Complexity, deception and Occam

[Zarathustra]

Many great philosophers used to be criticised in his era for speaking nonsense because they were not understood or misunderstood by the public.

[Harbal]

Many great philosophers used to be criticised in his era for speaking nonsense because they were not understood or misunderstood by the public.

And I daresay even more bad philosophers have suffered the same fate.

[roydop]

Many great philosophers used to be criticised in his era for speaking nonsense because they were not understood or misunderstood by the public.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is exactly the case with my work. No one in history has said the things I've said and it takes time for it to be assimilated

To recognize truth one also needs to be able to drop that which is false, no matter how difficult.

[roydop]

Many great philosophers used to be criticised in his era for speaking nonsense because they were not understood or misunderstood by the public.

And I daresay even more bad philosophers have suffered the same fate.

Philosophers philosophize because they know they existed while they are thinking. They don't want any concluding answers because if they are no longer thinking, then that's the death of the ego (the illusionary self). This is why hardly anyone here tries to understand what I'm presenting, even though it's actually easily understood.

[Iwannaplato]

It is revealing the singular fundamental source of all problems and suffering, and the cure.

The cure is to silence thought. The voice in consciousness is deceiving you and all of humanity. But the delusion is very deeply rooted and the vast majority of humanity will not engage in a singularly-focused meditation practice

But basically you are a voice in consciousness. Inner and outer are both inner, in the end, as the person mulls over your language based assertions and language-based approach. They now have your voice in their head for that time and after should they mull over it.

I'm not an advocate for Buddhism, but when they use language, they use language not as a mass of assertions and deductive arguments, but in Koans. The participants are to meditate on those short texts that are not really assertions and are often in the form of questions.

IOW I think they get the problem with becoming yet another voice in the head for people and obviously a voice that believes some statements about the nature of reality are more true than others.

Another way to put this is that you are 1) giving a mixed message and 2) acting as a voice in people's heads. And there are many of those who claim to have solved it all.

Don't watch TV, says the host. Tune in next week, when we take up this theme again.

[Trajk Logik]

https://youtu.be/t3PFdqHDBSQ?si=c_FnxObk0G3a6uw-

OMG.
I thought you'd gone

Nope. Still here. Still the greatest philosopher of all time.

Still ignored, laughed at and ridiculed in this shit-hole of delusion

But if it's a delusion you're not really being laughed at and ridiculed. It's just part of your delusion.

You can escape your delusion by ignoring this forum and never come back.

And how do you suppose your theory/philosophy, whatever you want to call it, is going to make the world a better place?

It is revealing the singular fundamental source of all problems and suffering, and the cure.

The cure is to silence thought. The voice in consciousness is deceiving you and all of humanity. But the delusion is very deeply rooted and the vast majority of humanity will not engage in a singularly-focused meditation practice

But the world's suffering is just YOUR delusion. You're projecting your delusions onto everyone else. I'm doing just fine. Sure I experience some suffering, but I experience happiness as well, and suffering is necessary to know happiness. It's a balance. A relationship in that you cannot have one without the other. Looking for an end to all suffering will just bring about the suffering of boredom, which is probably what you mean about silencing thought. How boring.

It's THE answer

I'm not doing this for recognition or to be right, I'm doing this to help humanity out of delusion and suffering

Sure you are, which is why you said this earlier:

Nope. Still here. Still the greatest philosopher of all time.

Why do you make it so easy to refute what you say?

Philosophers philosophize because they know they existed while they are thinking. They don't want any concluding answers because if they are no longer thinking, then that's the death of the ego (the illusionary self). This is why hardly anyone here tries to understand what I'm presenting, even though it's actually easily understood.

You say that the self is illusionary, but then what, or who are "philosophers", "they", "anyone" and "I'm" if not other selves and your self? You say that selves are illusionary while talking as if they are real. When you said you are the "greatest philosopher of all time", were you talking about your illusionary self?

We don't seem to understand because you can't give a straight, non-contradictory, useful answer to any question posed to you. It is you that have created the circumstances of our "not understanding" with your word salad and mental gymnastics. I'll just wait until you win the Nobel Peace Prize and have someone with a better grasp of the English language explain to me your "profound" discovery.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Zarathustra]

The only problem is that, all the greatest Philosophers in history were classed as such after their deaths. None of them claimed that they were the greatest philosophers themselves in their life time.

[godelian]

Many great philosophers used to be criticised in his era for speaking nonsense because they were not understood or misunderstood by the public.

In my opinion, Immanuel Kant is rightly criticized for arguing the undefinability of existence in his critique of pure reason.

Unlike Tarski's undefinability of the truth, which is a provable theorem in first-order arithmetic, there is no justification for Kant's undefinability of existence.

Kant's proposition is unsubstantiated. There is nothing wrong with the standard existential quantifier in first-order logic.

Kant's incorrect observation in critique of pure reason that numbers would not be axiomatic is even more misguided. It is just wrong.

These are just two of Kant's glaring errors. I am sure that there are many more in his critique of pure reason.

We know that Kant was speaking nonsense, not because we would misunderstand him, but exactly because we do understand him.

[roydop]

OMG.
I thought you'd gone

Nope. Still here. Still the greatest philosopher of all time.

Still ignored, laughed at and ridiculed in this shit-hole of delusion

But if it's a delusion you're not really being laughed at and ridiculed. It's just part of your delusion.

You can escape your delusion by ignoring this forum and never come back.

And how do you suppose your theory/philosophy, whatever you want to call it, is going to make the world a better place?

It is revealing the singular fundamental source of all problems and suffering, and the cure.

The cure is to silence thought. The voice in consciousness is deceiving you and all of humanity. But the delusion is very deeply rooted and the vast majority of humanity will not engage in a singularly-focused meditation practice

But the world's suffering is just YOUR delusion. You're projecting your delusions onto everyone else. I'm doing just fine. Sure I experience some suffering, but I experience happiness as well, and suffering is necessary to know happiness. It's a balance. A relationship in that you cannot have one without the other. Looking for an end to all suffering will just bring about the suffering of boredom, which is probably what you mean about silencing thought. How boring.

It's THE answer

I'm not doing this for recognition or to be right, I'm doing this to help humanity out of delusion and suffering

Sure you are, which is why you said this earlier:

Nope. Still here. Still the greatest philosopher of all time.

Why do you make it so easy to refute what you say?

Philosophers philosophize because they know they existed while they are thinking. They don't want any concluding answers because if they are no longer thinking, then that's the death of the ego (the illusionary self). This is why hardly anyone here tries to understand what I'm presenting, even though it's actually easily understood.

You say that the self is illusionary, but then what, or who are "philosophers", "they", "anyone" and "I'm" if not other selves and your self? You say that selves are illusionary while talking as if they are real. When you said you are the "greatest philosopher of all time", were you talking about your illusionary self?

We don't seem to understand because you can't give a straight, non-contradictory, useful answer to any question posed to you. It is you that have created the circumstances of our "not understanding" with your word salad and mental gymnastics. I'll just wait until you win the Nobel Peace Prize and have someone with a better grasp of the English language explain to me your "profound" discovery.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I no longer suffer. There's my evidence. I'm presenting the direct path to the transcendence of all suffering, but y'all would rather continue on suffering.

So you will

[Iwannaplato]

I no longer suffer. There's my evidence.

You do understand (?) that this might well be evidence for you of something, but your words on a screen about it are not evidence for others.

And then you didn't respond to his point about your repeatedly calling yourself the greatest philosopher of all time.

Do you really think claiming such things fits well with being enlightened?
Wouldn't an enlightened person realize that your subjective experience is not evidence for others and that that was clearly what he was writing about?