1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 23, 2019, 04:21:01 AM »

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

I guess to a blind kid playing in traffic, someone talking about cars would seem like an edgelord.  Fool that I am not to have recognized I was standing in the playground  of a kindergarten.  Consider me devastated to have been called a name by someone I was trying to help become smarter.

Ya know, if you call people names when they say something you don’t understand you may as well have just recorded all your opinions on your computer and then played them back to yourself while sitting alone in your room.  It would be so much easier and you wouldn’t need an internet connection, but you’d get the same benefit.

Pretty sure Edgelord is a username.

Thanks Dave - I appreciate you trying to help clarify.  Always happy to apologize if I misunderstood.  Thanks again.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 21, 2019, 07:46:57 PM »

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

I guess to a blind kid playing in traffic, someone talking about cars would seem like an edgelord.  Fool that I am not to have recognized I was standing in the playground  of a kindergarten.  Consider me devastated to have been called a name by someone I was trying to help become smarter.

Ya know, if you call people names when they say something you don’t understand you may as well have just recorded all your opinions on your computer and then played them back to yourself while sitting alone in your room.  It would be so much easier and you wouldn’t need an internet connection, but you’d get the same benefit.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM »

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 15, 2019, 02:00:41 PM »

Out of curiosity, does it matter to you (this is a genuine question, I'd really like to know - to understand - if you don't mind sharing)?

Anyone who reads this, does any of it matter to you one way or the other?  If so, in what way does it matter?  And if it doesn't matter could you let me know why?

I'm not asking because I want to convince anyone or argue back, I'd really just like to learn how others feel about things like this.  Thanks.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me whether Socrates existed or not. It's a bit of like that whole Shakespeare authorship thing, why does it matter if he existed at all, like crudblud said, his existence doesn't affect the value of his works, we already know they're important and they're all out there, so why should it matter whose name we put on top of it? Is some zombie Greek gonna come out of the grave and demand credit for what he wrote that was credited to a nonexistent Socrates? The only way I see it having an effect is if we incorporate historical context on Socrates' life in analyzing his works and stuff. But even then, we have nothing else to go on, we can engage in speculation all day but it's not going to tell us something important, so what if Socrates never existed, it doesn't invalidate what he said, his name is a technicality in the face of the enormous value of his works.

Thank you for that - I appreciate it and from that perspective don't necessarily disagree.  Out of curiosity, how about from a Flat Earth perspective so to speak?  What I mean by that is for all the people whose facts are made up from what they read in Time Magazine, or the headlines of the New York Times, or some history book written by someone they don't even remember?  People who never question their side, never question themselves, never question what their being told, etc.  Do you think it has value in the sense that if it's possible, how many other facts that have always been taken for granted might it make someone start to question?  Do you think things like this can help shift someone's reality a bit and help them open their eyes?  Wondering if it matters to you at all from that angle?

For me, along with some of what I mentioned above, it also kind of helps breath life back into...life.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts - I'm curious to hear if it matters to you in the above sense - and if it doesn't would help me to understand why.  Thanks again.

Sorry for the late reply. Ah, so you want I guess what would more aptly be called a zetetic perspective I think. Yes, there's value in questioning the knowledge you receive, where it came from, possible biases within it, etc, no doubt about that. While it would be useful to apply it to something like Socrates in the hopes of applying it to more pressing matters like news and history and stuff, it does come off a bit wasteful. The "questioning your own side" is only really useful when you have access to alternate perspectives, like the news, and seeing it from different sides and sifting through various interpretations. For something like Socrates, there isn't very much evidence out there against the authorship of his philosophy and the only real alternate perspective is that Plato wrote it, which doesn't exactly yield anything new in interpreting it that way. At this point, you start entering the territory of speculation for something that ultimately is nominal to the philosophy, and that can encourage a questioning attitude for things that don't really need or should be questioned because ultimately it would be a waste of time. It all comes down to the value of the questioning.

