(Il)Literacy Problem in the West

[Wizard22]

Repost of OP, Page 11:

Have you noticed the glaring problem of Illiteracy in the West?

A core function of Literacy is to read something, and repeat it back (voice or text) word-for-word, letter-for-letter. It seems that most Westerners cannot do this. It should be easy, especially through textual interface, which the internet was/is built for. All you have to do, is press the 'Quote' function, and you should be able to reproduce what others have said. But it seems, most are incapable even of this.

The first part of Literacy is Copying text and integrating it into memory, something the ancient Greeks and Hellenes were particularly skilled and proud of, hence their exceptional skill in Philosophical Dialogues and conversation.

The second part of Literacy is Interpretation, which means proving that you understand the Intent of the Author, the Author agrees with your re-wording, and that you have a response or reaction beyond the interpretation. Without Understanding, there is *NO LITERACY*.

You have not understood the Author.

You CANNOT even repeat what the Author did say or write.

A primary indication I experience with illiteracy of my philosophical adversaries and opponents is Intellectual Dishonesty.

I presume, as a matter of practice, to go into every thread and response with a "clean slate" of sorts. Opponents should be allowed to change their minds, to be persuaded by higher reasoning. Philosophers and their Hobbyists, hypothetically, begin from a position of Ignorance rather than Knowing. In other words, in a Philosophical context, you should have an open-mind and presume that nobody is beginning from a position of Truth or Righteousness. Rather these values come toward the End of arguments and conversation, if at all. This is categorically opposed to the Religious and Fundamentalist mind, who begin with either Truth or Righteousness, or Both from the onset.

When you confront these types in Philosophy, it becomes very clear, very immediately, who and what they are.


Because they have a Bias, an Agenda, an underlying Morality and Metaphysics operating, from whence they Rationalization and Reason. Everybody does, but in the context of philosophy, they are unpracticed in Suppressing these biases so that an "Alternate Choice" can exist. Fundamentalists cannot do this, for many reasons, some of which are a mental (brain) inability to consider and rationalize 'oppositional' worldviews. They can lack Imagination. They can lack Tolerance. They lack Sympathy and Patience (for an inferior perspective).

All of these Blockade the capacity and potential for Literacy.

Because when anybody begins Philosophy from a position of 'Knowing' (in advance), then you cannot be Literate, because you cannot tolerate any points which contradict your own.


This is especially apparent in people with a very low tolerance for Cognitive Dissonance.

They cannot read books, argue well, cannot be Learned, because immediate contradictions disallow them from reading extensively into an oppositional Metaphysic and foreign Perspective (lacking Empathy).

[FlashDangerpants]

You're quite desperate Dopey.

My illiteracy is not the issue though, reread the thread.

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

Obviously you can't progress until I give you more help about what Berkeley actually wrote. So here's Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Be ... 0perceived.

Berkeley believed that only the minds' perceptions and the Spirit that perceives are what exists in reality; what people perceive every day is only the idea of an object's existence, but the objects themselves are not perceived. Berkeley also discussed how, at times, materials cannot be perceived by oneself, and the mind of oneself cannot understand the objects. However, there also exists an "omnipresent, eternal mind"[34] that Berkeley believed to consist of God and the Spirit, both omniscient and all-perceiving. According to Berkeley, God is the entity who controls everything, yet Berkeley also argued that "abstract object[s] do not exist in space or time".

It was Locke who argued that there is a direct causal relationship between the properties of the object of perception and the brain of the observer. Berkely disputed the existence of the object, the properties of the object, and the brain too. His resolution for solipsism, such as it is, relies entirely on God.

You are totally caught in the lie. It's been obvious for a while.

[Age]

LOL Here, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER CLAIM, but which, according to the past WILL NEVER provide absolutely ANY 'thing' to back up and support this CLAIM.


You asked questions. I answered some of them. You claim that I "absolutely" did not, which is observably false to anybody else.

LOL ANOTHER CLAIM.

WHERE have I SAID absolutely ANY 'thing' like, 'you have ABSOLUTELY NOT ANSWERED ANY QUESTION I have ASKED'?

And, WHY will you NOT provide absolutely ANY PROOF that you ACTUALLY HAVE?

What are you SO, SO SCARED of here "wizard22"?

So you're being illiterate.

