue that human stupidity is infinite. While I can't say for sure if the universe is truly endless, I am absolutely certain about your stupidity.
nobody and nothing: “Only one philosopher considered this state of affairs unnatural, and in his ideal state, included women as being entirely equal to men in political life (though, in his view, they were often less capable, but still entirely equal... Plato advocates for the full education of women—just as much as men—and for their participation in political action as 'guardians,' that is, those who are the best among them in the state.”
Truly interesting. Do you also believe, like Plato, that we are less capable in everything? (All subsequent quotes in English are from The Republic...)...but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.
nobody and nothing: 'Many women are in many things better than many men...' (from The Republic) How generous of that Plato. There, he even admits we are better at certain tasks than men. And then he immediately points out that we are better at the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves. I’m absolutely losing my mind with joy. You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true. ...Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves.
It's a shame you stopped with the quotes; you were off to such a lovely start. If you had just gone a little lower, you might have used this quote, for instance. The Law, I said, which is the sequel of this and of all that has preceded, is to the following effect,--'that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.'
Did you somehow overlook this quote, or have you truly read nothing of Plato? Or perhaps you agree with him? Or are you just plain rude, so you omit and obscure the facts? If you had even an ounce of morality in you, you would read Plato's Republic with white gloves on. His stance toward women, children, and the family is just so filthy and disgusting. Everything is subordinated to the state; the individual is nothing. Women and children are communal property; parents aren't allowed to know which child is theirs, nor are children allowed to know who their parents are. Thank you so much for such a state, such equality, and such education. Here, let me give you a few more quotes, just so you can see how wonderful this state you're defending really is.
You, I said, who are their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them;--they must be as far as possible of like natures with them; and they must live in common houses and meet at common meals, None of them will have anything specially his or her own; they will be together, and will be brought up together, and will associate at gymnastic exercises. And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other--necessity is not too strong a word, I think? Does this even need a comment? The legislator selects the men and the women, everyone lives together, everyone shares everything and owns no private property, they exercise together and mate together. It seems that communism and those leftist ideas you keep trying to pin on me suit you very well.
And how can marriages be made most beneficial?--that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding? What does marriage have to do with breeding hunting dogs? We shall see soon enough...
And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate? Of course, dogs and birds will produce increasingly inferior offspring if their breeding isn't controlled.
Good heavens! My dear friend, I asked, what incredible level of expertise will our leaders require if this very same logic applies to the entire human race!
And honestly, it absolutely does apply. It’s quite obvious that the same rules governing how we breed dogs apply just as strictly to how we reproduce humans.
...it has already been established that the best of either sex should be paired with the best as frequently as possible, while the inferior should be paired with the inferior as rarely as one can manage; The rule for those lucky enough to serve as the guardians of the Platonic state is actually quite simple—the finest men should mate with the finest women as often as possible, while the weakest should be paired with the weakest women as infrequently as possible.
Now, these arrangements have to be kept strictly under wraps, known only to the ruling class, otherwise, we run the risk of our "herd"—if we’re going to call the guardians that—breaking out into full-blown rebellion.
Here, the philosopher-king seems a little uneasy. How on earth is he supposed to pull this off without the guardians catching wind of it?
...the total number of weddings is a matter that must be left entirely to the discretion of the rulers, whose primary goal will be to maintain a steady population average. It’s straightforward: the government should be granted the absolute authority to decide how many weddings occur and exactly who gets to marry whom.
We’ll essentially have to cook up some clever sort of lottery system where the less capable individuals draw lots whenever we bring them together, so they’ll end up blaming their own bad luck instead of pointing fingers at the government. To achieve this, they’d need to invent some kind of rigged lottery to pick the couples, making sure the deck is always stacked in their favor.
And I suspect our more courageous and capable youths, in addition to receiving their other distinctions and perks, might be granted much easier access to women; their bravery would be the justification, and such fathers should be encouraged to father as many sons as they can. The tougher and more capable guys should be able to bed plenty of women and produce as many sons as possible.
The designated officials will take the children of the high-quality parents to the nursery or the fold, where they will be handed over to specific nurses living in a separate district; however, any offspring from the inferior classes, or even from the superior ones if they happen to be born with defects, will be tucked away in some secret, unknown location, just as they ought to be. The appropriate bureaucrats will take charge of the offspring and hand them over to nurses for safekeeping; meanwhile, the children of the inferior, or even the superior ones who happen to be born with disabilities, will be disposed of in some mysterious, hidden place.
Plato goes on to demand that if a mother is breastfeeding, every precaution must be taken to ensure she doesn't recognize her own child; he even sets strict boundaries for when conception is allowed to happen. Everything is regulated down to the tiniest detail, leaving absolutely nothing to chance. Honestly, I don't have the energy to keep quoting him; this is more than enough to make the point. Just one last excerpt to show that these rigid rules weren't just about controlling reproduction, but that every single aspect of life was subjected to this same draconian oversight.
(From The Law):The most fundamental principle is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without a leader. Furthermore, no one's mind should be trained to act on their own initiative at all—not out of passion, and certainly not just for fun. Whether in times of war or during the intervals of peace, they must keep their eyes fixed on their leader and follow them without question. Even in the most trivial matters, they must remain under command. For instance, getting up, moving, washing, or eating... they should only do so if they have been instructed to. Simply put, through constant habit, they should train their souls to never even dream of acting independently, until they become fundamentally incapable of doing so.
nobody and nothing: “The most hilarious of those inaccuracies is the whole bit about Democritus being a feminist and Plato being a misogynist.”