Thanks for your response and explanation and no worries about the delay.

I said I wouldn't debate the responses, so am holding true to my word - however if you want to hear my thoughts let me know.

Either way, thanks again.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to believe a person is sincere when claiming earth is flat.

« on: April 15, 2019, 11:04:33 AM »

It's, uh... interesting to see that the bikini crowd has made their way down here. I hope you intend on behaving better than those you associate with.

As for your question: 99% of the time it's extremely obvious. The other day I saw a bunch of RE'ers on Twitter argue with some guy who claimed to be a Flat Earther and a nationalist. The very first thing you'd see if you visited his profile was a pinned tweet reading "geraffs aren't real".

My best advice, therefore, is to think before you write. There's no panacea, there are trolls in every discussion, and unless you exercise the bare minimum of critical thinking, you're gonna get caught up in the crossfire.

As for the monetisation aspect - while I personally think trying to make money off FE is a big no-no, it does nothing to prove of disprove someone's intentions. There are honest FE'ers who make money through merch, and trolls who don't make any money.

Pete-

I recently came to this forum and had never known of the FE movement or belief until about 3 days before that.

Personally it doesn't do much to/for me whether the Earth is flat, round, or rectangular - so initially my interest was peaked because I was curious to learn what people who held this view had read/seen/experienced, etc so that my eyes could be opened to new information and a different way of thinking/seeing.

Then, based on what someone claiming to be an FE'er wrote on another, unrelated site, I had thought maybe this wasn't so much about the earth being flat as it was that a group of people had taken that position as a way to try and get others to question what they thought they "knew" - to help wake them up and open their eyes so to speak.  That was further reinforced by some of the things I read at this site, for example Zeteticism, and the welcoming of other, non FE ideas/theories that challenged unrelated sacred cows.

But that's based on my often faulty interpretation and intuition, and since coming to these forums it's been hard for me to tell someone's alt from a troll that's just trying to be disruptive for no reason.  For example when a response seems to have missed the point of the post completely, is it a troll being disruptive or is it an alt seeing if someone is going to get pulled down a rabbit hole?  Or if a response is almost exaggerated in how one-sided it is, is it a person who doesn't allow for any view but their own or is it an alt holding up a mirror for the original poster so they might see their own close-mindedness?

I'm asking all this because debating or discussing the shape of the Earth, with no other goal beyond that, is very low on my list of priorities.  So if that's the sum of this whole thing then I can move on, though I'll be sad and disappointed it wasn't what I had thought since I had been excited and relieved(?) that after many years I'd found some like-minded people (like minded at a macro, how we see things sense, not like minded in that we all hold the same opinions/beliefs) who were on a similar quest as me.

So if you could let me know I'd appreciate it, because the flipside to me being able to and okay with seeing through the veil, is that sometimes I see things that aren't there, and I have to check in and make sure I'm not "Beautiful Minding" it.

Thanks.

6

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: April 14, 2019, 12:41:04 PM »

I, too, have read The Killing Joke, and it looks almost nothing like that.

Ah, thank you, I'm sorry to hear that, had high hopes it was.  Thanks for letting me know.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 13, 2019, 04:47:08 PM »

Out of curiosity, does it matter to you (this is a genuine question, I'd really like to know - to understand - if you don't mind sharing)?

Anyone who reads this, does any of it matter to you one way or the other?  If so, in what way does it matter?  And if it doesn't matter could you let me know why?

I'm not asking because I want to convince anyone or argue back, I'd really just like to learn how others feel about things like this.  Thanks.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me whether Socrates existed or not. It's a bit of like that whole Shakespeare authorship thing, why does it matter if he existed at all, like crudblud said, his existence doesn't affect the value of his works, we already know they're important and they're all out there, so why should it matter whose name we put on top of it? Is some zombie Greek gonna come out of the grave and demand credit for what he wrote that was credited to a nonexistent Socrates? The only way I see it having an effect is if we incorporate historical context on Socrates' life in analyzing his works and stuff. But even then, we have nothing else to go on, we can engage in speculation all day but it's not going to tell us something important, so what if Socrates never existed, it doesn't invalidate what he said, his name is a technicality in the face of the enormous value of his works.

