Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by TSBU »

Systematic wrote:Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do.
No, people just don't see what you see as true.
Systematic wrote:Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
Whaaaaaat! Mickey's dog???
Systematic wrote:The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.
No, not at all. Leadership is based in who has the biggest dick and knows how to use a spear. Only a few few few people think that people with money are always right, supposing that there is any person who thinks that. People with money know how to obtain money from people, that's true (Lottery don't let you keep your moeny for long). But I like that, separate between homo obedens and homo noretarded. Now go finding a better leader :)

And don't forget to get in the army, I need rational people like you there.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Systematic »

TSBU wrote: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:35 pm
And don't forget to get in the army, I need rational people like you there.
Yeah, I don't like irrational leadership, so I should join the army. :roll:
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Age »

Systematic wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 2:19 am Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.
Yes it appears that the species 'homo', in the days of when this is being written, is leaning towards, or moving further down the path of being a 'homo ridiculum', 'homo stultum', or 'homo stultus' instead of being more 'homo sapien' like.

Instead of evolution, itself, evolving the human, or homo, species towards becoming more all-knowing', human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.

The adult human being, in the days of when this is written, are being controlled by their 'love of' human made things, instead of just following their 'love for' Life, and just living, Itself.

KNOWING thee actual Truth is enough. But how many actually KNOW thee Truth?
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Systematic »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:25 am
Systematic wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 2:19 am Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.
Yes it appears that the species 'homo', in the days of when this is being written, is leaning towards, or moving further down the path of being a 'homo ridiculum', 'homo stultum', or 'homo stultus' instead of being more 'homo sapien' like.

Instead of evolution, itself, evolving the human, or homo, species towards becoming more all-knowing', human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.

The adult human being, in the days of when this is written, are being controlled by their 'love of' human made things, instead of just following their 'love for' Life, and just living, Itself.

KNOWING thee actual Truth is enough. But how many actually KNOW thee Truth?
I would posit that assets that pollute the environment or injure people are the problem more than love of money. Replacing assets would be a love of poverty.

Further, I would posit that, counterintuitively, holding to thoughts analogous to reality, without questioning whether other thoughts might be likewise analogous, is keeping men and women from knowing the actual truth.

And, surprise, you wouldn't necessarily be good at working if you knew the truth, because work can be random and haphazard sometimes. If everyone knew the truth, but no one could work, we'd be forced to eat our books. Not very tasty.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Age »

Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:25 am
Systematic wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 2:19 am Most of the people have no respect for what is wise and true. They don't think critically, and neither do they listen to those who do. Plato was the first to introduce the ideal of the philosopher king.
The philosophers will likely reject the idea due to the notion that no one should have absolute power. My rebuttal is based on a worse situation—the blind leadership with which we are saddled. This leadership is mostly based on the notion that those who are lucky enough to have made vast amounts of money somehow are always right. Mankind has found a way to overcome its own namesake—homo sapiens (i.e. wise man). Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.
Yes it appears that the species 'homo', in the days of when this is being written, is leaning towards, or moving further down the path of being a 'homo ridiculum', 'homo stultum', or 'homo stultus' instead of being more 'homo sapien' like.

Instead of evolution, itself, evolving the human, or homo, species towards becoming more all-knowing', human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.

The adult human being, in the days of when this is written, are being controlled by their 'love of' human made things, instead of just following their 'love for' Life, and just living, Itself.

KNOWING thee actual Truth is enough. But how many actually KNOW thee Truth?
I would posit that assets that pollute the environment or injure people are the problem more than love of money.
But why are assets, which pollute the environment or injure people, still in existence for, if not for the love of money?

Remove the 'love of money', then the assets that pollute and injure will be removed as well.

Remove the assets that cause pollution and create injuries, then the 'love of money' still remains, which means there is far more likely chances that more assets will be created, which will inevitably cause and create pollution and injuries, AGAIN.

Do you KNOW of any assets, which were created and are in existence that pollute the environment or injure people, and which people are NOT charged any money for using such as assets?
Papus79 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:19 pmReplacing assets would be a love of poverty.
Well this is a complete and utter DISTORTION from what I am actually talking about. Anyway;

So, to you replacing a motor vehicle that pollutes the actual air, which human beings NEED in order to keep living, with a just as reliable motor vehicle that does NOT pollute the air at all, is, for some reason, a 'love of poverty', correct?