Honestly, it’s just laughable; you were probably totally wasted or high while you were typing this out. I already explained to you quite clearly that Plato couldn't stand Democritus because of his materialist views—specifically his atomic theory—because he denied the gods, and because he believed the soul vanished when a person died, and frankly, he likely despised him for his ideas on democracy too. Plato held nothing but contempt for democracy, much like he did for Democritus. I didn't mention a single word regarding Democritus's attitude toward women, because how on earth can anyone judge his stances based on two or three sentences ripped out of God knows which ancient manuscript? Furthermore, I never claimed Plato was a misogynist, but I did state what is undeniably known from Plato's own works—that he considered women less capable than men and their souls less perfect than the male soul. But fine, since you're so eager to attack, let's compare them on that front then.
nobody and nothing: “I have to thank John Walker74 because he pushed me to read the complete fragments of Democritus from Diels 'Pre-Socratic'. I've noted all those pertaining to women, women's rights, and female nature (only those generally considered authentic). It's hard to call them exactly ‘progressive’ or ‘feminist.’
110. A woman should not practice speech, for it is terrible. 111. For a man, having a woman in power would be the ultimate disgrace. 214. Truly, the brave man is he who is stronger not only than his enemies but also than his pleasures. Some, it seems, rule cities, yet remain slaves to women. 267. By nature, ruling is appropriate for the stronger. 273. A woman is far more cunning than a man when it comes to evil thoughts.”
Well, aren't you just a saint. There you go, you've actually nudged me into reading the entirety of Democritus—or rather, everything that's left of him. I'm sure it wasn't too much heavy lifting for you, because looking at what survived, one has to assume that Plato and his followers actually succeeded in their mission to pull Democritus's works up by the roots. According to Diogenes Laertius Democritus wrote 70 works, none of which survived, unlike Plato's massive body of work which has remained virtually untouched for 2,500 years. Here is a list of some of Democritus's more important works, organized by category.
1. PHYSICS (25 books): "Macrocosm", "Microcosm", "Cosmography", "On the Planets", "On nature", "On the Nature of Man", "On the Mind", "On Senses", "On Flavors", "On Colors", "On the Different States", "On Successions of States", "Determining Forces", "On images", "On the Rules of Logic", "On disputed points", "Celestial Causes" (celestial mechanics), "Causes relating to air" (aerostatics), "Causes relating to the plane" (statics), "Origins of fire and of fiery states" (heat and thermodynamics), "Origin of sounds" (acoustics), "Origin of seeds and plants and fruits" (biology), "Origins of animals a, b, c" (zoology), "Origins of divers things" (miscellany), "On minerals" (mineralogy).
2. MATHEMATICS (5 books): "On a difference of opinion or on the contact between a circle and a sphere", "On geometry", "Geometry", "Numbers", "On irrational lines and solids".
3. ASTRONOMY - GEOGRAPHY (8 books): "Planispheres", "The Great Year", "On water clocks", "Description of the heavens", "Description of the firmament", "Radiation", "Geography", "Circuit of the ocean".
4. TECHNICAL SCIENCES (6 books): "Prognostics", "On the seasonable and the unseasonable", "On agriculture", "On drawing", "Tactics", "On the art of war".
5. PHARMACEUTICALS (1 book): "On medicaments", a treatise on nostrums and remedies, including a preparation to ensure the birth of "fair children": a mixture of fir seeds, balsam, saffron, honey, milk and wine.
To your immense joy, almost nothing remains of that massive collection, so you, armed with nothing but a felt-tip pen, managed to settle the score with Democritus in half an hour. You've reduced this great philosopher, mathematician, physicist, astronomer, and so on, to five mere sentences and five unforgivable, mortal sins. Let's take a moment to analyze them:
Just nobody and nothing. "111. To be under the rule of a woman would be the ultimate disgrace for a man." (fragment, Democritus) I couldn't agree more—honestly, isn't it just absurd to even consider? It would be an absolute disgrace for a woman to be under the thumb of a man, much like how it would be a complete mockery of nature if she were treated as his mere property, a point that Plato made with absolute, unmistakable clarity.
Is there anything more infuriating than staring at a void where actual substance ought to be? It’s just nothingness—absolutely nothing—and honestly, I can't decide if the emptiness itself is the problem or if it's the sheer audacity of presenting such a vacuum as if it actually meant something. Why do we even bother looking when there's clearly nothing there to find? Is it really any wonder that we see such chaos in our world today when we ignore the fundamental truth expressed by Democritus? He once noted that, by its very nature, rule belongs to the strong, and honestly, looking at how things operate from Wall Street down to the local precinct, you have to ask yourself if anyone is actually trying to argue otherwise. Isn't it just the way of things that those with the most leverage end up calling the shots while everyone else just tries to keep their heads down? It’s a blunt, unapologetic observation, but does it not ring true whenever you look at the sheer imbalance of power in American society? We like to pretend everything is perfectly level, but isn't it obvious that strength—whether it's financial, political, or physical—is what ultimately dictates the direction of the ship? Sure, we all know that nature operates on the law of the jungle where the strongest survive, but does anyone here actually even mention women?
Is there actually anything worth saying here? It feels like we’re just shouting into a void, talking about absolutely nothing at all. Honestly, what is even the point of this? True courage isn't just about being able to take down an enemy in a fight; it’s about having the backbone to stand up to your own impulses and cravings, too. Honestly, isn't it pathetic how some guys act like they're running the show in cities like New York or Chicago, when in reality, they're nothing more than slaves to their own lusts? It’s pretty obvious that Democritus had zero interest in playing the role of a servant to women. And honestly, can you really blame him? Why on earth would anyone want to deal with that?