Thank you for that - I appreciate it and from that perspective don't necessarily disagree.  Out of curiosity, how about from a Flat Earth perspective so to speak?  What I mean by that is for all the people whose facts are made up from what they read in Time Magazine, or the headlines of the New York Times, or some history book written by someone they don't even remember?  People who never question their side, never question themselves, never question what their being told, etc.  Do you think it has value in the sense that if it's possible, how many other facts that have always been taken for granted might it make someone start to question?  Do you think things like this can help shift someone's reality a bit and help them open their eyes?  Wondering if it matters to you at all from that angle?

For me, along with some of what I mentioned above, it also kind of helps breath life back into...life.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts - I'm curious to hear if it matters to you in the above sense - and if it doesn't would help me to understand why.  Thanks again.

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: April 13, 2019, 03:15:44 AM »

Haven't seen the trailer but maybe it's based on the graphic novel "The Killing Joke", which is a Joker origin story?  The story is pretty rough.  Basically an average guy has a series of bad things happen to him in 1 day that destroys everything he had and was, which turns him into the Joker.

If anyone has ever had their life turned upside down in an instant, and knew they would never be the same again (and not in a happy way), they may relate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 13, 2019, 02:42:25 AM »

Out of curiosity, does it matter to you (this is a genuine question, I'd really like to know - to understand - if you don't mind sharing)?

Anyone who reads this, does any of it matter to you one way or the other?  If so, in what way does it matter?  And if it doesn't matter could you let me know why?

I'm not asking because I want to convince anyone or argue back, I'd really just like to learn how others feel about things like this.  Thanks.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 12, 2019, 10:24:01 AM »

Oh and Crudblud, sorry for coming back with 8 million (or so) questions about the word "matters" - I wasn't being a smart ass or wanting to play word games.  I had started by writing many ways it both mattered to me and didn't (because for me, on different levels - or for different aspects, it can both matter to me very much, or not matter to me at all) and I realized I was listing only positive effects when I thought it mattered and neutral effects when I thought it didn't.  Then I also realized that I was focusing on the immediate effect on myself, or how it made me feel - but with a very limited forward look (guess).  So the things I think I Love so much about coming across a possibility like this could one day be the things that destroy me.  That combined with the belief that there were at least some of you out there that were awake with eyes open in varying amounts and that maybe you have people regularly coming to these forums to tell you what they know, or what you should know, or who knows what, and that some of your probing was to see if they really knew that the pursuit of (put your word here - truth, wisdom, enlightenment, knowledge, understanding, sight, etc.) had to be accompanied by a willingness and maybe even hunger to relentlessly continue calculating with every new piece of data and to always be reshaping one's understanding based on that.  To evaluate everything you see AND DO with no holding back and be constantly testing any belief using every angle you know.  To always also see if it measures up to the most extreme case you can think of.  To use that voice in your head to question, question everything and to voice opposing conclusions that would also be held up in the light and spun around, every angle and crevice that can be found, questioned until nothing left that we saw. To never let fear stop us from seeing our own hypocrisy , our own wrong doing, or our own foolishness as we fall into the very traps we fault others for.

So I wondered if the question was asked to to see if I would use my idea of what "matters", without thinking that what matters can be different to everyone.

I also find writing these ideas harder than speaking them, as it has always felt to me like once word is put to paper (computer age update needed no doubt), that hypocrisy and double standards are what emerge.  Maybe speaking the words is no different, but when on the page the brain maybe can't as easily twist and nuance our contradictions so the contrast is less stark.  Were I to write about Loving and accepting everyone, that everyone is doing the best they can always, so no one should feel bad about themselves - who would I be speaking to?  Who would I be trying to change?  The very same people I just claimed to Love, accept, and understand were already doing their best.  Maybe it could be written with enough understanding, but in general, someone writing how no one is better than anyone else while they continue on to say that their way is the only true path, usually has me closing the book disgusted that someone supposedly so aware and spiritual, is still so blind and sure of themselves, right out of the gate judging others while they say they're accepting (bullshit).

