I think there is a suprising synergy between these two philosophers. It is like nietzsche is darth vader and epictetus is obi-wan kenobi, they have opposite energy and perspective at many points but both of them are from force, If you understand what I mean. I think they complete each other like yin and yang

You see that chair alone on the center of that dark room, but a spotlight that enlights such chair. But why should we focus on the chair instead of a portion of the darkness all around it? You see, pupils of Zuddama, time is the chair, light is our dream, darkness is what we are losing; not able to realize that crawling in darkness is more living than fearing all beacuse we see, our dream is to seat on the chair, to command time, but is time commanding us by keeping us from the floor. Now, what if Zuddama switched off the spotlight? Misery and despair for the seater, all of us.

So said Zuddama.

I think therefore I am insane...

I don’t think pudding is a thing and that we are subject to a society that has been saying it’s a thing. Obviously it has sugar in it but I don’t see it as plausible that pudding is actually real in the sense that it’s something in and of itself. Meaning it’s more of a condiment, like. Kind of sauce or spread.

I’m pretty sure that the philosophy of Christianity asks: “does God have the ability to let me into heaven if I do bad things.”

So I would eat SnackPack often and lie about it. It doesn’t seem likely that pudding is the case, and it is completely unnecessary that it be a thing in its own category, so if I can prove pudding isn’t a thing I may still get into Heaven??

Since I didn’t actually lie about eating the snack pack since it’s not a thing? Serious answers only.

I had a relationship , a toxic one... It was deadly. After relationship something went extremely wrong inside me, all my friend left me, i lost myself. I not fake loved her, but acted i love her, when i was not. I was 20, she younger 1 year. After i felt horrible.

The point is, i felt like we "exhanged" something inside.. And i want to get back myself beacuse im currently feeling horrible, although i didnt do anything bad. I accepted her, and i shouldve lock the door front of her. I dont understand really.

Opinion on self infliction We travel through architectures, convinced that to “be” is bound by an agreeable ingestion of what is. Can-cannot, defined by cause and effect is what we call understanding, all else is set scale for matters of will.

Balance necessary.

We wake up one morning to the news that scientists have solved the hard problem of consciousness. In peer-reviewed experiments, they have observed particles of "consciousness" leaving the brain after death, scattering and being absorbed by the next bundle of particles they come into contact with. For the purposes of this thought experiment, we'll limit it to living multicellular organisms.

What are the most ludicrous unanticipated changes to modern life/philosophy?

I believe there is a gaping hole in the field of epistemology, particularly in how it categorizes knowledge. We all know philosophers are liars by nature, so why not take from the philosopher in american history, Daniel Rumsfeld.

To quote him directly, "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."

Slavoj Žižek himself has spoken on the fourth category here, the unknown known.

"If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the 'unknown unknowns', that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns"—the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values."

In today's world where all facts are up for debate, where unknown unknowns are the greatest threats of all (not known knowns such as human-caused climate change), our best chance for survival is to adopt this framework.

What do you think?

You can answer pretty much every question with that answer. Prove me wrong ¯_(ツ)_/¯

All those who claim to be good people are actually bad people. The abundance of bad people who claim to be good is the main cause of the ultimate demise of human civilization.“ -Philosopher: OCEAN. May/10/2024 Humanity on Earth can only upgrade to an interstellar civilization by transcending the good and bad mentality (the mentality of the weak). Otherwise, it will only lead to self-destruction.“ - Philosopher: Ocean, Founder of the Eastern Round Table Knights and the Citizen Knights Party.May/10/2024

Kinda random, but maybe I could appeal to the subjectivity of the construct of time? Maybe appeal to existentialism or phenomenology...

How would you go about justifying being late to school by sleeping in using philosophy?

Hey guys,

I made a video on Christianity and the Rise of the Individual in European Culture. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts: https://youtu.be/O-wnoZzAnOI?si=39COTzeep1Rqptee

They don't allow freedom of thoughts, speech, expression.

If I was Hitler and I hated Jews. I should be allowed to express that I hate Jews and that I don't accept Jews as human beings even if that hurts the other person. If I can't express my ideals on that, I might just better kill the Jews.

Where should I take my diabolical thoughts to? What website tolerates all these stuff and extremely immoral things? I want to experience the world in it's fullest extent without any censorship.

Morality is basically made to keep society function.

If you were the only living being on earth and you live by consuming sunlight, what could you do that is immoral?

