If the spirit of philosophy were placed under favorable circumstances above hypotheses, contemplating the highest good.
Without good every action appears arbitrary, mere entangled in the world of appearance never raising mind to light up the chaos arises the distinction of visible and intelligible world true being.
I have read Kant never married and also supposedly disliked women but had a women maid to care after his needs.
Aristotle believed women were inferior and men superior, Kant would not associate with women. Hegel believed women were divine and men were human married someone twenty-five years younger them himself. Plato never married was very wealthy and needed no one but his servants, and Descartes once he inherited enough money devoted himself to travel and philosophy. Socrates thought women were equal to men.
Nicolo Machiavelli thought, “fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”
The women in Herodotus, and Homer times were thought to be a commodity, a prize; in the very first pages of history Herodotus, wrote the Egyptian king’s daughter was abduct of by a Persian merchant. When finally returned her father would not take her back because the value of her had declined.
Anything generated has opposition. I mean to say opposite things such as fairness and unfairness, good and bad, and the innumerable other opposites that generate out of opposites.
Philosophy too has this process each period of influence for a certain time is a gift of spiritual life, an authentic element for the world consciousness.
World-spirit stands in contrast acts ethically and carries out reason. Conscious purpose is the light of unity and truth and dominates the action of all individuals.
Conscious action must not be taken as if it were merely an act of service. World spirit comes about universal feeling and reverent devotion to one another. Being conscious in what is outside self and apprehending truth is real world spirit that rises out of the state of unkindness into conscious world spirit.
A Philosophy of Mind
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
If people could see philosophy as it really is, they would change their mind gently, soothing and removing their dislike of knowledge.
Virtue is the health, beauty, and well being of the mind, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, they maybe right; but also attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, not to philosophy,
Philosophy is the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed. The corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, but this is not to be laid to the blame of philosophy. The philosopher's virtues, as you will doubtless remember is, courage, magnificence, apprehension, memory, they are natural gifts. Therefore, the gift of good memory, and quick to learn, are the noble and gracious friend of philosophy, which is always striving after what is true, that is my nature.
Virtue is the health, beauty, and well being of the mind, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, they maybe right; but also attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, not to philosophy,
Philosophy is the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed. The corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, but this is not to be laid to the blame of philosophy. The philosopher's virtues, as you will doubtless remember is, courage, magnificence, apprehension, memory, they are natural gifts. Therefore, the gift of good memory, and quick to learn, are the noble and gracious friend of philosophy, which is always striving after what is true, that is my nature.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
A Mode,
Here is how I see what you have done to this post "Sanitization" policies, which comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin,
Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations are represented, especially among Western government, academic and media commentators, as having somewhat less institutionalized censorship, and as instead promoting the importance of freedom of speech. The former Soviet Union maintained a particularly extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for official censorship in the Soviet Union was the Chief Agency for Protection of Military and State Secrets generally known as the Glavlit, its Russian acronym. The Glavlit handled censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kind — even beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship personnel were present in every large Soviet publishing house or newspaper; the agency employed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Glavlit's control. All press agencies and radio and television stations had Glavlit representatives on their editorial staffs.
Some thinkers understand censorship to include other attempts to suppress points of view or the exploitation of negative propaganda, media manipulation, spin, disinformation or "free speech zones." These methods tend to work by disseminating preferred information, by relegating open discourse to marginal forums, and by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience.
Sometimes, a specific and unique information whose very existence is barely known to the public, is kept in a subtle, near-censorship situation, being regarded as "subversive" or "inconvenient
Here is how I see what you have done to this post "Sanitization" policies, which comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin,
Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations are represented, especially among Western government, academic and media commentators, as having somewhat less institutionalized censorship, and as instead promoting the importance of freedom of speech. The former Soviet Union maintained a particularly extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for official censorship in the Soviet Union was the Chief Agency for Protection of Military and State Secrets generally known as the Glavlit, its Russian acronym. The Glavlit handled censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kind — even beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship personnel were present in every large Soviet publishing house or newspaper; the agency employed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Glavlit's control. All press agencies and radio and television stations had Glavlit representatives on their editorial staffs.
Some thinkers understand censorship to include other attempts to suppress points of view or the exploitation of negative propaganda, media manipulation, spin, disinformation or "free speech zones." These methods tend to work by disseminating preferred information, by relegating open discourse to marginal forums, and by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience.
Sometimes, a specific and unique information whose very existence is barely known to the public, is kept in a subtle, near-censorship situation, being regarded as "subversive" or "inconvenient
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
Barbara,
Here's how I understand it.
The amendment to your title states and, I think, accurately reflects the response of many literal thinkers who have entered your thoughts. It is a purely selfish move to reduce any possible future time spent on complaints, appeals or moderations about or upon your thread.
AMod
p.s.
If enough complain then I'll remove it as this is a benevolent virtual dictatorship.
Here's how I understand it.
The amendment to your title states and, I think, accurately reflects the response of many literal thinkers who have entered your thoughts. It is a purely selfish move to reduce any possible future time spent on complaints, appeals or moderations about or upon your thread.
AMod
p.s.
If enough complain then I'll remove it as this is a benevolent virtual dictatorship.