Anyway, hope you have a great day.

Thanks,
Nick

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 11, 2019, 09:22:11 PM »

Thanks for your post Crudblud. I like the half revealed Peter Parker (or the almost hidden Peter Parker, or the Spiderman with the mask that’s too small, or the whoever it is with the head that’s too big for their mask, or the person who almost asphyxiated on the spider-man themed plastic bag but just freed their mouth, or the tattoo on Nancy Regan’s inner thigh, etc.).

I’m going to pretend you didn’t stumble upon this thread but came here intentionally to ask that question.

1. does it matter if Socrates really existed or not?

What do you mean by “matter”?  Does something matter if it has a positive effect (change) on a something?  A negative?  Any at all?  Is there a threshold of change (or something) that an effect has to meet or exceed before something “matters”?  Is there a timebox, in that something’s effect has to be immediate, or do you mean for eternity could it have an effect?  Could the effect, if needing to meet a certain change threshold, take place more than one link in the chain away from this or must it me a direct effect?  If it doesn’t have to be a direct effect is there a limit to how many times removed the it can be?   Are you looking for something specific to be affected, like one’s reality or if they change their opinion of Plato?  Do you want to know if there’s a desire by me for it to be one way or the other?  Something else?  Etc.

Also, who or what are you asking if it matters to?

Lastly by “existed” do you mean the mainstream definition of having been alive?  Has something existed if it’s believed that it has?

2. Does his existence determine the value of the Socratic method?

To me?  Possibly whether I wanted it to or not.  But I don’t know, and it could affect me in ways I’m not aware.  Maybe his not existing would affect my feelings towards Plato and bias me in some way that caused me to value his work more, since I could be more likely to place a higher value on work done by those I like than those I don’t – and that value may increase with the amount I idolize or believe in their ability (or who knows what else).

Would it have an impact on the intrinsic value?  I don’t think it should.  It is what it is and I don’t think there’s any value added depending on it’s creator or how it was created, I assume that would just be bias.  Of course I don’t know, just thinking.

3. Does his existence determine the value of the works of Plato and Xenophon?

Same response as last question, I think.
------------------------

I’m always me today
But heed not what I say
For tomorrow I’ll be you
I’ll shout your point of view
And you’ll shout “Disagree!”
Because you will be me

Which goes my friend to show
How fickle all we know.
Night’s darkness turns to light
Look back your left is right.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 10, 2019, 05:29:13 AM »

So I understand maybe you just read this post and are sharing your thoughts - and if that's what it is, then please disregard the rest of this - and thanks for your post.

If though you wrote that because of how certain I seemed of what I thought, then I understand, and kind of expected someone to pull out one of their other characters to do just what you did.  I almost said something in my last message about how even though I wrote what I thought like it was a fact I know I have no idea, and I know I don't know that I have no idea, and then who knows what the hell I know, and is there such a thing as "know", and could every spec of dust be an eternity of questions, and possibly George Jefferson lives in my big toe and controls my every move in order to further his drug enterprise (I don't say that because he's black, or because he owns a dry cleaners).

I can think of lots of reasons why I acted that way, and lots of reasons why I'm acting this way, and though I think those reasons are at least part of the story, they may not even be reasons and who knows what the story is, or if everyone knows but me, and maybe things are the opposite of whatever I said here, and maybe they are both what I said and not what I said and everything in between.  Or not.

Sorry about my attitude - under the usual circumstances I can come on too strong and as a know-it-all whenever I start somewhere new, and it can take 3 or so months until I stop being (or being perceived as) so obnoxious - and it's amplified here.

