|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 18, 2019 18:42:59 GMT
(Upon request of karl ) I won't try to talk here much, but rather put some material that you can read. Instead of explaining by myself, I'll try to answer on question. But, firstly, I'd like to anticipate some asks. Before all this we need to determinate terms. The Russian Orthodoxy Church is current dominated religious structure in Russia that is an institute of Orthodoxy (one of the branches) and it mostly widespread in many Eastern Europe countries. The Ukrainian Orthodoxy Church is the church that has been legalized lately by the patriarch of Constantinople. The separated church from the Russian Orthodoxy Church from 1992, it wasn't renowned beside Ukraine at first, but it became legal in this year. The Russian Church don't accept legalization of it. The most problem appears now is - was the legalization corrected? And - as the more general question for many other fields in social religious life - who must accept the denomination? All right, I put some links here (if ya'll don't mind): TheGuardian: linkChristianityToday: link And my beloved one - Fox Nеws link
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 11, 2019 19:44:53 GMT
So would you recommend for Ukrainians to go to a Ukrainian orthodox church and Russians to a Russian orthodox church since they're different? Or a person can easily fit in in any of the orthodox churches? I don't like nationalization of Christian churches in any branches. It's awful. As Paul said on divide of Church: "10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 corinthians 1:10-12).
Poorly, Anaxogoras seems to have quitted. I tried to say him sorry for inconvenience, but I think he was too angry to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 11, 2019 20:46:29 GMT
So would you recommend for Ukrainians to go to a Ukrainian orthodox church and Russians to a Russian orthodox church since they're different? Or a person can easily fit in in any of the orthodox churches? I don't like nationalization of Christian churches in any branches. It's awful. As Paul said on divide of Church: "10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 corinthians 1:10-12).
Poorly, Anaxogoras seems to have quitted. I tried to say him sorry for inconvenience, but I think he was too angry to hear it.So that means they'll easily fit in as family despite whichever church it is? What if it's oriental orthodox?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 12, 2019 1:34:48 GMT
I see postmodernism as a classical example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nazism gave us a definition of evil. One reason why this had such a profound effect, is that the Nazis based their atrocities on already existing mindsets. Even the methods they used had already been invented. The death rate in the British concentration camps in the Boer war, was 40%, mostly children. In my country, Norway, the sterilisation laws, created to sterilise undesirables, passed the Norwegian parliament in 1934 against one vote. Eugenics, social Darwinism, racism, and authoritarianism were ingrained in European societies at the time. What the Nazis did was to dial it up to ten. Instead of only sterilising people with mental illness, they started killing them.
So, after WW2, Nazism and everything associated with it, became discredited. Instead, the new mentality were to be built on equality. Seeing some races as more worth than other races, was replaced by the view of everyone is equal, with equal, individual rights, expressed through the human rights declaration.
However, this idea about equality because, what I want to refer to as a vegetative thought track. Instead of being applied specifically to an individual's self-worth, it became a philosophical concept, rejecting any notion of something being qualitative better than something else. Not only does it lead to the claim that Brutalistic architecture is as aesthetic as a Gothic church, but relativises truth itself. I recently read, or tried to read, an essay about postmodern math, and it's recommended reading for masochists who'd enjoy a self-induced headache.
It's endpoint is that there cannot be a qualitative difference in any way, anywhere. There is no truth and no beauty, as anything upheld as such may be deconstructed, and replaced by anything else, justified through empty, convoluted rhetoric.
This leads to emptiness, which the human mind cannot endure. We have an inherent need for an inner sense of continuity. If we're fragmented on the inside, we'll be filled with restlessness, and that restlessness may take all forms. It could spur one into creativity and/or truth seeking. But it could also find a destructive outlet. Leaving people with a sense of meaninglessness is to play with fire, and what we're witnessing is that fire fast reaching a point where it needs to be put out before it runs amok.