Is there anything more infuriating than staring into the void of absolute nothingness? I mean, really, what is even the point of talking when you're just met with total silence or, worse, a complete lack of substance? It’s like shouting into a canyon in the middle of nowhere and realizing there isn't even an echo to hit you back. Why do we even bother engaging if the response is just zero, zilch, nada? It’s exhausting, honestly. Democritus once noted that a woman’s mind is far more cunning and deceptive than a man's, and honestly, looking at the chaos of the world today, you have to wonder if he wasn't onto something profound? It’s one of those fragments that sticks in your teeth because it feels like it touches on some ancient, uncomfortable truth about how much more calculated and strategic certain people can be when they want to get their way. Is it just nature, or is it something deeper buried in the way we interact? You can't help but feel like there's a layer of complexity there that most men are too oblivious to even notice until it's far too late. Honestly, us women have always felt that men are just way more calculated when it comes to their malicious intentions, so I guess we’re finally even.
Is there anything more exhausting than dealing with someone who contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation? I mean, really, what is the point of even showing up if you’re just going to be a complete void of substance? It’s like talking to a brick wall that somehow manages to be even more infuriating because it lacks any semblance of an actual opinion. Why do we even bother engaging when people act like they have zero presence in the world? A woman shouldn't bother practicing her rhetoric, because honestly, it’s just a disaster waiting to happen. (fragment, Democritus) So, you basically boiled an entire book down to a single sentence? You’ve taken a man’s whole life—a guy who spent every waking moment working, writing, and philosophizing until he hit 109—and reduced his entire existence to one sketchy, questionable line. Is that what we're doing now? This is reductionism in its purest, most obnoxious form. Based on nothing more than that one solitary sentence, you actually have the nerve to conclude the following:
It’s just absolutely nothing. Just total, utter emptiness. So, what you’re telling me is that women shouldn't just be shut out of the political arena entirely, but they should be stripped of any influence over how children are raised too? Is that really where we're headed?
Your logic is pretty damn strong if you think you can take down a bull just by pulling one single sentence out of thin air and stripping away all its context. Honestly, looking at that sentence in isolation, I don’t see any kind of political maneuvering, let alone some kind of moral upbringing or social conditioning. If we actually bother to look at the various ways this famous line shows up, things start to look a lot different, don't they? Let's examine a few different versions where this claim pops up:
A woman shouldn't be letting her tongue run wild, because honestly, that’s just asking for trouble.So, they used the word "Zunge" here, which in German basically refers to the physical tongue sitting in your mouth, though in a more casual sense, people use it to mean their actual spoken language. Isn't it funny how one little word can shift from anatomy to linguistics just like that?
Is it even remotely possible to find a shred of common sense left in this world? I was reading some old text today that suggested a woman shouldn't engage in debate, and honestly, the sheer absurdity of it makes my blood boil. How can anyone—any sane, rational person—look at the complexity of our modern society and suggest that half the population should just sit there in silence while everyone else decides their fate? It’s absolutely dreadful, isn't it? To think that intellectual rigor or the ability to construct a logical argument should be restricted based on gender is nothing short of an insult to human intelligence itself. Why would we ever want to stifle the very thing that drives progress and keeps us from falling into total chaos? It’s a ridiculous notion, and frankly, it’s infuriating. You know, people always get tripped up on this one, but "argument" isn't just some dry, logical point you make in a debate; it can also mean a full-blown, heated argument or a straight-up shouting match. Why is it that we try to overcomplicate these things? It’s a versatile word, and if you don't grasp that nuance, you're going to be lost when the conversation actually gets intense.
Honestly, isn't there just something inherently unsettling about a woman who actually understands the mechanics of logic? It’s a terrifying prospect, isn't it? When you encounter someone who can dissect an argument with surgical precision instead of just reacting emotionally, it completely disrupts the status quo. Why is it that we find such intellectual competence so threatening? There’s a certain kind of dread that settles in when you realize you can't manipulate the conversation because she’s already three steps ahead, mapping out every logical fallacy you try to throw her way. It’s enough to make anyone sweat. Maybe Democritus was just terrified of getting into an argument with a woman who actually knew what she was talking about.
I don't care what Democritus actually intended to convey with that specific sentence, because if you take a moment to look at the core principles of democracy and the natural philosophy he championed, there is absolutely no way he was advocating for the discrimination of women. Honestly, how could anyone argue otherwise when you consider Epicurus, his most devoted follower, who later opened up his philosophical school to women, slaves, and outcasts as complete equals? It was unheard of! Anyone could walk through those doors regardless of their status, and since they didn't charge tuition, people simply contributed to the school voluntarily based on what they could afford. It was a total scandal—an absolute sacrilege by the standards of that era—because back then, women were systematically oppressed, slaves had zero rights, and suddenly, they were all diving headfirst into philosophy? That was a discipline strictly reserved for the high-and-mighty elite, the kind of exclusive crowd you’d find gathering at Plato's Academy. I mean, seriously, can you even imagine what the social standing of women was like back then? What on earth are we even talking about when we bring up Epicurus's school? It’s like people want to pretend there’s some organized, structured way to find peace, as if you can just walk into a classroom and learn how to stop caring about the chaos of the world. Is it really that simple? They sat around preaching this idea of tranquility, acting like they had figured out the ultimate cheat code for life, but does anyone actually believe that withdrawing from society is a sustainable way to exist? You can't just opt out of reality and expect the world to stop spinning. If you really want to understand what we're talking about, there’s no better way to see it than through the example of Hetere. LeontioneBy following Epicurus's teachings, she eventually carved out her own path as a renowned writer and philosopher, which allowed her to hold her own in heated debates against the heavy hitters from the Lyceum—you know, Aristotle's old school. Even Theophrastus, who was stepping into Aristotle's shoes as his successor, didn't treat her like an outsider; instead, he spoke to her with genuine respect, clearly recognizing her massive talent for both literature and philosophy.