If this is correct, then HOW and WHY?

If this is NOT correct, they WHY NOT?
Papus79 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:19 pmFurther, I would posit that, counterintuitively, holding to thoughts analogous to reality, without questioning whether other thoughts might be likewise analogous, is keeping men and women from knowing the actual truth.
You can posit absolutely ANY thing you like. But how much resemblance it has and holds to actual Truth and/or Reality we will have to wait to SEE.

By the way, questioning or not questioning whether "other's" thoughts might be likewise analogous to 'reality' does NOT prevent ANY one from SEEING and KNOWING what 'Reality', Itself, actually IS nor what thee Truth, Itself, actually IS also.

I found and find just LOOKING AT, SEEING, and SPEAKING thee Truth ONLY much more revealing and enlightening, then 'trying to' compare things, with other things.
Papus79 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:19 pmAnd, surprise, you wouldn't necessarily be good at working if you knew the truth, because work can be random and haphazard sometimes. If everyone knew the truth, but no one could work, we'd be forced to eat our books. Not very tasty.
I have absolutely NO real idea what you are 'trying to' compare here.

Maybe if you did NOT distort what I was actually saying, and actually meaning, from the very outset here, then you would NOT have made the obviously WRONG assumptions, which you have, and also would NOT have jumped to the just as obvious WRONG conclusions, which you have arrived at here.

Here is a suggestion; MAYBE if you just asked me for CLARITY about what I was meaning, FIRST, BEFORE you made ANY assumptions, then you would NOT have gone down this TOTALLY WRONG and INCORRECT direction, which you have here now.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Systematic »

Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
1. I would posit that assets that pollute the environment or injure people are the problem more than love of money.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am But why are assets, which pollute the environment or injure people, still in existence for, if not for the love of money?

Remove the 'love of money', then the assets that pollute and injure will be removed as well.

Remove the assets that cause pollution and create injuries, then the 'love of money' still remains, which means there is far more likely chances that more assets will be created, which will inevitably cause and create pollution and injuries, AGAIN.

Do you KNOW of any assets, which were created and are in existence that pollute the environment or injure people, and which people are NOT charged any money for using such as assets?
Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
2. Replacing assets would be a love of poverty.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am Well this is a complete and utter DISTORTION from what I am actually talking about. Anyway;

So, to you replacing a motor vehicle that pollutes the actual air, which human beings NEED in order to keep living, with a just as reliable motor vehicle that does NOT pollute the air at all, is, for some reason, a 'love of poverty', correct?

If this is correct, then HOW and WHY?

If this is NOT correct, they WHY NOT?
Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
3. Further, I would posit that, counterintuitively, holding to thoughts analogous to reality, without questioning whether other thoughts might be likewise analogous, is keeping men and women from knowing the actual truth.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am You can posit absolutely ANY thing you like. But how much resemblance it has and holds to actual Truth and/or Reality we will have to wait to SEE.

By the way, questioning or not questioning whether "other's" thoughts might be likewise analogous to 'reality' does NOT prevent ANY one from SEEING and KNOWING what 'Reality', Itself, actually IS nor what thee Truth, Itself, actually IS also.

I found and find just LOOKING AT, SEEING, and SPEAKING thee Truth ONLY much more revealing and enlightening, then 'trying to' compare things, with other things.

1. Love of money and power are tangential. Those are worthless without the agency of others. If you have no interest in ever using your money and power, you are chasing a mirage, a fantasy. It is the joy in agency, in making things happen, that is the real prize. Unfortunately, a biproduct is environmental destruction oftentimes.

2. It would be a love of poverty to take all of the assets that we now have and to replace them, because the new assets would be highly expensive. That is mostly due to the engineering costs. Imagine, if you will, how much it would cost to replace every factory, farm, and ranch with environmentally friendly facilities that had the proper safety constructions.

3. Ideally, yes, it would be nice to know thee Truth. Pragmatically, though, thee Truth is highly elusive. You have analogs to reality. Some are true. Others are false. How do we know which is which? Also, an analog to biological understanding may be in direct contradiction (or at least apparent contradiction) to a theoretical physics understanding. That at least hints that something is amiss with our understanding of one or the other. Though both are analogous to reality.

4. Someone has to work, and we each have a limited number of things that we can hold in our minds. So the work at hand usually takes precedence.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Age »

Systematic wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:02 am
Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
1. I would posit that assets that pollute the environment or injure people are the problem more than love of money.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am But why are assets, which pollute the environment or injure people, still in existence for, if not for the love of money?