I didn't know that you're from Norway! I like a Norway philosopher Lars Svendsen, I've read his "Philosophy of Evil", and "Philosophy of Fear". I know that he issued many interesting books about Philosophy in vary fields. I am satisfied that he has been translated in Russian. Also, one of my beloved books is Schopenhauer' "Ethics and Anesthetics" which was celebrated to Norway Royal Community. I remember I read the forewords of Schopenhauer and it was funny. He used the language that now some postmodernists use, but using much irony in it. Concerning the text. Just awesome! Thank you for such comments! Especially about the postmodernic math - I don't even want to get it, because.... but, no... I would involve if I were a mathematician. Actually, being so angry at those who called themselves postmodernists (actually I don't believe in postmodernism as modernism either), I would read it and started to discuss. My idea is simple and plain as Elvis (it's an address to the string of Public Enemy's famous song "Fight the Power") - I'd like to interrogate those 'postmodernists', and I was sure (100%) that they would be cracked as chickens. So, this is a core reason - they are not interrogated by anyone. I think that we've lost masculine imagination of using force as soon as we've believed in that "mass = energy", or "physics is based on relativity". I don't believe in relativity, because this notion is controversial. It's obvious that something keeps staying the same while everything else is changing; and there's no other way to define 'relativity'. Yeah, I know I confess to old and too rough and plain ideas, but it is my wish, not Yudkowskys' (this is one of 'newest' postmodernic philosophers; who, among the other thoughts, claimed that "your rationality is my business"). You're absolutely right (and my dozens of respects) about the situation after WWII and consequences... Yes, you're right... You know, I haven't answered on all your points in your comment, but even a part of this has a great expression on me. Incredible, just incredible!
Thank you. You know more about Lars Svendsen than I do. I hardly know anything about contemporary philosophers, Norwegians included.
The relativity theory isn't stating that everything is relative. The transformation from one coordinate system to another is based on invariance. Everything is described accurately by mathematics, and produces testable predictions. The clocks on GPS satellites are continuously adjusted for relativity, due to both that they're moving and that they're orbiting high up in the gravitational field. The reason why the sun shines is that two individual hydrogen atoms weigh more combined than the resulting Helium atom, so when Hyrdogen fuses into Helium, the excess mass is released as energy.
As for masculinity. I don't disagree with you, but as a starting point for a discussion about it, could you give me some idea about how you define masculinity?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 12, 2019 12:16:47 GMT
I didn't know that you're from Norway! I like a Norway philosopher Lars Svendsen, I've read his "Philosophy of Evil", and "Philosophy of Fear". I know that he issued many interesting books about Philosophy in vary fields. I am satisfied that he has been translated in Russian. Also, one of my beloved books is Schopenhauer' "Ethics and Anesthetics" which was celebrated to Norway Royal Community. I remember I read the forewords of Schopenhauer and it was funny. He used the language that now some postmodernists use, but using much irony in it. Concerning the text. Just awesome! Thank you for such comments! Especially about the postmodernic math - I don't even want to get it, because.... but, no... I would involve if I were a mathematician. Actually, being so angry at those who called themselves postmodernists (actually I don't believe in postmodernism as modernism either), I would read it and started to discuss. My idea is simple and plain as Elvis (it's an address to the string of Public Enemy's famous song "Fight the Power") - I'd like to interrogate those 'postmodernists', and I was sure (100%) that they would be cracked as chickens. So, this is a core reason - they are not interrogated by anyone. I think that we've lost masculine imagination of using force as soon as we've believed in that "mass = energy", or "physics is based on relativity". I don't believe in relativity, because this notion is controversial. It's obvious that something keeps staying the same while everything else is changing; and there's no other way to define 'relativity'. Yeah, I know I confess to old and too rough and plain ideas, but it is my wish, not Yudkowskys' (this is one of 'newest' postmodernic philosophers; who, among the other thoughts, claimed that "your rationality is my business"). You're absolutely right (and my dozens of respects) about the situation after WWII and consequences... Yes, you're right... You know, I haven't answered on all your points in your comment, but even a part of this has a great expression on me. Incredible, just incredible!
Thank you. You know more about Lars Svendsen than I do. I hardly know anything about contemporary philosophers, Norwegians included.
The relativity theory isn't stating that everything is relative. The transformation from one coordinate system to another is based on invariance. Everything is described accurately by mathematics, and produces testable predictions. The clocks on GPS satellites are continuously adjusted for relativity, due to both that they're moving and that they're orbiting high up in the gravitational field. The reason why the sun shines is that two individual hydrogen atoms weigh more combined than the resulting Helium atom, so when Hyrdogen fuses into Helium, the excess mass is released as energy.
As for masculinity. I don't disagree with you, but as a starting point for a discussion about it, could you give me some idea about how you define masculinity?