I know they say you shouldn't judge a teacher by their students, but isn't it worth noting that Aristotle ended up being almost a carbon copy of Plato when it came to his views on women and slaves? It’s actually pretty wild how closely their stances aligned on such fundamental issues. For him, slaves were nothing more than talking livestock—literally just tools with a voice—and he actually argued that an ox was more valuable than a slave because, at least an ox can pull a plow better without complaining. And don't even get me started on his take on women; he believed the female soul was so fundamentally inferior that a woman should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to make her own decisions. Naturally, this meant that both women and slaves were completely stripped of any semblance of political rights. Is it really any surprise that the student followed so closely in the master's footsteps?
Alright, let's just roll with it and assume Democritus was a total chauvinist who couldn't stand women, acting like the quintessential patriarchal relic full of nothing but outdated prejudices. But honestly, do we really want to pretend that men today are any different when it comes to that kind of mindset? Are we actually going to sit here and act like the modern guy isn't carrying around those same ancient biases under a more polished veneer? So, I just saw this recent poll about what Americans actually want in their next president, and honestly, it’s pretty eye-opening, isn't it? It turns out that a massive majority of people are looking for someone who embodies that old-school, stern, wise, and dead-serious persona—basically, they're craving a true patriarchal head of the household to lead the nation. Is it really that surprising that, after all the chaos we've seen, people are just desperate for some kind of traditional, commanding authority figure to step up and take charge?
Look, claiming that Democritus wanted to strip women of their dignity, deny them an education, or systematically trample on their rights based on one single sentence? Honestly, isn't that a bit of a massive stretch on your part? Especially when we're talking about a man who is remembered in history as the "Laughing Philosopher," or as some people call him, the "Cheerful Philosopher." They even used to mockingly call him the Scoffer. He was the absolute polar opposite of that eternally serious, rigid, and self-important Plato. Democritus earned that nickname because of his lighthearted philosophy and the fact that he would openly laugh at all the human stupidity and superstition whenever he spoke in public. Plus, unlike Plato, who was always hungry for power, Democritus constantly ran away from it, even though people offered him incredibly tempting positions because of his vast knowledge. He’d much rather spend his time wandering, exploring, and writing. None of this points toward some kind of autocratic personality or a tyrant looking to impose his own laws on everyone else.
Regardless of what Democritus's actual relationship with women was, something else is far more important. Most of Democritus's works were destroyed very early on, so surely, if that one sentence is even his, he couldn't have caused much lasting harm to our civilization. What matters way more is the ethics and morality of Plato and Aristotle; they continued to live on through their writings in a happy symbiosis with the Church, and they undoubtedly exerted a massive influence on the status of women throughout history with their views. So, let's take a look at this "ideal and just state" of Plato's, which was championed by the king—the philosopher among philosophers. It is finally time to say, "The Emperor has no clothes," since the subject of this thread is actually Plato—misconceptions and clarifications. Fortunately, Plato's works are well-preserved, so we won't have to play guessing games over a single solitary sentence.
My dear N&N, please forgive me for taking such a massive amount of time to get back to you. I’ve been absolutely buried under work, so reaching out sooner just wasn't an option. Look, some of us actually have real lives and responsibilities to deal with outside of endlessly posting on Reddit, don't we? If I had actually caught your last post, I definitely would have responded much earlier. And honestly, it isn't even because you claimed John Walker74 was just babbling nonsense. You went way beyond that—you called me a sheep, an idiot, and said I didn't have a clue what I was talking about... But really, what else can you expect from a self-proclaimed follower of Plato? To people like you, women are inherently inferior, less capable, and constantly in need of being managed by a "real man." I don't even hold those insults against you; it’s not about what is being said, it’s about who is saying it. When you're being insulted by someone you consider to be absolutely Nobody, does it even matter? I don't just forgive you; I actually feel bad that I didn't jump in sooner, because I could have actually helped you out. See, you, this supposed great expert on Plato, are probably still digging through Platonic texts right now, desperately hunting for where Plato might have mentioned Democritus. As if I ever said anything of the sort! All I actually said was this:
John Walker74: In his *Laws*, Plato didn't just disagree with the materialists—he absolutely went for the jugular, casting them out and cursing the whole lot of them. He targeted those thinkers who stood in direct opposition to the metaphysicians, including guys like Democritus, labeling them nothing more than godless atheists. To him, they were straight-up devils responsible for corrupting the youth, peddling immoral ideas, and systematically undermining the very foundations of social order and the divine authority of the state. Can you even imagine being that hated? He saw them as a fundamental threat to everything that keeps a civilization from collapsing into chaos.
Look, I never actually said that Plato explicitly mentioned Democritus, so let's get that straight right off the bat. All I ever claimed was that he bolstered the ideas found in materialist philosophy without naming any specific individual in my main point. Since some people here—looking at you—seem to have a bit less experience with this stuff, I simply tucked the greatest of the materialist philosophers, Plato’s own contemporary Democritus, into parentheses as a helpful example.