Remove the 'love of money', then the assets that pollute and injure will be removed as well.

Remove the assets that cause pollution and create injuries, then the 'love of money' still remains, which means there is far more likely chances that more assets will be created, which will inevitably cause and create pollution and injuries, AGAIN.

Do you KNOW of any assets, which were created and are in existence that pollute the environment or injure people, and which people are NOT charged any money for using such as assets?
Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
2. Replacing assets would be a love of poverty.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am Well this is a complete and utter DISTORTION from what I am actually talking about. Anyway;

So, to you replacing a motor vehicle that pollutes the actual air, which human beings NEED in order to keep living, with a just as reliable motor vehicle that does NOT pollute the air at all, is, for some reason, a 'love of poverty', correct?

If this is correct, then HOW and WHY?

If this is NOT correct, they WHY NOT?




1. Love of money and power are tangential. Those are worthless without the agency of others. If you have no interest in ever using your money and power, you are chasing a mirage, a fantasy. It is the joy in agency, in making things happen, that is the real prize. Unfortunately, a biproduct is environmental destruction oftentimes.

2. It would be a love of poverty to take all of the assets that we now have and to replace them, because the new assets would be highly expensive. That is mostly due to the engineering costs. Imagine, if you will, how much it would cost to replace every factory, farm, and ranch with environmentally friendly facilities that had the proper safety constructions.

3. Ideally, yes, it would be nice to know thee Truth. Pragmatically, though, thee Truth is highly elusive. You have analogs to reality. Some are true. Others are false. How do we know which is which? Also, an analog to biological understanding may be in direct contradiction (or at least apparent contradiction) to a theoretical physics understanding. That at least hints that something is amiss with our understanding of one or the other. Though both are analogous to reality.

4. Someone has to work, and we each have a limited number of things that we can hold in our minds. So the work at hand usually takes precedence.
1. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.

2. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.

3. How we KNOW which is which, is very SIMPLY and EASILY done through what could be agreed with by EVERY one.

4. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Systematic »

Age wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:28 am
Systematic wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:02 am
Systematic wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:06 am
1. I would posit that assets that pollute the environment or injure people are the problem more than love of money.
Age wrote: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:08 am But why are assets, which pollute the environment or injure people, still in existence for, if not for the love of money?

Remove the 'love of money', then the assets that pollute and injure will be removed as well.

Remove the assets that cause pollution and create injuries, then the 'love of money' still remains, which means there is far more likely chances that more assets will be created, which will inevitably cause and create pollution and injuries, AGAIN.

Do you KNOW of any assets, which were created and are in existence that pollute the environment or injure people, and which people are NOT charged any money for using such as assets?




1. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.

2. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.

3. How we KNOW which is which, is very SIMPLY and EASILY done through what could be agreed with by EVERY one.

4. You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point.
1. Your point: Love of money causes us to have to deal with bad assets (polluting, etc.).
My point: Fixing that would cost more money than anyone has and would halt work (that relies on those assets), while they were replaced.
It's not just the cars. It's ships. It's electricity production (mostly by burning fossil fuels). It's all the factories. It's farms. It's ranches.

Skipping 2.

3. Describe your plan or method for that, please.
Belinda
Posts: 4288
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:17 pm Systematic wrote:
Perhaps we should now be called homo obedens (i.e. obedient man). It would reflect the apparent apathy in the face of indoctrination and lack of good ideas from our leaders.
Why blame our leaders? Maybe what you see in the world is the result of the human condition: what we ARE.

Simone Weil wrote:
The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.
In Purity of Heart, Kierkegaard also speaks very negatively about "the crowd." And offers some ideas about how to respond:

In so far as the good man is clever, he knows, how in the very face of truth the world wishes to have the Good made agreeable, how the crowd desires to be won--the much feared crowd, who "desire that the teacher shall tremble before his hearers and flatter them." He knows all about this--in order not to follow it, but rather by the very opposite conduct to keep as free as possible of these deceptions, that he himself may not adopt any illicit way of deriving some advantage from the Good (earning money, distinction, and admiration) and so that he may deceive no one...

