Pure Nonsense

Amanda Gonzalez3 said:(...) writing is a skill you learn.😁

Low blow...🙂

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Low blow...🙂

Not quite low enough. 😉

I mean, they should show some respect—maybe grab a Starbucks first to chill out before jumping on the keyboard...

I'm assuming they're American and know the language, but if they're actually from abroad, my bad in advance.

Still, feels like they're just being lazy and scattered...

In my book, stupidity is just a series of senseless moves—the kind that left me having to draw two extra cards in UNO today... 😉

Philosophers are supposed to be calm, detached people who have moved beyond human passions... that was figured out a long time ago. If you're still prone to anger or any other raw emotions, you aren't a philosopher. 😉

Melissa Barrett4 said:In my book, stupidity is just a series of senseless moves—the kind that left me having to draw two extra cards in UNO today... 😉

Philosophers are supposed to be calm, detached people who have moved beyond human passions... that was figured out a long time ago. If you're still prone to anger or any other raw emotions, you aren't a philosopher. 😉

Man, they aren't even human at that point.😉 Let alone philosophers...

I’ve got to say, there are some pretty problematic points being made in those last two posts 😬.

Since the moderator here seems to be playing favorites and manipulating posts whenever they feel like it—it feels like I previously read a supportive post from "Musliman" and one from mistyfox812, who initially rejected my critique before deciding to engage in dialogue, only to seemingly wipe the whole thing clean as if we were in some kind of daycare instead of an open, public forum. Since I actually prepared this text before my post about virtual electrons and virtual people was DELETED, here it is in its entirety.

For quite some time now, I’ve been using this forum as a space to exercise my specific knack for researching and interpreting NEW knowledge, ideas, and concepts within philosophy. I don't view philosophy as some lofty, transcendental mental activity sitting above everything else; rather, I see it as just one of the four great faculties of the human mind: religion, science, philosophy, and art. So, when I talk about philosophy, I’m talking about a faculty that strives to understand, grasp, and interpret the whole damn thing—including existence itself. A philosophy like that—acting as a SYNTHESIS, or a UNIFIED INTELLECT that merges religion, science, philosophy, and art—incorporates traditional philosophy, sure, but it transcends it by integrating NEW insights and NEW interpretations of reality and existence.
With that kind of approach, if we're only discussing traditional philosophy, then metaphorically speaking, I’m looking at that philosophy as "caterpillar philosophy" while I’m trying to discuss "butterfly philosophy." Essentially, I am talking about a NEW PHILOSOPHY, the first iteration of which was written in my book, Philosophy of Origin.
After this little intro, it should be pretty obvious why inevitable conflicts arise between myself and a traditional philosopher like mistyfox812—simply because we are looking at the exact same being from two completely different positions and perspectives. I am speaking from the perspective of the "butterfly" who understands the "caterpillar" quite well, whereas the "caterpillar" finds it difficult, if not impossible, to grasp butterfly philosophy. In this context, it's clear that while I respect the traditional philosophy that mistyfox812 so vigorously defends, I assign it a very specific epistemological meaning. I’ve said before, in my opinion, that traditional philosophy is a noisy jumble of various philosophical thoughts and viewpoints where you might find a stray "gem" here and there, but I think sifting through it all is fruitless and counterproductive. Now, anyone who wants to spend their time sifting, or anyone capable of only studying what has already happened—the past, what someone once said or wrote—well, go ahead; I have nothing against that, just as I have nothing against mistyfox812. But I do claim the right to speak on the views and concepts of contemporary philosophy, on my own insights, and on the Philosophy of Origin, which, in terms of content and meaning, is the only thing that encompasses the totality of existence. As such, it offers entirely new possibilities for philosophy and philosophizing—things that traditional, especially Western, philosophy knows very little about, if anything at all.
Because of this approach to philosophy, mistyfox812 apparently got quite worked up with me, as did several others, like EL taj. Some people have even gone so far as to label me with various insults just because I wrote, for instance, that Heraclitus was philosophically stupid, and that the entire tradition of dialectical philosophy—from Heraclitus down to Hegel and Marx—is foolish, harmful, and dangerous to the human mind, to the living Human, and ultimately, to humanity itself.