And you responded with this: Nobody and nothing: So, I actually went back and dug through my copies of the Laws—it’s been a few years since I last cracked one open, mind you—and I honestly don't recall seeing anything written by Plato regarding Democritus in there. To be absolutely sure, I finally grabbed the book, flipped through to the end to check the references, and wouldn't you know it? There isn't even a single mention of Democritus listed. In Dallas, specifically within those "Pre-Socratic" collections, you see this massive lineup of various philosophers all weighing in with their own takes on Democritus. It’s funny because Dallas constantly makes sure to include every single time Plato or Aristotle had something to say about any of those Pre-Socratics. But here’s the kicker: since there isn't a single scrap of evidence in Dallas regarding Plato’s thoughts on Democritus, doesn't it just seem like Plato never actually wrote a single word about him in his entire body of work?
Honestly, you are a total joke. How can you be this clueless about basic facts that anyone with even a shred of common sense should know? If you had spent even five minutes actually looking into ancient philosophy, you’d realize that during Plato's era, there was another massive figure working right alongside him—someone many people actually considered even more significant than Plato himself, given the sheer scale of his work. We are talking about Democritus, whose entire philosophical framework was the polar opposite of everything Plato stood for. Even a child could tell you that while Plato never explicitly names him in his writings, he constantly goes out of his way to address and dismantle the ideas of those materialist thinkers. Instead of wasting everyone's time searching for things that don't exist, why don't you try asking yourself a much more intelligent question: how is it that the great Plato, who was bold enough to call out just about every living and dead philosopher he ever encountered, managed to avoid mentioning Democritus even once?
Look, I honestly don't believe you've actually sat down and read Plato's *Laws*, because if you had, you would have realized exactly what I’m getting at halfway through. There is this specific section where Plato goes absolutely scorched earth on the godless—and he isn't even targeting barbarians or just some random, uneducated mob; no, he's coming straight for those self-important philosophers who strut around thinking they're the smartest people in the room while claiming nature exists entirely independent of God. His arguments against them are about as convincing as that ontological proof from your buddy Anselm. After tearing them down, he lays out these incredibly harsh punishments for anyone who mocks the divine or lives without faith, and if they dare to repeat the offense? It's the death penalty. I'm not going to bore you by retelling the whole thing since you probably wouldn't find it interesting anyway, but I'd tell you that this part of the book serves as perfect inspiration for any aspiring inquisitors out there. I'm not going to sit here and quote passages at you either, because I’d much rather you actually go and read the full works of Plato yourself. If you do, then maybe this entire back-and-forth will actually serve some kind of purpose.
John Walker74: “Plato actually suggested banning the works of Democritus. To him, Democritus was nothing more than a constant thorn in his side.”
Nobody and Nothing: “(...a 'thorn in his side' ) Maybe I’m wrong—I don't exactly have every single word Plato ever wrote memorized—but there's no doubt that John Walker74 will give us the exact passage where Plato says this, because surely she wouldn't just make it up, right? If John Walker74 wasn't personally hanging out in ancient Athens hearing Plato suggest a ban on Democritus's work, and if she doesn't provide the specific location where Plato wrote this, then we can only conclude that John Walker74 is just talking nonsense.”
We've already established that Plato never mentions Democritus directly, and since you clearly haven't read a single page of Plato, why am I even surprised that you're rolling your eyes at my claim that Democritus was a thorn in his side and that Plato attempted to ban his writings? If you're searching through Plato's texts looking for a line that explicitly states this, you're just wasting your breath. Does any censor in history actually want to go on public record about their censorship decisions? Look, I wasn't physically present in Athens, but the spirit of the philosopher Aristoxenus whispered to me that Plato wanted to burn every scrap of Democritus's writings he could get his hands on (and if you don't believe me, go check Diogenes Laertius's *Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*). He was actually stopped by two of his Pythagorean friends. They advised him to back off because copies of Democritus's books were already widely distributed. In the end, he gave up, but that's exactly why he never mentioned Democritus directly in his works, even in sections where he was clearly confronting Democritus's philosophy head-on.
How long did you actually spend typing this whole thing out?? There isn't a single thing you haven't tried to twist here.
It’s going to take me a few days just to work through my responses to everything you've said.
Honestly, I would have just walked away from this entire debate (the one we started regarding Faith—is it just a viral mental illness?) if you hadn't come back and grabbed me by the throat with this mess you've posted here. I really wouldn't want people to walk away thinking your little essay is some kind of sacred scripture. Because it absolutely isn't.
Just glancing over this quickly, I can already see how many things you conveniently ignored and how incredibly biased your stances were while you were busy writing this.
You mention Plato at one point and his attempts to organize the state.
But you completely fail to mention what that state of his was actually supposed to look like. Why didn't you bother to mention that Plato believed the souls of slaves were worthless, or that he viewed the female soul as being more material and tied to the body, whereas the male soul was supposedly "perfect"? In Plato's vision of an organized society, women and slaves would have had almost zero say in any decisions made about the state. It was disenfranchisement in its purest form.
And there's more... Why didn't you mention who would actually be running the show under Plato's system? Why didn't you mention that it would be an aristocracy?
Of course you left that out, because it wouldn't exactly help your case while you're trying to defend him.
Let's take a much closer look at the whole picture...