So, why is doing "immoral" things bad if there are no consequences for yourself?

I find it self-evident that some 13 y/o k-pop fan girls want to be raped by Jung Kook.

I believe in Lookism and Classism.

If you're a desperate guy and an ugly woman fucks you, you would be mad. But, if a beautiful 10/10 woman with Gyatt fucks you, it's heaven. The woman could buy you a ps5 or rtx 4080 after the sex since she's rich af.

There is the age difference. But! There have been cultures now and in old times where 30 y/o or older men marry young 13 y/o girls (dw it's Halal)

And the most important difference between sex and rape is Consent. The girl in this case, gives her consent and wants to be fucked, desperately.

Therefore, I believe that Jung Kook should be allowed to rape a 13 y/o fan girl, as long as she gives consent.

I think this phrase is more directed at intrusive thoughts. People with intrusive thoughts often experience low self esteem because they feel that those thoughts are indicative of their actual values, etc. Due to self-help becoming so popular has probably been appropriated (arguably misused) for issues outside of those disorders it was originally used for.

This often used self-help phrase neglects thoughts as part of our personality - and one of many things that makes us who we really are. I feel like this quote in particular is generic and cannot be true for our whole functioning, shaping of our personalities and everything that comes with it. As we all know our thoughts hold many things inside of them. Some of them really aren't helpful and do not define us. But a lot of them are connected to our emotions, our interests, our desires - I'd even say that they hold the responsibility of shaping all of what is mentioned and more throughout our lives. For example think of what happens when you like someone. Your brain releases certain chemicals, you think of that person in a certain way, in your thoughts it shows as "I really enjoy being around this person, I like how they make me feel and how they look", in a way these thoughts tell you something about yourself and are apart of you plus they have molded your past, present and future. Every single thing we experience in life, whether it happens at our work place, in our love lives or in general - in our lives is something that gets transferred to our thought process and makes us/is apart of our core - who we are. It would be utterly meaningless to discredit every single thought we have about ourselves, our world (our opinions, our beliefs...) as something that's not apart of us. Some thoughts can be delusional and I agree with that, distorted thoughts that come with mental illnesses, or skewed opinions about many different things that can impact the quality of our lives. Even when we are doing something new and realize that it is something we like, that acknowledgment again comes in a form of: positive emotions and affirmative thoughts on the thing we are trying out. This misguiding quote does not even begin to touch upon the depth of human psychology (our genetic, emotional, environmental makeup, etc..). Every single process that enables us to function as human beings works as an aid toward self discovery. We should not discredit our thoughts and the connection they have with our individuality and how they represent many vital parts of our complex wholeness.

All the things that we recognise about ourselves (job decisions, who we befriend.., our tastes - about clothes, music, art, poetry), and others (what kind of people we want to be associated with, do we like our coworkers, what makes us ick about another person) are acquired through our thinking, and yes thoughts. Our thoughts are not everything we are but they undeniably have a place/and play a role in discovering who we really are.

I’ve come up with a moral problem that works as a stress test to certain ethical systems. I call it the Gandhi Box Problem.

In front of you are two doors. Behind the door on the left is Gandhi, or any one person who is influential, philanthropic, or promotes upright morality to a very wide group of people. Behind the right door are ten convicted criminals. You don’t know their crimes. One could be a murderer, the other a tax evader. Maybe one was wrongfully convicted. All you know is that they were found guilty of some imprisonable offense.

In front of the doors are two buttons, one to blow up Gandhi and the other to blow up the ten criminals. If you press no button, both rooms as well as yours will explode.

Certainly ten people could have more wide influence than one Gandhi. But one could certainly have more confidence that Gandhi would do more good than the ten criminals. Perhaps every criminal has been successfully rehabilitated and will use their story to convince thousands of people to avoid a life of crime. Perhaps Gandhi will become traumatized by the whole situation and start to use his influence for ‘bad’ and not ‘good’. The question comes down to how you value potential, likelihood, and the value of human lives.

One could say that saving ten lives is better than saving one, but odds are that the greater good will be promoted by allowing Gandhi to continue his positive influence on the world. Let’s see how certain popular ethical systems behave under this test.

Utilitarianism supports the greatest good for the most people. So the question returns to how you value the potential of ten people to do good or the influence of one man who is likely to do good. It is likely Utilitarianism would value the wider influence towards moral good more than that of a life. If Gandhi could convince people to take action that would save eleven lives, then saving one Gandhi would have more ethical value than saving ten convicted criminals. Thus, a Utilitarianist would choose to blow up the room of ten criminals so Gandhi could continue his good work.