Thanks and hope you have a good night.  I'm crashing out now.  Night.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 09, 2019, 09:55:59 PM »

I really wish I had just responded differently – because I didn’t know what you were asking me, but was so caught up being worried I’d be misunderstood, and afraid I’d be written off for not getting whatever you thought I might be, that the last time I acted this contrary to who I generally am, it was the only time I’ve been fired.

Well I guess that is who I am in that situation – thanks for helping me see it a little so I can hopefully not do it the same way next time.

And if you just ask shitty confusing questions, then lol and you gotta work on that shit, and thanks for the help.

BTW Whatever you've got going on, it felt like there was a chance it’s something I’ve been looking for for quite some time.  Let me know if you ever need any help.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 09, 2019, 06:14:54 PM »

If I mischaracterized you I’m sorry - I have a lifelong bad habit of speaking before I understand, or at least have slightly less confusion.  I saw what I thought was you arguing about spelling or words or whatever I missed, and I assumed you were seeing the black and white typeface but missing that they were written on the leg of a dinosaur who was on the phone buying stock in amazon.  Anyway I guess as you say you don’t have the right answer, at least it would seem beyond the way different countries spell the same word.  I wonder if you can try to see in a week how many things you think you don’t know, and compare that to how many earnest questions you asked.

Love you.  Bette

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 09, 2019, 12:44:24 PM »

Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.

How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.

This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.

You recognise the difference.

First off:

recognize not recognise


Second off: 

What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread.  What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.

When the youtube evidence  is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.

First off, never start your post with first off - it just shows everyone what an angry jefferson you are.

On the Second hand, spelling errors really only matter in spelling bee's.  Otherwise you're just being a cheater and misdirector and trying to make someone look stupid just because they misspelled a word.  It's a rude thing to do and you should stop it.  Since you weren't arguing about how to spell that word, I'd ask you stay on topic (oh by the way, you should have used a semicolon in your sentence above so let's make fun of you for not being smart enough to use correct punctuation (I'm kidding, but that was pretty scary huh?  Everyone almost thought you weren't proficient with your semicolons)

Second hand clothes part II, would you be that guy reading the secret of life whose pointing out every typo?  Maybe you just like causing conflict over nothing?  Maybe you like picking on people and instead of responding to their thoughts which they spent a lot of time on, you'll try to embarrass them because they had a spelling error.  Oh boy, you sound like basically all the teachers I've had the pleasure of putting in their place (their most disliked place, the place where people are equal).

Thirdsofall, why does this matter to you?

Thirdsofall, why does it matter if someone thinks the earth is flat?

Thirdsofall, do you go to LGBTgay websites and tell them why they’re wrong for wanting same sex with someone else?  Do you come with carefully prepared arguments that explain they really don’t like it?

fifth of the good stuff of all, what if the earth is a triangle.  What if it's 17,000 triangles all jammed together inside a potato.  So what?  Who cares?  WHO CARES?

Sixthly, why are you in this argument?   You don't really care what people here believe.   You probably won't invite us to dinner with your family, again.   You may as well tell your argument to a teacher for all the value that'll come of it.

Sevengetting-off, Why are you here other than to get into an argument with people you're angry at and think are stupid?  Why do you want to interfere with people's peace and quiet and instead start challenging them and then challenging their answers.  Do you treat everyone who thinks something different than you like this?  Do you like to pick on people when you know that everyone else laughs at them and sees them as less than human?

eight - Every time you've been wrong in your life, you've thought the person who was right didn't know the answer.

You only get smarter by not having the right answer, and since it's so important to you to have it, you'll probably waste your gifts, because you can't own being wrong and learning (and don’t realize there's no correlation between wrong and smart, well there is, but it’s the opposite of what you think).

Good luck Matey!

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 08, 2019, 08:10:13 AM »

This would be a lot easier if you asked the question you were looking to answer.