In his Laws, Plato actually attacked and condemned all those materialistic philosophers (the ones who stood in opposition to the metaphysicians, including Democritus), labeling them as godless skeptics, devils who corrupt the youth, spread immoral ideas, and undermine social order as well as divine and state authority.
Let's try a quick comparison between Democritus and Plato in at least one specific area.
Plato actually proposed that Democritus's works should be banned. To him, Democritus was nothing but a thorn in his side.
So why was Plato so obsessed with banning Democritus?
First, let's look at the actual ideas held by Democritus that caused such a stir with Plato:
-Virtue is based, above all else, on respecting all other people.
-We must do everything in our power to help those who have suffered injustice.
-Being good doesn't mean you never do evil, but rather that you never even desire to do evil.
-Every human being is a small world unto themselves.
-It is good deeds, not mere words, that truly count.
-We should avoid doing evil not out of fear, but out of our own sense of justice.
-Poverty in a democracy is better than so-called happiness under a tyranny, because freedom is always better than slavery.
Now, why, I ask again, did these ideas bother Plato so much?
Because if they were accepted, instead of an aristocracy, the state would be run by a democracy. These Democritean ideas essentially capture the core principles of democracy, putting them in direct conflict with the aristocratic way of ruling that Plato championed—and in total opposition to the slave-holding social order that Plato clearly had no problem with.
A little more on the aristocracy... We know by now that Plato was a representative of the aristocracy. The aristocracy considered itself the best (from the Greek *aristo*—meaning the best) and the wisest.
As such, the aristocracy—claiming to be the most intelligent—would impose its views upon the people (*demos*).
Let's not forget that besides being an aristocrat, Plato was also a metaphysician. That much is clear to everyone.
Therefore, the structure of the state, in the segments that concern it, would be metaphysical in nature.
And metaphysics is basically everything that science is not.
And don't forget, Plato famously put a sign on his Academy stating that anyone who didn't know mathematics wasn't allowed to enter.
By doing that, Plato was implying that he actually utilized science in his interpretations. As for what Plato thought about science specifically...
and several other matters, I'll write that another time!!
Since mistyfox812 has written a massive amount of text and posts here just to reply to my previous answers, I am kindly requesting that they stop writing anything further.>> DON'T INTERRUPT ME BEFORE I FINISH MY POINT.
Just bear with me for a second, alright? Providing a decent, high-quality answer actually takes a bit of damn time.
Jack Harris3 said:I honestly think most people have plenty of it, but the passionate ones actually aim it at something specific, whereas the moderate types just scatter it all over the place. 😂
First off, you decided you wanted to grab breakfast with me. Just peace and quiet and some scrambled eggs? Back home, we’d just call it frying up some eggs and move on.
But no, you have to eat "mindfully." As if the devil himself is going to swoop in and snatch a word away, making the eggs too salty or not salty enough. Honestly, they’re just going to be eaten anyway—whoever has the energy to go out and hunt for fresh eggs every single morning?
And then you started running all these calculations about the majority of the eggs and the exact appearance of the bacon. It felt like you were throwing every possible classification at me. With specific types and without.
Then you moved on to the intensity of the flame. That’s always how it goes when people start overthinking the type of egg being used.
After that, you pointed out how thorough one must be because of flipping them on both sides. It sounds so final, like you’ve reached some ultimate certainty that you’ll actually manage to eat them once they’re cooked. Though, you could always just leave them there. The eggs won't hold a grudge against you.
And then you had the nerve to accuse me of acting.
It reminds me of those moments when we sit down at the table, you take that very first bite, and suddenly something isn't quite right... Too salty? No, what you really mean is that I’ve got something stuck in my eye.
Then, following that logic, since I hadn't said anything back, you decided to lecture me on the concept of skill. "Practice makes perfect," right?
But even you admitted that things don't always turn out exactly how we imagined they should. Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, as long as instead of eggs, little chicks don't start peeping out of the pan. Now that would be an awkward situation.
Because those chicks eventually grow into hens.
And hens are a real nightmare.
I'm going to skip the text after this. By that point, you had completely lost yourself in the technical jargon of egg processing, and I couldn't even understand a word you were saying because you were talking with your mouth full.
Then came the potatoes. Hot potatoes.
In that moment, you basically ended up lecturing yourself.
You even went as far as giving instructions. How very helpful.
Are you trying to tell me that it's wrong if things need to be done a little differently?
* There are ways. Many different ways.
And explaining them takes time. By which time lunch would be late. And dinner, too. *
The only thing I dislike is when you claim that every single thought is necessary. Just like those cookies from earlier in our conversation.
There is plenty of nonsense out there that is nothing more than pure trash.
Before you toss something into the garbage bin, just make sure you haven't thrown away something that could still be useful.
And now, the beans...
The absolute backbone of this entire discussion.
They say there's always a chance someone might let a fart slip at the table. His Majesty, the Wind.
And they say there's an even higher chance of that happening while you're having breakfast with someone you care about. Because that's when a person is most relaxed, letting themselves be free to express and create. They aren't embarrassed by themselves.
I must be incredibly charming to you, then.
I mean, you eat with me.
I mean, you give me instructions, you give me advice, and you basically pass gas at me.
And for all of it, you blame the pan and the eggs.
Rachel Gonzalez7 said:Brown rice is the healthiest option if you don't peel it. Your recipe is basically just rice stripped of all its rice. Sure, a recipe is necessary, and it helps, but it isn't everything. A recipe is really just a blueprint for making dough.