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics presents an interesting solution to the Gandhi box. This system of ethics states that a balanced set of characteristic traits (such as humility or charity) decides a person’s ethical virtue. It is more focused on the self, happiness, and the intentionality behind actions, which leaves some room for subjectivity. But ultimately, I believe it presents a concrete solution. Aristotle advocates for rationality, that virtue comes from seeking the right ends, that true happiness comes from habitually moral behavior. Then it would seem, on an initial glance, Aristotle would see the rational evidence that Gandhi would do more good than these ten convicted criminals and proceed to blow up the criminals room. However, I believe that anyone truly following Aristotelian Virtue Ethics would detonate the Gandhi Box. The potential and value of the criminals' lives would be the deciding factor. Aristotle would view the lives of these convicts as an extremely valuable opportunity for growth in their individual lives and for collective morality. The value of their lives and happiness would also be of paramount importance. I believe that Aristotle would save the prisoners and proceed to personally, habitually rehabilitate them to morally upright standing.

Kantianism states that you should never treat people as means to an end. We should face every issue with ignorance to its wider, long term implications. Because of this ignorance, as well as the avoidance of using either set of people as a means, surely Kant would sit and allow all of the rooms to explode autonomously. That way he personally harms no one and neither is used as a means for anything else. Gandhi’s death is not used as a means for the ten criminals' survival, and the criminal's death is not used as a means to continue Gandhi’s good work. Kant’s own death is simply a casualty to add on to the rest, as inaction is the only action to align to his system.

While it may initially seem ludicrous, I have found the Gandhi Box Problem to be an effectively enlightening way of examining and evaluating different ethical systems. I don’t believe it has a true concrete moral answer, which is why I find it so useful as a test for ethical systems.

What do you think of The Gandhi Box? How do different ethical systems that you subscribe to respond to the problem?

Hey guys,

Just wanted to share with you this video on Ancient Romana and political theory

https://youtu.be/Bq70BZM-eCM?si=C9-1KLtE-o6xUwNa

Hey guys,

I am working on the Kenneth Minogue introductory book, "Politics." I made a Youtube video talking about Ancient Greeks Politics.

I delve on Greeks strengths which are on Imagination and coming up with theories. While Romans are practical people. Romans view their State as their family; they want to expand their State.

If any of you is interested feel free to comment over here or even to leave a few comments on the video as well.

https://youtu.be/WwB9mQTYidA?si=tMoKR12ulhv34JWL

Kants notion that mathematics and euclidean geometry is a priori is shown to be rubbish thus his claim that mathematics and euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori is rubbish

thus

Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Kant.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/690781235/Commentary-Kants-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-is-shown-to-be-a-failure-and-complete-rubbish-criticisms-epsitemology-ontology-metaphysics-synthetic-a

proof

1. from number theory

2)from geometry

mathematics ends in contradiction

proof

An integer (1) = a non-integer (0.999..) mathematics ends in contradiction

from

Scientific Reality is Only the Reality of a Monkey (homo-sapiens)

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer)

10x =9.999...

10x-x =9.999…- 0.999…

9x=9

x= 1(an integer)

maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer

maths ends in contradiction-thus mathematics cannot be a priori

thus mathematics is rubbish as you can prove any crap you want in mathematics

an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction: thus it is proven you can prove

further proof mathematics is not the structure of reality as geometry ends in contradiction meaningless nonsense

as you cant even construct what your mathematics creates

from geometry

one example

A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction-tghus gemometry cannot be a priori

Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 proofs

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction

A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction

but

it is simple

before you all start going on

have a read and have LAUGH at someones ridiculous arguments to refute the Magister colin leslie dean

https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyMath/comments/14rt7hi/a_1_unit_by_1_unit_triangle_cannot_be/

mathematician will tell you

√2 does not terminate

yet in the same breath

tell you

A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed

even though they admit √2 does not terminate

thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse

thus

you cannot construct 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle

thus maths ends in contradiction

thus

you can prove anything in mathematics

All things are possible

With maths being inconsistent you can prove anything in maths ie you can prove Fermat’s last theorem and you can disprove Fermat’s last theorem

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion

Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies)

He is Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/book-genre/poetry/

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/35520015/List-of-FREE-Erotic-Poetry-Books-by-Gamahucher-Press

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."