Whenever possible he will prefer to withdraw the Good from contact with the crowd. He will seek to split the crowd up in order to get hold of the individual or to get each by himself. He will be reminded of what that simple old sage remarked in ancient times, "When they meet together, and the world sets down at assembly, or in a court of law, or a theater, or a camp, or any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar and they praise some things as being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of praise or blame--at such times will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?"... The same persons, who singly, as solitary individuals are able to will the Good, are immediately seduced as soon as they associate themselves and become a crowd. On that account the good man will neither seek to secure the assistance of a crowd in order to split up the crowd, nor will he seek to have a crowd back of him, during the time that he breaks up the crowd in front of him.

But just how a good man will make use of cleverness in the outer world does not permit of being more precisely specified in general terms, for that which is necesary can be totally different with respect to each time and to the circumstances of each time. [For example,] that stern prophet who went out into the desert and lived on locusts knew how, in relation to his contemporaries, he ought to express this decisively: that it is not the truth that is in need of men, but men who are in need of the truth. Hence they must come to him, come out into the desert.
it is not the truth that is in need of men, but men who are in need of the truth.

The Great Beast doesn't want truth. It wants justification for its dominant imagination. Leaders are eager to offer this in exchange for power. Only a rare few are dedicated to the conscious experience of truth. So what you see is the result of the dominance of imagination.
Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it. - Simone Weil
So what you see is what you get and leaders will help you to get it. Just keep playing with your remote and everything will be fine.
Tell the truth and shame the devil.

This means tell the truth even if telling the truth makes you unpopular with the crowd. Seeking popularity with the crowd is definitive of the liar.
A politician seeking popularity with the crowd demonstrates they are lying.
"The Great Beast does not want truth"
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Age »

Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am
1. Your point: Love of money causes us to have to deal with bad assets (polluting, etc.).
But this is NOT my point. My actual point is; The love of money creates, and keeps, so called, 'bad assets', pollution, et cetera.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am My point: Fixing that would cost more money than anyone has and would halt work (that relies on those assets), while they were replaced.
LOL As I was saying: You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point. And, you STILL ARE.

The proof of this is above here when you go straight into talking about how doing things would "cost more money", which equates to the 'love-of-money', which is what is the causes, creates, and keeps the bad assets, which are what is causing the pollution and destruction of our One and ONLY home, earth.

As I stated previously: human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am It's not just the cars. It's ships. It's electricity production (mostly by burning fossil fuels). It's all the factories. It's farms. It's ranches.
You KEEP MISSING my point.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am Skipping 2.
Okay.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am 3. Describe your plan or method for that, please.
I have ALREADY.

Remove your love-of-money.

Very simple and easy, REALLY.

To remove your 'greed', and love-of-money, then you just need to find out WHY you are so greedy. Find the cause, then you can prevent 'it' from reoccurring. Prevention, after all, is better than the cure.

But, obviously, to fix this 'problem', and for all of this to happen, you would have to be Honest and admit you have a problem.

So, the plan, or method, begins with Honesty. The rest just falls into place, naturally.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Systematic »

Age wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:19 am
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am
1. Your point: Love of money causes us to have to deal with bad assets (polluting, etc.).
But this is NOT my point. My actual point is; The love of money creates, and keeps, so called, 'bad assets', pollution, et cetera.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am My point: Fixing that would cost more money than anyone has and would halt work (that relies on those assets), while they were replaced.
LOL As I was saying: You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point. And, you STILL ARE.

The proof of this is above here when you go straight into talking about how doing things would "cost more money", which equates to the 'love-of-money', which is what is the causes, creates, and keeps the bad assets, which are what is causing the pollution and destruction of our One and ONLY home, earth.

As I stated previously: human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am It's not just the cars. It's ships. It's electricity production (mostly by burning fossil fuels). It's all the factories. It's farms. It's ranches.
You KEEP MISSING my point.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am Skipping 2.
Okay.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am 3. Describe your plan or method for that, please.
I have ALREADY.

Remove your love-of-money.

Very simple and easy, REALLY.

To remove your 'greed', and love-of-money, then you just need to find out WHY you are so greedy. Find the cause, then you can prevent 'it' from reoccurring. Prevention, after all, is better than the cure.

But, obviously, to fix this 'problem', and for all of this to happen, you would have to be Honest and admit you have a problem.