Like what Anabelle mentioned, Gaudrath put it beautifully, but honestly, there’s no such thing as a redundant thought. Real cookies aren't made from just one single ingredient. The ratio of those ingredients is what actually matters, and that should depend entirely on whoever is going to be eating the damn thing. Actually, it’s best when the person eating the cookie is the same one mixing and baking it.
If you ask me, there are just as many useless thoughts out there as there are useless cookies. I’d much rather say I’m craving two sunny-side-up eggs with a thick slab of bacon and a cucumber on the side than say I want some fancy macaron made by blending every single ingredient we just talked about into one mush.
A chef makes a cake. But let's be real, we aren't all chefs, are we? There will always be people who cook and people who eat, and sometimes those roles just swap places. One day you're serving someone else, and the next, someone else is serving you.
I bet you've tasted plenty of desserts without having any clue what the ratios were. Someone offered them to you, you ate them, and only *after* you finished did you realize how they were put together. You didn't know beforehand, did you?
Even someone baking for themselves can't ever be absolutely certain that things will turn out exactly the same way every single time. Unless, of course, we're talking about factory production where everything is stamped out on a conveyor belt like machines. But even then, that mass-produced stuff never tastes half as good as something homemade.
Simple meals don't require all that guesswork regarding proportions. They are just what they are—no mystery involved. No complex recipes required
rapidskipper9 said:A true teacher is someone you just trust instinctively, without them having to jump through hoops to convince you. It’s exactly like what John Walker74 said about wishing they'd been told—I’m certain they were, they just didn't believe it at the time. Honestly, I was the exact same way. But hey, at least I'm a little bit wiser for it now.
But really, what can you actually accomplish with just a handful of words?
It's like how you always end up needing more toilet paper right when you run out.
The only thing that ever truly shifts the needle is seeing a living, breathing example of change.
What I actually needed was a witness—someone who thought differently than I did—but I just didn't have one.
If I'd had that, wouldn't there be a much better chance that things could have taken a completely different, much happier turn?
Jack Harris3 said:Dragica Fly ( 😂😂😂 ), once you get to be as old as I am, you’ll finally realize that you can only ever look like a complete idiot if you're standing in front of yourself or a group of people even more clueless than you are. 😁 Maybe if you had any sense, you'd actually count that as part of "growing up." 😁
John Walker74 said:I’m not living my dream. Honestly, I don't even know who I’d be if I actually achieved it—once there was nothing left to strive for, once everything was perfect and exactly how I had pictured it in my head.
The smaller the dreams, the happier the life, right? Lower expectations mean fewer disappointments.
Look, you’re probably still incredibly young, aren't you?
Those of us who have been around the block a bit would much rather just have things work the way they’re supposed to.😁
But really, lowering your expectations does lead to those tiny, almost imperceptible little "disappointments."👍
When life finally hits you hard enough, you realize you only want a little bit. And that "little bit" feels like everything to a person. Just being able to move around, enjoying a morning walk, watching someone pass by secretly... The general buzz on the street. Whatever it is.
But once that initial rush wears off and the intoxication of that heavy burden passes, you start wanting a little more. It isn't enough to just sit on the curb and watch life go by, even when you look at what you have compared to others and realize you actually have plenty. Instead of just watching the movement, you start craving it. Instead of observing the hustle and bustle, you ache to be a part of it.
It’s everything!
And honestly, a person would likely be happy and content with themselves if they weren't constantly being distracted by all these other little people running around with their own chaotic nonsense swirling in their heads...🙂
And what do we do? We let it happen. Because we convince ourselves that a bunch of different minds will somehow know more than just one single mind could. It's like letting two grandmothers decide the fate of a helpless child.
And that’s how the masses end up constantly confusing and confusing one another.
Everyone's desires get so tangled up together that, in the end, a person can barely tell which desire is actually theirs and which one belongs to someone else.
If they even have the guts to try and figure it out.
Alex Thompson5 said:I’m pulling out these three specific points because everything else just feels like a dictionary 😁.
1. For the most part, I dream just like everyone else, waking up here and there, but unlike the rest of you, I actually have some awareness that I'm dreaming 😉.
2. I do exactly what I want to do; I refuse to compromise on that.
3. I have a feeling ...so I just swim, fall, and rise 😎
Kamea, beautifully put🙂 If only you'd share even a tiny hint about where you find all that inspiration..
And look at this guy,
he thinks he can just pick and choose😁, but who exactly gave him permission to do that?
I don't see any real difference between being aware of your dreams and the opposite, unless you're actually doing something to make it happen.. What's the point of any of that? It’s even worse when you’re staring down the street from inside your own house..
Well, bravo on number two, I guess!
There’s this one crazy person obsessed with making compromises. Deciding when to bend and when to hold firm.
Compromising often ends up just compromising a man's integrity.
Look, Keith Phillips3, you know how this whole thing plays out... First, you convince yourself you’ve broken free, and then suddenly you feel this overwhelming urge to go around liberating everyone else, too. Then you turn into a prophet. And before you know it, you’ve started a cult.
Man, I guess I forgot to mention that trying to liberate yourself is a pretty damn dangerous hobby to pick up.
Since I find your intentions to be highly questionable—honestly, they look completely unchecked to me—I’d suggest you just stick to the self-sufficiency of your own liberation. 😉
And who on earth tries to eat the whole apple in two bites only to come charging at the one that takes four? Where have you ever seen someone try to do that on an empty stomach? Besides, you can't just spend your whole life jumping around; you need to sit down and catch your breath once in a while.