LOL

you say 'this' like it has ANY ACTUAL BEARING or RELEVANCE here.

You should pay more attention to what other people tell you, and their answers to your questions.

you are SO ILLITERATE here that you do NOT seem to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that in a philosophy forum if you are going to MAKE CLAIMS, then WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF what you SAY and CLAIM could be partly or COMPLETELY False, Wrong, OR Incorrect.

And, it does NOT matter how MANY TIMES you CLAIM some 'thing', WITHOUT PROOF your words are, literally, YOUR OWN.

Ah yes... I'm sooo "scared" to answer your question, which is what this is, which contradicts your main argument.

LOL

you could NOT even COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING here. So, you could NOT have MISREAD 'this' MORE Wrongly here.

I WAS SAYING that besides being to SCARED to just ANSWER my ACTUAL QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly you are TOO SCARED to put up ANY 'thing' in regards to YOUR CLAIM that you HAVE, allegedly and supposedly, ALREADY ANSWERED MY ACTUAL QUESTIONS.

And the reason you ARE SO SCARED IS BECAUSE you KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here that you could ACTUALLY USE as PROOF.

Why are you so scared of being literate??

What do you MEAN by 'this' here?

I have CONTINUALLY STATED that I am here, in this forum, to LEARN HOW to communicate better WITH 'you', human beings.

Also, WHY would ANY one be 'so scared' of being literate? What does 'literate' even MEAN or REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY?

But MAYBE you MEANT some 'thing' ELSE here? We WILL, now, just HAVE TO WAIT, to SEE if you do, or do NOT, ANSWER these QUESTIONS here though.

[Wizard22]

Obviously you can't progress until I give you more help about what Berkeley actually wrote. So here's Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Be ... 0perceived.

Berkeley believed that only the minds' perceptions and the Spirit that perceives are what exists in reality; what people perceive every day is only the idea of an object's existence, but the objects themselves are not perceived. Berkeley also discussed how, at times, materials cannot be perceived by oneself, and the mind of oneself cannot understand the objects. However, there also exists an "omnipresent, eternal mind"[34] that Berkeley believed to consist of God and the Spirit, both omniscient and all-perceiving. According to Berkeley, God is the entity who controls everything, yet Berkeley also argued that "abstract object[s] do not exist in space or time".

It was Locke who argued that there is a direct causal relationship between the properties of the object of perception and the brain of the observer. Berkely disputed the existence of the object, the properties of the object, and the brain too. His resolution for solipsism, such as it is, relies entirely on God.

You are totally caught in the lie. It's been obvious for a while.

And AGAIN you use a second-hand source! Hahaha!

You just can't learn a lesson, can you?? I'll repeat myself, seeing how your ignorance is too severe...you need to worry about your own illiteracy first.

[Wizard22]

LOL

you could NOT even COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING here.

How presumptuous of you.

You should start considering the overwhelming probability that...other people are much, much smarter than you are.

So, you could NOT have MISREAD 'this' MORE Wrongly here.

I WAS SAYING that besides being to SCARED to just ANSWER my ACTUAL QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly you are TOO SCARED to put up ANY 'thing' in regards to YOUR CLAIM that you HAVE, allegedly and supposedly, ALREADY ANSWERED MY ACTUAL QUESTIONS.

And the reason you ARE SO SCARED IS BECAUSE you KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here that you could ACTUALLY USE as PROOF.

Proof is in the contradictions which are now on record.

What do you MEAN by 'this' here?

I have CONTINUALLY STATED that I am here, in this forum, to LEARN HOW to communicate better WITH 'you', human beings.

Also, WHY would ANY one be 'so scared' of being literate? What does 'literate' even MEAN or REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY?

But MAYBE you MEANT some 'thing' ELSE here? We WILL, now, just HAVE TO WAIT, to SEE if you do, or do NOT, ANSWER these QUESTIONS here though.

This is EXACTLY what I'm TALKING about, AGE. I wrote OUT explicitly WHAT I meant AND you STILL do NOT understand IT. All YOU need TO do IS read WHAT I actually WROTE, and YOU would KNOW this. But YOU either DO not or CAN not.

THIS is WHY you ARE illiterate.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're quite desperate Dopey.

My illiteracy is not the issue though, reread the thread.

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

Obviously you can't progress until I give you more help about what Berkeley actually wrote. So here's Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Be ... 0perceived.