I don’t know what the favored views of determinism are, but I’ve never heard a view I agreed with.

People ask the question “is there free will or are things predetermined”.  That question I think, like the chicken and egg, has no right answer because, like the chicken and egg, the answer is "Both".  So I usually say that "Because we have free will, things are predetermined".

Free will is making a choice.  Choices are based on what we want, what we want is based on all the things that have ever happened that make us want what we do.  The way the light is hitting the ground and how that affects our psyche, what we heard our dad yell at our mom when we were 3, the hole in the back of our jeans that is letting the seat burn our butt cheek (seriously over simplified).  Unfathomable amounts of data points all feeding in to what you want to choose.  Each of those data points caused by other data points that were caused by other data points, etc.

No choice is made without a reason, and every reason must be based on something(s).  The great freedom of choice is what gives everyone the most dreaded predetermination.

I think (obviously just my opinion), that people fear predetermination because they misunderstand the point of life.  They think it's about achieving something and doing better than other people.  By that logic then yeah, it would seem like a waste of time if things were predetermined because you'll never score better than what you're destined to "score".  Of course it's also incredibly unfair because people who are in more pain or who have more trauma, or whose emotions control them more than the norm would be at a huge disadvantage.

So what's the purpose?  I don't know, but maybe we aren't alive to be judged by someone else.  Maybe we're alive so that we learn?

To me, free will (making a choice) is part of the cause and effect system.  The choice is the effect of numerous causes.  I dare anyone to do something they don’t want to do.  I don't believe it's possible.  I think there is always an answer to the question “Why did you do that?”

That’s why there is no such thing as will power, or “could have done better” or “tried harder”.  I could continue into why there is also no such thing as fault/blame, why everyone is always doing the very best they can at all times, why those we think are bad deserve empathy and kindness not punishment (no one deserves punishment) and why judgement is the cause of our pain, but now I’m curious – was your hunch right?

(since I’m not sure of the views of determinism you were referring two I don’t understand your full question well enough to answer it).

Thanks - Nick

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 08, 2019, 01:28:25 AM »

Thanks brother (or sister.  You're the first QED I've met) that made my night - good to see you again - and yeah I could totally have posted this in the wrong place - I figured this was less philosophical and more challenging an accepted fact - so I put it here - but I'll recheck posting guidlines and if you think I'm missing something please slap me on the side of the head until I see it - thanks  =)

What's not existing mean when you say it?  I don't want to jump to conclusions or even questions.  If it makes you feel any better, if we aren't both existing or not existing, at least then this forum is accessible to both states.

Thanks for the message my friend and have a good night.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 07, 2019, 08:46:55 PM »

I think when looking at the evidence for Socrates existence, there is very little, if any, and what’s there only works because people are looking to support what they believe, and not trying to answer the question without bias.

I think if anything, the evidence is so illogical that it more likely points to Plato having created the character of Socrates as a means of expressing his philosophy, which is a device others have used as well.

The evidence for his existence (from people supposedly living during his time):

Plato is the almost sole source of evidence we have for Socrates existence, with the two additional accepted sources being his only other student Xenophon (which translates to Foreign Voice) where Socrates appeared in two of his works (though for one of them, Xenophon was at war and not with Socrates when he tells the story of his trial) and the playwright Aristophanes where in his play “Clouds” (423 BC), there is a character named Socrates who is mocked as a sophist and a fool.

The counter-evidence:

1.   Socrates was supposedly a well-known Athenian figure, Philosopher, and teacher who lived to 71 years old before he was sentenced to death (one of the charges was for “Corrupting the youth with philosophy”, which, as an aside, is reminiscent of the “We’re doing it to protect the children” cry every time someone is about to pass an unjust and usually asinine law that makes life worse – some things never change).  Yet in all that time, he only 2 students?  Even if Plato had been 10 when he started studying under Socrates that still leaves 55 years of his life where he taught no one at all – yet he was supposedly a prominent figure.