Gender = a specie having such-and-such second sex signs (well, I don't know what name in Engleash we use for it...) for a long time (maybe not less than X centuries). Masculinity = a specie having (trying to be carefully, I use here 'male sex signs') for a long time; Femininity = a specie having (the same: 'women sex signs') for a long time. (A specie having - is my spelling of 'a specie that has'). Well, it's really badly for me being not so well known as you in (modern) Physics (I must had something lost in my knowledge about it). But, actually, I wanted to say rather about postmodernic views on relativity. Holding an idea that there's no such thing as matter, and that we can rule Physics using just math language our nature is whole described in language-style manner. But that's not true. Math is a tool, and it helps us to find something, Math is not a top-model in fashion that accents and demonstrates us something precisely, but rather it is something, that we might be interpret as the best tool. And I think that's all. All we can say about math language of Physics is that it is just the best tool. Data or info is our textbooks, sequences, numbers, but this data is absolutely meaningless without any empirical, experimental researches. For example, I would be able to have learnt Dermatology, and all the terms I'd have known would be useful till I wouldn't use them in my practice. Moreover, they all would be false, and any coherent imagination of the system of knowledge I know would be helpless, or maybe it would be common in handy if and only if what I know is self-contradiction. So, for coherence I need to use math, and this is the clear answer why I need to use math. So, knowing some functions of how that type of skin reacts with those matters or liquids and how the other I can be good prepared for my researches. And as long as I don't use them - no effect it has, but just a set of numbers in my head. (I apologize for my incorrect using of English. Sometimes I confuse 'time category' and write not in future-in-the-past but in 'present simple'.)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 13, 2019 9:35:05 GMT
Thank you. You know more about Lars Svendsen than I do. I hardly know anything about contemporary philosophers, Norwegians included.
The relativity theory isn't stating that everything is relative. The transformation from one coordinate system to another is based on invariance. Everything is described accurately by mathematics, and produces testable predictions. The clocks on GPS satellites are continuously adjusted for relativity, due to both that they're moving and that they're orbiting high up in the gravitational field. The reason why the sun shines is that two individual hydrogen atoms weigh more combined than the resulting Helium atom, so when Hyrdogen fuses into Helium, the excess mass is released as energy.
As for masculinity. I don't disagree with you, but as a starting point for a discussion about it, could you give me some idea about how you define masculinity?
Gender = a specie having such-and-such second sex signs (well, I don't know what name in Engleash we use for it...) for a long time (maybe not less than X centuries). Masculinity = a specie having (trying to be carefully, I use here 'male sex signs') for a long time; Femininity = a specie having (the same: 'women sex signs') for a long time. (A specie having - is my spelling of 'a specie that has'). Well, it's really badly for me being not so well known as you in (modern) Physics (I must had something lost in my knowledge about it). But, actually, I wanted to say rather about postmodernic views on relativity. Holding an idea that there's no such thing as matter, and that we can rule Physics using just math language our nature is whole described in language-style manner. But that's not true. Math is a tool, and it helps us to find something, Math is not a top-model in fashion that accents and demonstrates us something precisely, but rather it is something, that we might be interpret as the best tool. And I think that's all. All we can say about math language of Physics is that it is just the best tool. Data or info is our textbooks, sequences, numbers, but this data is absolutely meaningless without any empirical, experimental researches. For example, I would be able to have learnt Dermatology, and all the terms I'd have known would be useful till I wouldn't use them in my practice. Moreover, they all would be false, and any coherent imagination of the system of knowledge I know would be helpless, or maybe it would be common in handy if and only if what I know is self-contradiction. So, for coherence I need to use math, and this is the clear answer why I need to use math. So, knowing some functions of how that type of skin reacts with those matters or liquids and how the other I can be good prepared for my researches. And as long as I don't use them - no effect it has, but just a set of numbers in my head. (I apologize for my incorrect using of English. Sometimes I confuse 'time category' and write not in future-in-the-past but in 'present simple'.)
I am not 100% certain I understood what you meant. Is your point that we only know the reality of something when we try it out in practise? Is it a way of saying that physics has become too abstract, and hence removed from the actual reality it's trying to describe?