So, the plan, or method, begins with Honesty. The rest just falls into place, naturally.
That's bad advice.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Age »

Systematic wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:22 am
Age wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:19 am
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am
1. Your point: Love of money causes us to have to deal with bad assets (polluting, etc.).
But this is NOT my point. My actual point is; The love of money creates, and keeps, so called, 'bad assets', pollution, et cetera.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am My point: Fixing that would cost more money than anyone has and would halt work (that relies on those assets), while they were replaced.
LOL As I was saying: You MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD my point. And, you STILL ARE.

The proof of this is above here when you go straight into talking about how doing things would "cost more money", which equates to the 'love-of-money', which is what is the causes, creates, and keeps the bad assets, which are what is causing the pollution and destruction of our One and ONLY home, earth.

As I stated previously: human beings 'love-of-money' is taking them towards being far more unwise, or silly, foolish, and stupid, rather than wiser.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am It's not just the cars. It's ships. It's electricity production (mostly by burning fossil fuels). It's all the factories. It's farms. It's ranches.
You KEEP MISSING my point.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am Skipping 2.
Okay.
Systematic wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:02 am 3. Describe your plan or method for that, please.
I have ALREADY.

Remove your love-of-money.

Very simple and easy, REALLY.

To remove your 'greed', and love-of-money, then you just need to find out WHY you are so greedy. Find the cause, then you can prevent 'it' from reoccurring. Prevention, after all, is better than the cure.

But, obviously, to fix this 'problem', and for all of this to happen, you would have to be Honest and admit you have a problem.

So, the plan, or method, begins with Honesty. The rest just falls into place, naturally.
That's bad advice.
So, to you, informing human beings of how to stop their love of money and thus of how to stop, essentially, being greedy, so that they will stop polluting, destroying, and killing of what they actually NEED in order to keep living, is bad advice, correct?

If this is correct, then WHY?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2145
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dubious wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 3:38 am Our 'leaders' are nothing more than misfits who are only in it for themselves regardless of any country though some are worse than others. They are the scions of the whole caste of blue bloods that ruled throughout most of history. As the new elite they enrich themselves endlessly whenever they get into a position of power. One of the main differences between the old and new versions of elitism is that in the latter they operate behind those monolithic institutions which seem to be benign but function as virtual fortresses protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity, greed and corruption as long as 'corruption' doesn't become overtly criminal and obvious to the public. The 'crime' is not in the act but in being discovered. Why is the world as screwed up as it is? When the truth is ugly, simply knowing it is not enough if it's allowed to continue or worse, escalating.
Do you vote?
Dubious
Posts: 2519
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by Dubious »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:54 am
Dubious wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 3:38 am Our 'leaders' are nothing more than misfits who are only in it for themselves regardless of any country though some are worse than others. They are the scions of the whole caste of blue bloods that ruled throughout most of history. As the new elite they enrich themselves endlessly whenever they get into a position of power. One of the main differences between the old and new versions of elitism is that in the latter they operate behind those monolithic institutions which seem to be benign but function as virtual fortresses protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity, greed and corruption as long as 'corruption' doesn't become overtly criminal and obvious to the public. The 'crime' is not in the act but in being discovered. Why is the world as screwed up as it is? When the truth is ugly, simply knowing it is not enough if it's allowed to continue or worse, escalating.
Do you vote?
Non sequitur.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2145
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Knowing the Truth Enough?

Post by RCSaunders »

Dubious wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:02 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:54 am
Dubious wrote: Wed May 25, 2016 3:38 am Our 'leaders' are nothing more than misfits who are only in it for themselves regardless of any country though some are worse than others. They are the scions of the whole caste of blue bloods that ruled throughout most of history. As the new elite they enrich themselves endlessly whenever they get into a position of power. One of the main differences between the old and new versions of elitism is that in the latter they operate behind those monolithic institutions which seem to be benign but function as virtual fortresses protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity, greed and corruption as long as 'corruption' doesn't become overtly criminal and obvious to the public. The 'crime' is not in the act but in being discovered. Why is the world as screwed up as it is? When the truth is ugly, simply knowing it is not enough if it's allowed to continue or worse, escalating.
Do you vote?
Non sequitur.
It is hardly irrelevant. Voting is participating in the very thing you are complaining about. It's like a vegan making a speech against eating meat while enjoying a pig-pickin'.

What gives you away is your expression, "our 'leaders'," which means you regard them as your leaders. If you were not a follower you would think for yourself and have nothing to do with the corrupt system that produces all the evils you describe.
Post Reply