Berkeley believed that only the minds' perceptions and the Spirit that perceives are what exists in reality; what people perceive every day is only the idea of an object's existence, but the objects themselves are not perceived. Berkeley also discussed how, at times, materials cannot be perceived by oneself, and the mind of oneself cannot understand the objects. However, there also exists an "omnipresent, eternal mind"[34] that Berkeley believed to consist of God and the Spirit, both omniscient and all-perceiving. According to Berkeley, God is the entity who controls everything, yet Berkeley also argued that "abstract object[s] do not exist in space or time".

It was Locke who argued that there is a direct causal relationship between the properties of the object of perception and the brain of the observer. Berkely disputed the existence of the object, the properties of the object, and the brain too. His resolution for solipsism, such as it is, relies entirely on God.

You are totally caught in the lie. It's been obvious for a while.

And AGAIN you use a second-hand source! Hahaha!

You just can't learn a lesson, can you?? I'll repeat myself, seeing how your ignorance is too severe...you need to worry about your own illiteracy first.

Yeah, I don't need to worry about that nonsense, you are definitely wrong.

Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Berkeley
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2.1

Berkeley presents here the following argument (see Winkler 1989, 138):

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).
(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

We really do all know that you are a liar.

[Wizard22]

We really do all know that you are a liar.

Yet I'm not the one who uses 2nd hand sources and cannot quote source material...

Weird how that is?!

Are you going well out of your way to prove my OP now??? Thank you!

[FlashDangerpants]

We really do all know that you are a liar.

Yet I'm not the one who uses 2nd hand sources and cannot quote source material...

Weird how that is?!

Are you going well out of your way to prove my OP now??? Thank you!

They quote Berkeley right there in that page:

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?

It's right there, you were describing Locke not Berkeley. It's not really your lack of literacy that is the problem any more. You are a bullshitter.

[Wizard22]

They quote Berkeley right there in that page:

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?

It's right there, you were describing Locke not Berkeley. It's not really your lack of literacy that is the problem any more. You are a bullshitter.

Good, Dopey, we're making progress. I'm proud of you...

Now, explain how his quote, means what you claimed of him... what did he say there that you would call Solipsistic?

[Harbal]

Repost of OP, Page 11:

Have you noticed the glaring problem of Illiteracy in the West?

A core function of Literacy is to read something, and repeat it back.....blah, blah, blah..........

Repost of my earlier comment:


Wizard is an idiot.

[Age]

LOL

you could NOT even COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING here.

How presumptuous of you.

You should start considering the overwhelming probability that...other people are much, much smarter than you are.

OF COURSE 'they' ARE.

But 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Fact you STILL can NOT even COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what WAS, and STILL IS, ACTUALLY HAPPENING here.

So, you could NOT have MISREAD 'this' MORE Wrongly here.

I WAS SAYING that besides being to SCARED to just ANSWER my ACTUAL QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly you are TOO SCARED to put up ANY 'thing' in regards to YOUR CLAIM that you HAVE, allegedly and supposedly, ALREADY ANSWERED MY ACTUAL QUESTIONS.

And the reason you ARE SO SCARED IS BECAUSE you KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here that you could ACTUALLY USE as PROOF.

Proof is in the contradictions which are now on record.

BUT WHICH you WILL NOT EVEN TELL ABSOLUTELY ANY one WHERE 'they' SUPPOSEDLY ARE, EXACTLY.

AND this is BECAUSE there ARE ABSOLUTELY NONE.

What do you MEAN by 'this' here?

I have CONTINUALLY STATED that I am here, in this forum, to LEARN HOW to communicate better WITH 'you', human beings.

Also, WHY would ANY one be 'so scared' of being literate? What does 'literate' even MEAN or REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY?

But MAYBE you MEANT some 'thing' ELSE here? We WILL, now, just HAVE TO WAIT, to SEE if you do, or do NOT, ANSWER these QUESTIONS here though.

This is EXACTLY what I'm TALKING about, AGE. I wrote OUT explicitly WHAT I meant AND you STILL do NOT understand IT.

SEE, HOW you do NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which I POSE, and ASK you?

