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.