-
bullwinkle
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm
-
bullwinkle
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:05 pm
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
Dear Benevolent Virtual Dictator A Mode ,
Congratulations on expanding dictatorship to the Internet! You have successfully expanded dictatorship from the barbaric days of Rome and before, to the modern period of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ,et al and onward to these Virtual times. A stroke of perverted GENIUS !! BTW in your e-mail to me you mention That you are ” trying to accommodate a more VIRULENT STRAIN of modern philosophy within this forum and think that is my role to do so”.
Quoting the new century dictionary:”VIR-U-LENT, { poisonous, Actively poisonous,
Malignant, or deadly, a virulent form of a disease, violently or venomously hostile,
( as the, the local newspapers were virulent in their attacks), intensely bitter, spiteful,
or acrimonius etc.etc, I suggest that you get yourself down to the Center of Virtual Disease Control and get some kind of shot before it gets worse.
The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Decades of experience have shown that the FCC's effort to regulate 'indecent' speech on the airwaves is arbitrary, inconsistent, and unpredictable. No government agency should be given such power under the Constitution. The FCC's sudden and unexplained decision to ban even 'fleeting expletives' highlights this inconsistency, chills protected speech and violates the First Amendment."
Creative Arts, Media and Free Speech Groups Join ACLU In Urging Supreme Court To Reject FCC Censorship (8/7/2008)
Congratulations on expanding dictatorship to the Internet! You have successfully expanded dictatorship from the barbaric days of Rome and before, to the modern period of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot ,et al and onward to these Virtual times. A stroke of perverted GENIUS !! BTW in your e-mail to me you mention That you are ” trying to accommodate a more VIRULENT STRAIN of modern philosophy within this forum and think that is my role to do so”.
Quoting the new century dictionary:”VIR-U-LENT, { poisonous, Actively poisonous,
Malignant, or deadly, a virulent form of a disease, violently or venomously hostile,
( as the, the local newspapers were virulent in their attacks), intensely bitter, spiteful,
or acrimonius etc.etc, I suggest that you get yourself down to the Center of Virtual Disease Control and get some kind of shot before it gets worse.
The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Decades of experience have shown that the FCC's effort to regulate 'indecent' speech on the airwaves is arbitrary, inconsistent, and unpredictable. No government agency should be given such power under the Constitution. The FCC's sudden and unexplained decision to ban even 'fleeting expletives' highlights this inconsistency, chills protected speech and violates the First Amendment."
Creative Arts, Media and Free Speech Groups Join ACLU In Urging Supreme Court To Reject FCC Censorship (8/7/2008)
Dear Barbara,
You are apparently one of those who has no understanding of the history of the Internet, nor the World Wide Web. As you apparently believe that both are some kind of saviours and bastions of 'free-speech', 'thought' and 'democracy'. Spare me your homilies. You have used your thread as a blog and another has objected and decided to do the same. I'm just treating the symptons as I think best to minimise disturbance to my equilibrium.
AMod
You are apparently one of those who has no understanding of the history of the Internet, nor the World Wide Web. As you apparently believe that both are some kind of saviours and bastions of 'free-speech', 'thought' and 'democracy'. Spare me your homilies. You have used your thread as a blog and another has objected and decided to do the same. I'm just treating the symptons as I think best to minimise disturbance to my equilibrium.
AMod
-
John W. Kelly
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:43 pm
- Location: Gruithuisen's Lunar City
-
mickthinks
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
I too think it is a mistake and perhaps even a breach of trust to begin to moderate this forum using editorial interventions. I don't defend either the Dog's or Barbara's writings, but I think that no one here should have their words altered without their consent, and it is clear that neither has given any such consent.
May I add my voice to the calls for both thread titles to be restored to their original forms?
Mick
May I add my voice to the calls for both thread titles to be restored to their original forms?
Mick
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
A Mode,
Louis Brandeis’ Supreme Court Justice wrote a wise counsel, "more speech not enforced silence" in seeking to resolve our differences.
Free Speech is one of the vital institutions of democracy. The task is daunting in balancing needs of an entire place while maintaining respect for the individual rights of each member?
The potential for tyranny by the abuse of authority particularly worried framers of the Bill of Rights. In a letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson argued, "...a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference." Thus, before enumerating rights, the language of the First Amendment begins by prohibiting certain government conduct that would obstruct certain rights–i.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting...." These strictures, like most aspects of the Constitution, control only what the government may do, and have no effect on private individuals or businesses, which can do many things government officials cannot do.
Censoring deems to be obscene or at the least morally questionable. Censorship cages free speech.
From the free encyclopedia Wikipedia: Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not just freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as human right in under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". [1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes human rights law on a regional level.
Louis Brandeis’ Supreme Court Justice wrote a wise counsel, "more speech not enforced silence" in seeking to resolve our differences.
Free Speech is one of the vital institutions of democracy. The task is daunting in balancing needs of an entire place while maintaining respect for the individual rights of each member?
The potential for tyranny by the abuse of authority particularly worried framers of the Bill of Rights. In a letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson argued, "...a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference." Thus, before enumerating rights, the language of the First Amendment begins by prohibiting certain government conduct that would obstruct certain rights–i.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting...." These strictures, like most aspects of the Constitution, control only what the government may do, and have no effect on private individuals or businesses, which can do many things government officials cannot do.
Censoring deems to be obscene or at the least morally questionable. Censorship cages free speech.
From the free encyclopedia Wikipedia: Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not just freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as human right in under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". [1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes human rights law on a regional level.