"[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path... [It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege

Scientific Reality is Only the Reality of a Monkey (homo-sapiens)

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

An integer (1) = a non-integer (0.999..) mathematics ends in contradiction

Magister colin leslie dean Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." "[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path...

[It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege

from

Scientific Reality is Only the Reality of a Monkey (homo-sapiens)

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer)

10x =9.999...

10x-x =9.999…- 0.999…

9x=9

x= 1(an integer)

maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer

maths ends in contradiction

thus mathematics is rubbish as you can prove any crap you want in mathematics

an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction: thus it is proven you can prove anything in maths now before you all start rabbiting on take note

you have two options

just

yes

or

no

are the mathematician/maths site lying when they say

either

yes

or

no

mathematician/mathematic sites are lying when they say

An integer is a number with NO DECIMAL or fractional part

If they are lying

Then you go take it up with them

If they are not lying but telling the truth

Then you are stuck with mathematics ending in contradiction Because

By the definitions

a number with NO DECIMAL is/= a number with A DECIMAL

thus a contradiction

by definition

0.999.. is an infinite DECIMAL no last digit

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Infinite_decimal_expansion

and

An integer is a number with NO DECIMAL or fractional part

https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/whole-numbers/

Whole number definitions

https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/whole-numbers/

A whole number means a number that does not include any fractions, negative numbers or [no] DECIMAL. It includes complete or whole numbers like 4, 67, 12, and so on

Natural number is

defined to be

https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/natural-numbers/

They are a part of real numbers including only the positive INTEGERS, but not zero, fractions, [no] DECIMALS, and negative numbers

Natural numbers are the numbers that are used for counting and are a part of real numbers. The set of natural numbers includes only the positive integers, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ……….∞. thus

when

a number with NO DECIMAL is/= a number with A DECIMAL

is a contradiction

Take definitions of INTEGER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

An integer may be regarded as a real number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

and for those interested in In modern set-theoretic mathematics

we also get

This notation recovers the familiar representation of the integers as {..., −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, ...} .

https://www.cuemath.com/numbers/integers/

Integers Definition

An integer is a number with no decimal or fractional part A few examples of integers are: -5, 0, 1, 5, 8, 97,

https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/integer.html

A number with no fractional part (no decimals) the counting numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}

https://tutors.com/lesson/integers-definition-examples

To be an integer, a number cannot be a decimal or a fraction

http://www.amathsdictionaryforkids.com/qr/i/integer.html

integer

• a positive number, a negative number or zero but not a fraction or a decimal fraction. To be an integer, a number cannot be a decimal or a fraction. when

when mathematics proves

1 (NOOOOOO decimal or fractional part-thus an INTEGER )= 0.999...(the 9s dont stop no last digit thus is an infinite decimal with a decimal part thus CANOT be an integer but a non-integer)

maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer

thus

maths ends in contradiction

AGAIN

If they are lying ABOUT the definitions

Then you go take it up with them

If they are not lying but telling the truth

Then you are stuck with mathematics ending in contradiction

a number with NO DECIMAL is/= a number with A DECIMAL is a contradiction

Now

When

an integer= non-integer (1=0.999...) thus maths ends in contradiction: thus it is proven you can prove anything in maths

proof

you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system

you can prove anything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion

Scientific Reality is Only the Reality of a Monkey (homo-sapiens)

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

Magister colin leslie dean Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." "[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path...

[It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege

the foundations/fundamentals of science are a myth : matter,gravity charge force

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/undermining-the-foundations-of-science.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/591616840/Prolegomenon-to-Undermining-the-Foundations-of-Science

proving

All products of human [the monkey (homo-sapiens) ] thought end in meaninglessness-even Zen nihilism absurdism existentialism all philosophy post-modernism Post-Postmodernism critical theory etc mathematics science etc

Scientific Reality is Only the Reality of a Monkey (homo-sapiens)

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

Scientific reality is textual

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-reality-is-textual.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/572639157/Scientific-Reality-is-Textual

Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies)

He is Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/book-genre/poetry/ or

https://www.scribd.com/document/35520015/List-of-FREE-Erotic-Poetry-Books-by-Gamahucher-Press

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." "[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path...

[It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege

https://open.substack.com/pub/celestialbeings/p/life-is-as-inevitable-as-death?r=2hyqa8&utm\_campaign=post&utm\_medium=web