Jason Morgan2 said:So why all this whining then? Just cook them. Drink them.
? Is it because I’m a woman? Because you’re a man? Is it because I’m a woman and he’s a man?🙂! Or is it just because we are...?
Well, I cooked them. And I drank them. In a way, I’m still drinking them. Occasionally, in my thoughts. Not too often, though. I want to make sure the flavor stays exactly the same.
And all that nagging of yours actually bore fruit. I clicked on your profile and stumbled upon something incredibly interesting to me. I hope you won't be offended that I'm pasting it here.
Jason Morgan2:
2044
"First, you check the eyes, the smile, the voice, and the hands. Then you question the brain. It always has plenty to say. Next, you ask the heart. It isn't chatty, and it gets straight to the point. Then you check the body (though by then, it might already be too late). The body doesn't understand nuances, but when it speaks, its decision will certainly be the right one.
Or, you start from the end. You listen to the rushing of your own blood. You trust your gut. That’s the quick way to check. Actually, you're gambling; you're playing a shortcut system like a lottery ticket, just hoping you'll get lucky. You become a master of the reverse. That’s how you want it: You work backward because you’ve mastered the art of doing things in reverse. "
Oleander Somniferum said:I get it. But that’s just not enough. Desire and capability aren't the same thing, are they? And sometimes, the gap between them feels absolutely massive.
hiddenviper9 is out here playing prophet again!🙂
Look, Pesica, you can't just go asking hiddenviper9 anything without some hesitation. Don't you remember when he told me once that there would come a day when I'd embark on a journey where my sole purpose wouldn't be exclusively—and I mean *exclusively*—cooking dinner?😁
Well, I haven't forgotten that. So now the real question is, did hiddenviper9 actually hit a nerve, or is he just pulling at a loose thread to make things look more organized than they really are?🙂
Oleander & company,
That supposed crossroads where our little desires meet our actual capabilities—that’s where it hurts the most, if it hurts at all.
And honestly, the word "crossroads" itself carries weight, doesn't it? It implies that a choice has to be made about which direction to take.
It might feel like the decision we make in our minds isn't even a real decision. Because it lives in the mind, right? It isn't something you can grab with your hands, smash with a sledgehammer, or prove with a formal confession...
But for me, it is a vital decision. It’s the decision to acknowledge that I already am the very thing I believe I am searching for within myself.
Everything starts there. From that single point, everything else begins to unravel—everything you were meant to untangle—simply because a person finally opens themselves up to taking action, and only then do they truly grasp what they needed to understand.
And regardless of what the final result ends up being, one thing is certain. You’ve created space for the dilemma (and everything that comes with it) to finally set itself free. Either you become who you envisioned, or you finally liberate yourself from everyone else's opinions...
And no matter what Keith Phillips3 says...
Once you finally break free from one devil (or one god), you'll at least be able to start thinking about dealing with the next devil or god that comes your way.
You hit the nail on the head right out of the gate, Daniel Martin72, with that opening thought.
But what does it actually mean to "live your dream"? Is it just checking off some bucket list, or is it about finally finding your spark?🙂--to me, it means having this absolute, unshakable certainty that you are expressing your true self in the most profound way possible, pouring everything you have into your work, and actually seeing that effort reflected back at you in a meaningful way.
So, what exactly constitutes that "best possible way"? It’s that state where you feel like a fish in water. It’s that gut feeling that you are exactly where you are supposed to be. And it’s knowing that you can contribute so much more, with so much more depth, right here than you ever could anywhere else. It’s when you don't feel even the slightest urge to imagine yourself somewhere else.
That is living the dream. Actually living, rather than just daydreaming about life while you're stuck in it. When you are truly immersed in that dream, even a setback isn't really a setback; it’s just another link in the chain leading you toward the solution.
Because when you step back and look at the cold, hard facts— whether a person is living in a haze of illusions or facing reality head-on, they still have to deal with the necessity of movement, constant motion.
They have to commit to the present moment and fully merge with it. They have to face their own impact and everything that flows from their actions.
..so what exactly is a "dream" if we already possess it? Or what value does it hold if we don't?
If, in either scenario, we are forced to make that famous leap, that is, to keep moving through life itself.
Just rolling these thoughts down a hill is a waste of breath. A dream that we view as unfulfilled eventually becomes irrelevant, or at worst, it becomes a heavy burden.
An unfulfilled dream starts acting as its own brake. The more we obsess over it, the further we drift away from it.
Maybe the more honest question isn't whether you're living your dream, but simply whether you are alive. Because whether you have a dream or not, you still have to keep walking.
In my opinion, that's the only real way to actually bring a dream to life.😉
No, I’m still not Nemruthica...😁but how did I even start this...
Well, I think the title speaks for itself.
Maybe I shouldn't go around calling life a dream. Maybe I should just call it a total clusterfuck. A Mona Lisa, or maybe just...
Perhaps you shouldn't even bother replying here, but just take a second to ask yourself some internal questions...
Gather your brain cells for a little meeting and let's get into it. Assuming there’s actually anything worth talking about. The absolute worst thing would be having nothing left to talk about at all.😉
So, are you actually dreaming, or are you actually living? What do you even do when you aren't busy doing what you always do?
Where would you most like to be right now? How are you feeling in this exact moment?* . . . . Are you actually pursuing what you want, or are you just letting the current carry you along while that constant loop plays in your head: "I'll do it tomorrow, I'll do it tomorrow..."?
Do you even have a clue what you actually want for yourself?