The "Ich" and the "Du"

Yes, Goebbels was as we all know a very wise and admirable man. :confused: Citing this colossal failure isnt really the best way to forward an idea which might be very sensible. In fact it does more to a priori discredit it than to invite thought.

PS Is it for some particular reason that you use the German words for I and you? It is slightly annoying and pedantic.

But getting over all this, indeed the Age of the I will come to an end because the I isnt adequate to itself. That much is obvious. How we will arrive at an age of Bonds is not yet explicit.

For who, children?

We should be pedantic. Yes, there is a reason.

Thanks for this worm-eaten piffle which brings us further from the confrontation of the difficulty.

Guide, do you have a girlfriend?

Guide

Ludwig Feuerbach below…

Whatever kind of object … we are at any time conscious of, we are always at the same time conscious of our own nature[.]”

“[T]he object to which a subject essentially, necessarily relates, is nothing else than this subject’s own … objective nature.”

“In the object which he contemplates … man becomes acquainted with himself.

Perhaps if you would give up your “own” you will cease to see Meno in this way.

Unfortunately the larger part of human beings lack, not merely acumen in thought, but the possibility to acquire it. Meno is one such one. It is often one’s misfortune to waste one’s time through not discerning to which group the interlocutor belongs. That being said, the group admires this group comment, which is not entirely without sense.

PS

Even Marx and Engels said of Feurerbach, of his work, the teaching is unbearably crude. The Zweck or Weg must have a way in, ergo, Nietzsche said, we all must must dance on our head, and yet, this dancing, happens in the stream of Rausch, of embodied music. Feurerbach has left out the sound of the river which is the thinker’s pledge for the advent of thought.

I will note, also, that mindless Chomsky addicts such as “Mr. Reasonable” and “Karpal Tunnel” are intransigent bores. Ergo, the group continues to despise them and their comments.

Why am I a Chomsky addict?

The. person named ‘guide’ is himself unbelievably crude in his remarks, improperly citing sources, slandering with ad-hominems, and using the tactics of pseudo baiting by illogical appeals , as he himself brought out with such as goebbels.

What is remarkable here, is the appearing lack of psychological insight, around the primitive defenses.

Arguments surrounding the development of ire toward individual personality assessments do not belong in the general discussions within rational philosophical discourse, nor do asserting arguments using other philosophical topical considerations , by suppressing dynamic and substantial relevance.

In an open forum, this amounts to a mild form of charachacter assassination, and I retort, that publishing such, be censured.

I personally neither know guide, nor understand his recurring attacks, but I feel and really suspect him being a bored sockpoppet of sort, wanting to stir up controversy at his own indication so, as to cover his inadequate understanding of basic philosophy.

Some of us are earnest to follow some streams of thought to try to advance our own understanding, and those of our fellow members , not claiming unrealistic scholastic levels of achievement, with or without any thought, to evidencing any presumed or actual depth of preparation.

Therefore, guide , the self imposed guru of some elitist group think, please desist from this point on to use ad hominem as a way to compensate obvious lacks of expected literary styles, and for the use of vacuous philosophical arguments for which you are so obviously unprepared.

You are guilty of the very charges that you are posting against me, that much , if nothing else , has become quite obvious.

For a while I thought that you were using a mild form of irony, used for comic effect, but since the personal attacks have become as frequent and bold, as to suggest a false realization. that I may not defend myself, I am questioning this early interpretation and am becoming further convinced that your escalation deserves a more poignant defense.

I still harbor some modicum of reserve, that I will not drop you , and place you on my ignore list, however further proof to the contrary, will sustain that option.

It’s shorthand for ‘too far to the left’ and that you believe in universal grammar.

This seems properly only to say what “Karpal Tunnel” is. The mad passion of the caravanserai to alloy the others has broken out, and painted you in this colour. Such is the mire of group existence.

You would make a bad lawyer. Discrediting weak witnesses is a major part of the law in all nations on the earth, for good reason.

Aristotle already held with the theory of Universal Grammar, though, true, he only spoke Greek dialects. Chomskyites are people whose rotten noggins pretend to swim in salty oceans for show, but soon float to the surface, and claim the salt that stains their being is “posturing”.

That. may be true , while You would not make a good judge of character, for depending on circumstances weakness could very well serve a higher purpose.

Guide, you never answered my other 2 questions. Is English your first language? Do you have a girlfriend?

IOW, he’s not and you were lazy. Ornate little cop out, give you that.

For students of reason, accomplished morons who merely throw around words thoughtlessly, and even dishonestly, demand to be named. I grant and appreciate, of course, that if we abandon philosophy utterly, the notion that one might learn from anyone and anything becomes the clearest of truths. The art of reason demands, not in animosity, but in the coldness of science, that we say clearly: “Meno” provides the group with a theophany; the coming to vision to mortals of imbecile time-wasting Koalemos.

There is little in this response for the group, so it shall remain happily unanswered.

The group must not turn towards biographical details and gossip. What concerns us is the essence of the human being, namely reason. We want to know if we have a sound essence to work with and to share notes with. “Meno” and “Karpel Tunnel” don’t meet that requirement. They are inhuman monsters. Biographical details could mislead us to reject things on the basis of the now prevalent public judgments, as with the case of Goebbels. Science is cold, philosophy is the most perfect science, and so the coldest.

If Iambiguous and Guide are not the same person, then still, together they know three German words. To them, this is the stone cold accomplishment of philosophy.

Guide,

Are you saying here that reason is the true essence of the human being? Does history show reason to be the essence of the human being or in many cases to be the lack thereof?

"

What is your motivation in trying to cast these two in such a bad light?
Two names are called to mind when I read the above words - inhuman monsters - Hitler and Mengele.

Another essence of the human being may be his desire, brought on by his emotions.
Is not reason, right reason, also logical or at least strives to be?
What will it cost you to leave the bullying to the bulls?

Both. Man is lacking, therefore, we seek the least lacking. History is a long question, perhaps, the much-more reasonable man will overcome it and set time outside the political.

This is too far-fetched. Here we mean failure and defeat in the most humiliating and therefore trivial sense. I don’t speak of values here, they are invented. I speak of man as man. Thinking your way we forget that Stalin is very much loved in Russia. We have many unsought lacunae and stick with big effects and fake notions of value. Rather, what is most human can not be judged by historical standards of what is shocking and destructive of the human being in his passing circumstance and life.

Right reason is only determined by nemo nasciter artifex, by the art of reason. It belongs to an age. A man of good heart, in the cannibal society, will still approve cannibalism. So too in the slave society. In the money society. And so on. Summa ratio names the accumulation of the bent of the tradition. This is a problem of what of late got the name “bounded rationality”. What interests us is the man who is not a cold grotesque accident. Ergo, the one the great man most closely resmbels.