As for masculinity, I thought you meant that men had lost their masculinity, but maybe I misunderstood. What I meant to ask was, what, in your mind constiitutes a masculine mentality?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 14, 2019 13:41:01 GMT
karlI'm sorry for my very mess arguments. (One of the best sides of analytic philosophy which I love the most, but I don't think I am close to it - it's rigorous and laconic argumenst.) 1. Math is a tool. And it's the best tool to use in Physics; 2. Experimental or even daily examples fill our memory; and they are the best criteria for data in our system, or statements in our theory; 3. Experimental or even daily examples are the matter of language, and as soon as it deals with a social, it's a function of the society; 4. Society views are vary and they depend on vary difficult circumstances which isn't easy to determine; 5. Any society views are rather incoherent; 6. Incoherent views may lead to unpredictable results in a particular, or a whole research; 7. It's the best to aim with math only. About masculinity. Yes, you're right; last time I commented about physical masculinity, but I had commented firstly rather about mental masculinity, 1. For me, masculinity is a matter of a certain biological form, one should have had second sex signs to be a man; 2. None hasn't got any insurances to loose, or to stop wishing being a man; so, if one wants he will change his sex; 3. Action of changing sex may be involved by someone's (maybe a society) thought, or it's just a caprice of the one; 4. If this isn't a caprice, then we're dealing with social matter which one I criticized above for it's not sustain as good as math; 5. Also, I guess, an intention of start refusing of your own physical sex is a matter of psychiatry, rather than your own will.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 15, 2019 1:13:10 GMT
karl I'm sorry for my very mess arguments. (One of the best sides of analytic philosophy which I love the most, but I don't think I am close to it - it's rigorous and laconic argumenst.) 1. Math is a tool. And it's the best tool to use in Physics; 2. Experimental or even daily examples fill our memory; and they are the best criteria for data in our system, or statements in our theory; 3. Experimental or even daily examples are the matter of language, and as soon as it deals with a social, it's a function of the society; 4. Society views are vary and they depend on vary difficult circumstances which isn't easy to determine; 5. Any society views are rather incoherent; 6. Incoherent views may lead to unpredictable results in a particular, or a whole research; 7. It's the best to aim with math only. About masculinity. Yes, you're right; last time I commented about physical masculinity, but I had commented firstly rather about mental masculinity, 1. For me, masculinity is a matter of a certain biological form, one should have had second sex signs to be a man; 2. None hasn't got any insurances to loose, or to stop wishing being a man; so, if one wants he will change his sex; 3. Action of changing sex may be involved by someone's (maybe a society) thought, or it's just a caprice of the one; 4. If this isn't a caprice, then we're dealing with social matter which one I criticized above for it's not sustain as good as math; 5. Also, I guess, an intention of start refusing of your own physical sex is a matter of psychiatry, rather than your own will.
So in your view, one should use math to decide how to construct a society, because math represents logic, and society needs to be baced on a coherent, consistent philosophical framework? If that is what you meant, then I do see a weakness in that argument. Logic, by itself, neither tells us what reality is, nor does it distinguish right from wrong. In order for logic to help us reach the right conclusion, it needs to be based on premises. Those premises can't themselves come from logic.
However, once we do agree upon what premises upon which society should be built, then one should use logic to figure out how to implement this in practise, in a logical way. That a society acts out its policies and laws in a consistent way is the very foundation for public trust, without which the who structure would quickly disintegrate. If that is what you meant, then I fully agree.
As for transsexuals. Are you of the opinion that most who change their gender are just people with psychological issues?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 24, 2019 23:26:05 GMT
I don't like nationalization of Christian churches in any branches. It's awful. As Paul said on divide of Church: "10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 corinthians 1:10-12).