The next reason for our misunderstandings lies here: almost all traditional philosophers wrote their philosophies based on the knowledge of their era and their contemporary ability to contemplate the world and its phenomena, using a very meager scientific toolkit—meaning, they had incredibly limited knowledge regarding the phenomena of existence, especially the phenomena of the microworld. That is why I believe that old and new philosophical problems, or questions, should be solved using modern scientific tools and contemporary knowledge, rather than just rearranging and reinterpreting old philosophies. Today, in terms of cognitive apparatus, capacity, and methods of perception, everything is fundamentally different from the "golden age of philosophy." Someone who merely reads philosophy books without engaging in any autonomous thought isn't just lacking as a modern philosopher; they aren't even a primal philosopher, simply because they fail to connect primordial truths with modern truths and insights.

So, look—I hold onto traditional philosophy about as tightly as I held onto last year's snow. And that doesn't mean I don't care about the snow, per se; it just means it all melted away, didn't it?
What we actually need is a new philosophy and a new mindset. I’m standing here as a representative of that new philosophy and that new way of thinking—something that already exists and is inevitably taking shape right before our eyes.

I moved this post over from the "What is Quantum?" thread. Honestly, hollowpilot9 totally blanked on where I left my reply, and I wanted to make sure he could find that support post from Musliman.hr we did about a year ago.

Hannah Thomas13 said:Come on, guys, why even bother getting worked up over bolded Gaza? He’s just another half-baked fanatic who thinks he's the only one holding the right answers. He spends his time aggressively preaching his "truth" to anyone listening, usually without even bothering to be civil. Honestly, people like that aren't worth the energy once you realize what they're actually about.👎
The best move is to just hit ignore. These types literally feed off the attention you give them when you try to argue.

You're talking nonsense here! If that's your idea of an argument, you've got a long way to go.

hollowpilot9, I'm just curious—how do you actually tie humanity, Jesus Christ, and God together into this one big philosophy of yours that's supposed to be applied to the whole world?

Even if things worked the way you say they do, I honestly feel like anyone who actually cares about people, animals, trees, even just a blade of grass, birds, rivers, the ocean, or chimpanzees... should be fighting against everything you’re preaching.

History shows that this kind of mindset you have has caused more evil across every single part of reality than anything else out there.

Do you actually see that, or are you just gonna give me another monologue?

mistyfox812 said:I moved this post over from the "What is Quantum?" thread. Honestly, hollowpilot9 totally blanked on where I left my reply, and I wanted to make sure he could find that support post from Musliman.hr we did about a year ago.

The whole thing about manipulating people—you know, trying to shove someone else's thoughts into these little "personal" boxes I've built for them—just isn't my style. It's foreign to me. The real question here is, did I get you right? Are you actually done with all this constant debating with me? Are you ready—and capable—to just have a normal dialogue where we take turns picking the topics? Is that the plan?
If not, there's really no point in me being overly cautious, but look, you have to let me discuss electrons based on what modern science actually tells us. And suddenly, out of nowhere—well, we all know who "discovered" them—virtual electrons pop up as if they're some kind of electronic reality. Is discussing those kinds of phenomena while simultaneously talking about electron-positron pairs actually a different conversation than just treating electrons like little "balls" of matter?

hollowpilot9 said:The whole thing about manipulating people—you know, trying to shove someone else's thoughts into these little "personal" boxes I've built for them—just isn't my style. It's foreign to me. The real question here is, did I get you right? Are you actually done with all this constant debating with me? Are you ready—and capable—to just have a normal dialogue where we take turns picking the topics? Is that the plan?
If not, there's really no point in me being overly cautious, but look, you have to let me discuss electrons based on what modern science actually tells us. And suddenly, out of nowhere—well, we all know who "discovered" them—virtual electrons pop up as if they're some kind of electronic reality. Is discussing those kinds of phenomena while simultaneously talking about electron-positron pairs actually a different conversation than just treating electrons like little "balls" of matter?

First off, you're the one who cut off communication in the first place.
Honestly, I don't think a dialogue with you is even worth it, or even possible, and it's not because I can't keep up.
The way modern science talks about electrons and the way you talk about them? They aren't the same thing (and surprisingly, nobody else on these forums who actually knows their physics—and trust me, we've got plenty of smart people here—thinks they're the same either).
That last sentence in your post is the perfect example of why we can't get through to each other. If you had actually read (or if you'd even understood) that link you were reacting to, you wouldn't have been able to write something like that.
The only reason I even replied was because you threatened to harass me all over this board. If you're sticking to that threat, then fine, I'll take a real dialogue on whatever topic you want.
But if you're dropping the threats, then I've got nothing left to say to you.

My very first thread.