AND, LOL, SAYING and CLAIMING 'things' like; 'this is EXACTLY what I'm TALKING about, AGE', LEAVES people here NEVER KNOWING what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, what you are even IMAGINING, let alone what you are SUPPOSEDLY even talking ABOUT, "wizard22".

All YOU need TO do IS read WHAT I actually WROTE, and YOU would KNOW this. But YOU either DO not or CAN not.

"This is EXACTLY what 'I'm TALKING about, ...".

THIS is WHY you ARE illiterate.

WHO CARES if 'you' BELIEVE that 'I' am ILLITERATE?

Now, HOW 'literate', OR 'ILLITERATE', would one REALLY HAVE TO BE to ASK some 'thing' like;

Why are you so scared of being literate??

AND, ONCE AGAIN, you NEVER ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which I POSED, and ASKED 'you', "wizard22". But this might just be BECAUSE you ARE TOO STUPID TO, or TOO STUPID TO CLARIFY.

ANSWER Honestly here now, do you even UNDERSTAND EVERY QUESTION I ASK you?

[Age]

Repost of OP, Page 11:

Have you noticed the glaring problem of Illiteracy in the West?

A core function of Literacy is to read something, and repeat it back (voice or text) word-for-word, letter-for-letter. It seems that most Westerners cannot do this. It should be easy, especially through textual interface, which the internet was/is built for. All you have to do, is press the 'Quote' function, and you should be able to reproduce what others have said. But it seems, most are incapable even of this.

The first part of Literacy is Copying text and integrating it into memory, something the ancient Greeks and Hellenes were particularly skilled and proud of, hence their exceptional skill in Philosophical Dialogues and conversation.

The second part of Literacy is Interpretation, which means proving that you understand the Intent of the Author, the Author agrees with your re-wording, and that you have a response or reaction beyond the interpretation. Without Understanding, there is *NO LITERACY*.

You have not understood the Author.

You CANNOT even repeat what the Author did say or write.

A primary indication I experience with illiteracy of my philosophical adversaries and opponents is Intellectual Dishonesty.

I presume, as a matter of practice, to go into every thread and response with a "clean slate" of sorts. Opponents should be allowed to change their minds, to be persuaded by higher reasoning. Philosophers and their Hobbyists, hypothetically, begin from a position of Ignorance rather than Knowing. In other words, in a Philosophical context, you should have an open-mind and presume that nobody is beginning from a position of Truth or Righteousness. Rather these values come toward the End of arguments and conversation, if at all. This is categorically opposed to the Religious and Fundamentalist mind, who begin with either Truth or Righteousness, or Both from the onset.

When you confront these types in Philosophy, it becomes very clear, very immediately, who and what they are.


Because they have a Bias, an Agenda, an underlying Morality and Metaphysics operating, from whence they Rationalization and Reason. Everybody does, but in the context of philosophy, they are unpracticed in Suppressing these biases so that an "Alternate Choice" can exist. Fundamentalists cannot do this, for many reasons, some of which are a mental (brain) inability to consider and rationalize 'oppositional' worldviews. They can lack Imagination. They can lack Tolerance. They lack Sympathy and Patience (for an inferior perspective).

All of these Blockade the capacity and potential for Literacy.

Because when anybody begins Philosophy from a position of 'Knowing' (in advance), then you cannot be Literate, because you cannot tolerate any points which contradict your own.


This is especially apparent in people with a very low tolerance for Cognitive Dissonance.

They cannot read books, argue well, cannot be Learned, because immediate contradictions disallow them from reading extensively into an oppositional Metaphysic and foreign Perspective (lacking Empathy).

Repost of the 'responders' here:

We, more or less, all think 'you' are AN IDIOT "wizard22".

[Harbal]

Repost of the 'responders' here:

We, more or less, all think 'you' are AN IDIOT "wizard22".

I think there are certainly enough of us to form a quorum.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're quite desperate Dopey.

My illiteracy is not the issue though, reread the thread.

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

That doesn't relate to Berkeley's argument...

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?

Berkeley is stating here that the chain between perception and object of perception is not there. The bit yourefer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" is what he is disputing in the quoted paragraph. Because, and I can't really be bothered to tell you this many more times.... you didn't get the talk of connecting sense-perception to stuff from him, he refutes that stuff. It comes from Locke.

Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.

[Wizard22]

SEE, HOW you do NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which I POSE, and ASK you?

What do you think this is? Your lack of self-awareness is comical.