Poorly, Anaxogoras seems to have quitted. I tried to say him sorry for inconvenience, but I think he was too angry to hear it.So that means they'll easily fit in as family despite whichever church it is? What if it's oriental orthodox? (I'm sorry for late answer. Must've missed it.) Actually, I don't think they will being together, because there's always something political between. It's amazingly stupid to see why people can't just speak clearly with each other. Under usual circumstances we have not troubles with it, we chant and everything is ok, but as soon as something valuable comes... Oriental Orthodoxy? I'd say it's not easy to divide not oriental orthodoxy from oriental one.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 24, 2019 23:33:41 GMT
So that means they'll easily fit in as family despite whichever church it is? What if it's oriental orthodox? (I'm sorry for late answer. Must've missed it.) Actually, I don't think they will being together, because there's always something political between. It's amazingly stupid to see why people can't just speak clearly with each other. Under usual circumstances we have not troubles with it, we chant and everything is ok, but as soon as something valuable comes... Oriental Orthodoxy? I'd say it's not easy to divide not oriental orthodoxy from oriental one. Political stuff in churches? Can you explain? Also what makes oriental and not oriental different? And we're all glad you're back. We missed you! Hopefully we are not a bother to you.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 24, 2019 23:42:33 GMT
karl I'm sorry for my very mess arguments. (One of the best sides of analytic philosophy which I love the most, but I don't think I am close to it - it's rigorous and laconic argumenst.) 1. Math is a tool. And it's the best tool to use in Physics; 2. Experimental or even daily examples fill our memory; and they are the best criteria for data in our system, or statements in our theory; 3. Experimental or even daily examples are the matter of language, and as soon as it deals with a social, it's a function of the society; 4. Society views are vary and they depend on vary difficult circumstances which isn't easy to determine; 5. Any society views are rather incoherent; 6. Incoherent views may lead to unpredictable results in a particular, or a whole research; 7. It's the best to aim with math only. About masculinity. Yes, you're right; last time I commented about physical masculinity, but I had commented firstly rather about mental masculinity, 1. For me, masculinity is a matter of a certain biological form, one should have had second sex signs to be a man; 2. None hasn't got any insurances to loose, or to stop wishing being a man; so, if one wants he will change his sex; 3. Action of changing sex may be involved by someone's (maybe a society) thought, or it's just a caprice of the one; 4. If this isn't a caprice, then we're dealing with social matter which one I criticized above for it's not sustain as good as math; 5. Also, I guess, an intention of start refusing of your own physical sex is a matter of psychiatry, rather than your own will.
So in your view, one should use math to decide how to construct a society, because math represents logic, and society needs to be baced on a coherent, consistent philosophical framework? If that is what you meant, then I do see a weakness in that argument. Logic, by itself, neither tells us what reality is, nor does it distinguish right from wrong. In order for logic to help us reach the right conclusion, it needs to be based on premises. Those premises can't themselves come from logic.
However, once we do agree upon what premises upon which society should be built, then one should use logic to figure out how to implement this in practise, in a logical way. That a society acts out its policies and laws in a consistent way is the very foundation for public trust, without which the who structure would quickly disintegrate. If that is what you meant, then I fully agree.
As for transsexuals. Are you of the opinion that most who change their gender are just people with psychological issues?
1. Yeah, that's right, logic doesn't tell us anything. So, it's even better. What do we need to do is to use "reflexive equilibrium" as J. Rawls wrote in his main book. It's a way of discussion and also taking views to find justice aspects, but I think it handle for finding some stable decisions too. We could have in the result: consistency of our meaning (A); inconsistency (B), or contradiction (C). A. Our task is completed; B. We need to find synthesis method/methods for implementation of our purposes; C. We need to find another decision like, for example, throwing a coin, a fair fight, sport, etc. Briefly: I don't know how naive it sounds, but we need common plan/strategy for humanity. 2. As dialectic laws says us that "everything is changing", we should expect breaking of our views as soon as they would be accepted&done. I don't know why dialectic is so powerful to work always, but I guess there's something that can hold on for a while dialectic laws and principles. It's a human. Stoics are good example of it. Scaevola's patience led to the purpose. So, we need to sacrifice something to get results... ...damn, damn, damn... If this way of thinking is correct, and to ruin dialectic we need sacrifices, then humanity is going circular... Mayas used bloody and gore rituals... Anyway, I'm still to use of sacrifices (not human of course) to stop dialectic time destruction laws. 3. Yes. It's impossible to differ one gender from another one without using psychology.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 24, 2019 23:46:05 GMT
(I'm sorry for late answer. Must've missed it.) Actually, I don't think they will being together, because there's always something political between. It's amazingly stupid to see why people can't just speak clearly with each other. Under usual circumstances we have not troubles with it, we chant and everything is ok, but as soon as something valuable comes... Oriental Orthodoxy? I'd say it's not easy to divide not oriental orthodoxy from oriental one. Political stuff in churches? Can you explain? Also what makes oriental and not oriental different? And we're all glad you're back. We missed you! Hopefully we are not a bother to you. Bother?.. Oh... Surely, it's not... Arktos is the one of the best places I visited on Internet surface. I'm glad to hear that I'm not unimportant for people I must apologize that I can't answer right now. I remember the question, and I'll try to think about it a more detailed level to ask. Thank you, Elizabeth for your kindly words! All the best to ya!