2.   There is no known writing by Socrates, nor is there any other thing produced by him.  In 71 years one of the world’s most famous philosophers didn’t write 1 word (he must be friends with Jesus).

3.   After decades as a prominent Athenian figure, there is not 1 record anywhere of Socrates (besides his 2 student’s writings) –there wasn’t even a record of his trial and sentence, which would seem to have been something worth recording.

4.   The first time Plato writes of Socrates (and the first time we can be certain he is being written about) is estimated to be 399 BC – the year Socrates dies.  Why didn’t Plato ever write Socratic Dialogues when Socrates was alive?  Wouldn’t things have been fresher in his memory?  Why wait?

5.   The last dialogue Plato wrote was estimated to be between 361 – 347 BC.  That means for somewhere between 38 and 52 years Plato wrote accounts of the dialogues Socrates had had.  Why did it take so long?  I hope he had taken good notes.

6.   The name Socrates, per one source of unknown reliability, means “whole, unwounded, safe” and “power”.  So, the wise man who knew he knew nothing and was therefore unbeatable (Socrates), had a name that meant “unwounded power”.

7.   Plato writes in Letter ii (authenticity disputed by some based on their opinion only): “no writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a Socrates become beautiful and new”.  My interpretation, Socrates is finally “born” in Plato as his voice, and the result of Plato’s spiritual death (completely made up theory based on nothing more than my beliefs).

8.   According to Plato, Socrates thought Democracy was dangerous and that it would inevitably lead to “mob rule” (Ochlocracy).  Funny then how the democratic system (500 jurors with a majority rule vote) found him guilty by a small margin – thereby having Democracy sentence to death one of the greatest philosophical figures in history.  Good way to illustrate mob rule and make Democracy look exactly like what it is.

9.   Plato was at Socrates trial, but he was not at Socrates Execution?  A guess is all I can make, but were Socrates the manifestation of Plato, it would seem right he couldn’t attend his death (and Plato’s spiritual death).  But again, just an unfounded idea.

10.   Plato was originally thought to be born in 428 BC however now estimates are 424-423 and if that’s accurate then coincidentally Plato would have been born the year the play “’Clouds” (the only other known source to mention Socrates other than his students) was written and performed.  An alternate theory which is equally as plausible is Plato took the name from the play that came out the year he was born and uses it to create a history of believability for Socrates.  He even ties his Socrates to that character in possibly the first writing of Socrates – Plato’s “The Apology”, by having Socrates tell the jury (paraphrased) “that because of his inaccurate depiction in the play Clouds, they may have the wrong idea of who he is”.  So Plato makes that connection for all of us.  Also, as there was a supposed rivalry between playwright and philosopher at that time, so what better way to make Aristophanes look the fool than by taking his mocked Socrates and turning him into a wise sage?

11.   Regardless of the previous point, using “Clouds” as a reliable source to prove Socrates existence is rather baseless.  Basically, there was a play that had a character with the same name and he was a bad philosopher.  That’s it?  That’s nothing.

12.   Why would Plato do this?  Try writing a book telling people the right way to think and see how many of them end up thinking you’re a know-it-all and obnoxious (or just read the comments posted here).  But if you use a character that isn’t you – someone who has built-in credibility because of the history you give them, someone who doesn’t even claim to be wise, but rather that he knows nothing – you now have a voice people can learn from without getting defensive.

All that speculation on my part aside, the burden of proof rests on those who think Socrates lived, so if you have any, feel free to provide it.

Without stronger evidence, this seems like one of countless mistakes made by Historians, and possibly another foundational belief not true.

-Using my BDE to help us out of BED

Thanks.

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stephen Hawking, you sneaky little Geocentrist

« on: April 05, 2019, 04:55:04 AM »

The word "twice" is correctly quoted from the book.  In case there's ever anyone who needed to know, in case it ever makes a difference for someone, I'm writing this for you.  You are not alone and you are cared for - so much so that instead of feeling ridiculous for writing this confirmation of a meaningless word, i'm happy.  Thanks.

21 years ago, when I was 22 I started reading "A Brief History of Time", though mostly I bought it because I felt very impressed with myself for all the serious books I had read.

21 years ago I was about 1 page into this book and I read the line "And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times!".  I read it and it was like having the rug pulled out from under me but looking up and feeling like the magic and adventure  I'd been looking and wishing for my whole life all at once was there.  Stephen Hawking has just said the Earth didn't rotate around the Sun.  This wasn't someone on Public Access cable, this was Stephen Hawking. This was the person everyone believed and believed in.

I think I took a walk around the block.  Kept thinking excitedly "holy f*ck the sun rotates around the f*cking Earth - wow, yes.  I couldn't have asked for a better first time.  Anyway it never mattered to me what the answer was, and I've never cared to look farther than that paragraph (and I haven't).  But in 21 years this is the only place I've posted it.  This is the first time I feel like there's people who might get a chuckle out of it, whether they agree or not, and maybe some others it might excite.  It's still the only thing my brain sees when I read it, and though it doesn't change anything for me whatever it is, I wouldn't have put it here if I didn't still believe it sure could be true.

Thanks.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stephen Hawking, you sneaky little Geocentrist

« on: April 04, 2019, 10:27:54 PM »

(...)everyone sees the moon look twice as big sometimes(...)

You pulled that "twice" out of thin air. And even Ptolemy and contemporaries could easily verify with simple tools that it was just impression. So flaw in Ptolemy's geocentric theory still holds.

You got me.  That phone book of a post was hinging on my sneaky use of the word twice, because without that the entire thing crumbles.

I'm absolutely cool if you want to not use twice and insteadc choose anything you want so long as it's not  "always the same size" - since we know it's not that.  If you want it to be .5  I'll concede that point.  If you want it to be 1.7 I'll concede that point.  If you prefer something more esoteric like 3.14etc we can use that too.  I'm not being a smartass - I'm earnestly saying it doesn't matter to me.

I know we don't know each other and you probably don't like me, but if you can just let me say that the post was about Stephen Hawking, a moderately respected voice of science, possibly writing in his book that he didn't think the Earth rotated around the sun.  That's it.  I don't claim  anything more.  So no need to prove it wrong with an experiment because....the post wasn't about it being right, it was about what someone might have believed.  That's all I'm shooting for, then y'all can either take it across the finish line or not, I can rest knowing it'll happen eventually.

-BDE

This is a good lesson that SRH was trying to teach: how cherry-picking particular claims throughout history can be used to weave a narrative antithetical to the one intended.

You have demonstrated the pitfall beautifully, and brilliantly deposed it.

You win one internet.

**I'm apologizing, you're right, I was a jerk.  If you end up wanting to read below I promise I'm just appologizing and not trying to push any opinions, etc.  Thanks.

Hey I'll just give it a shot - is there something I wrote in my first post that annoyed you and made angry at me?  If so and if you want to let me knbow what it is maybe I can not do it the next time to someone else.

Also, I know my response to you was not nice, or respectful, and that I'm asking you a big favor just to read my post because you don't know me - and what I should have done was thank you for taking time to hear me out - and say that you made my night just by reading it.  Also you're 100% right that my response was trying to win instead of talk (if it's cool though I would love not to win the internet because then I'll have to spend all my time with people acting the way I did, which really is a horrible way to spend any time at all).

Anyway I thought I owed you an apology as well as a thank you.  Also, I consider you a friend - as crazy as that may sound.  And so if you ever need anything or whatever - want to shoot the shit, and for some reason want to reach out - please do.  Otherwise I hope you have a good night and thanks again for reading what I put up.

Also, assuming I can edit my original post I'll fix the whole "twice" screw up (which I should have done the moment you mentioned it), and this time I'll try not to improvise anything.

Thanks again,

Nick