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 25, 2019 6:56:32 GMT
So in your view, one should use math to decide how to construct a society, because math represents logic, and society needs to be baced on a coherent, consistent philosophical framework? If that is what you meant, then I do see a weakness in that argument. Logic, by itself, neither tells us what reality is, nor does it distinguish right from wrong. In order for logic to help us reach the right conclusion, it needs to be based on premises. Those premises can't themselves come from logic.
However, once we do agree upon what premises upon which society should be built, then one should use logic to figure out how to implement this in practise, in a logical way. That a society acts out its policies and laws in a consistent way is the very foundation for public trust, without which the who structure would quickly disintegrate. If that is what you meant, then I fully agree.
As for transsexuals. Are you of the opinion that most who change their gender are just people with psychological issues?
1. Yeah, that's right, logic doesn't tell us anything. So, it's even better. What do we need to do is to use "reflexive equilibrium" as J. Rawls wrote in his main book. It's a way of discussion and also taking views to find justice aspects, but I think it handle for finding some stable decisions too. We could have in the result: consistency of our meaning (A); inconsistency (B), or contradiction (C). A. Our task is completed; B. We need to find synthesis method/methods for implementation of our purposes; C. We need to find another decision like, for example, throwing a coin, a fair fight, sport, etc. Briefly: I don't know how naive it sounds, but we need common plan/strategy for humanity. 2. As dialectic laws says us that "everything is changing", we should expect breaking of our views as soon as they would be accepted&done. I don't know why dialectic is so powerful to work always, but I guess there's something that can hold on for a while dialectic laws and principles. It's a human. Stoics are good example of it. Scaevola's patience led to the purpose. So, we need to sacrifice something to get results... ...damn, damn, damn... If this way of thinking is correct, and to ruin dialectic we need sacrifices, then humanity is going circular... Mayas used bloody and gore rituals... Anyway, I'm still to use of sacrifices (not human of course) to stop dialectic time destruction laws. 3. Yes. It's impossible to differ one gender from another one without using psychology.
So imagine that you were the supreme leader of a nation. How would you rule it? What is your idea of an ideal society?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 26, 2019 14:17:58 GMT
1. Yeah, that's right, logic doesn't tell us anything. So, it's even better. What do we need to do is to use "reflexive equilibrium" as J. Rawls wrote in his main book. It's a way of discussion and also taking views to find justice aspects, but I think it handle for finding some stable decisions too. We could have in the result: consistency of our meaning (A); inconsistency (B), or contradiction (C). A. Our task is completed; B. We need to find synthesis method/methods for implementation of our purposes; C. We need to find another decision like, for example, throwing a coin, a fair fight, sport, etc. Briefly: I don't know how naive it sounds, but we need common plan/strategy for humanity. 2. As dialectic laws says us that "everything is changing", we should expect breaking of our views as soon as they would be accepted&done. I don't know why dialectic is so powerful to work always, but I guess there's something that can hold on for a while dialectic laws and principles. It's a human. Stoics are good example of it. Scaevola's patience led to the purpose. So, we need to sacrifice something to get results... ...damn, damn, damn... If this way of thinking is correct, and to ruin dialectic we need sacrifices, then humanity is going circular... Mayas used bloody and gore rituals... Anyway, I'm still to use of sacrifices (not human of course) to stop dialectic time destruction laws. 3. Yes. It's impossible to differ one gender from another one without using psychology.
So imagine that you were the supreme leader of a nation. How would you rule it? What is your idea of an ideal society?
It's very important that it should not be an idea of just one man. Our way of reaching the goal, our discussions which are a part of that ways too, our deeds, our sorrow and pain... - all these and more things that we might say as 'historical things' are important. Historical way is something like an argument to our goal. If there's no history; there's no evidence, and no foundations as explanations to our actions. If people chose me as a leader, because I were a supreme mind or kinda, I think it would be poor choice. It's more important to do it together, than to find a clue to open something quickly. The same is for logic or math, or the other tools. If I had known the rules of logic it didn't make me a logician. A real logician is the one who solved many tasks, and who knows how, when and where to use his abilities.
|
|