u/Less-Car7006

Roblox is the Platonic Academy in 21st century .

There are more than one logical system, such as predicate logic, and propositional logic, etc. And in order to be logical, that is, subjecting yourself under one of the logical systems, you have to make an arbitrary choice. This is illogical exactly because it precedes the logical system you yourself intends to be subject to and is not contained in that logical system since it is not made in accordance to that system yet.

For example, if left hand and right hand are concepts interchangeable for him, then in his world, there is no conflict between left hand and right hand. Similarly, if he has been trained like this since he was born, there is hardly any conflict appearing to him either. Does it entail that world can finally absolve all its conflict, if everyone adopt this way of education?

Any department of philosophy continues to teach Plato's dialouge is abetting the crime, notwithstanding its abusive nature. When Socrates was persecuted for the corruption of the youth, this is exactly every department of philosophy is doing right now with their support of the criminal, Plato. No wonder that Nietzsche accuses the Greek for being the culprit of the decadence of morality. Shame on them!

Edit. The fact that Socrates didn't sue Plato is suspicious and a bit gay.

I think German is better than English for philosophy, maybe because I don't understand either of them.

Not to mention my opus magnum cotributing the knowledge of ontology with deontologicised ontology, literally.

Edit. Forgot to mention, I can read hundred of pages in philosophy in a minute despite I am illiterate.

The metaphor of cave manifests a version of the story of how hierarchical system is created and preserved through knowledge or the way knowledge is presented. Knowledge doesn't give anyone a right to say others being in a cave. Philosophy taken its beginning from this sort of story is discriminatory.

If you are trying to push me back by saying that because there is something not real, then unless you can prove yourself who is saying now of something not real is also not real, otherwise there is nothing not real, and by the law of excluded middle, idealism is not needed.

I recently stepped into existentialism and the word alienation is significant, yet I don't know what it really means. Does it imply someone is abducted by an alien in the midst of nowhere? But why does it help to attain authenticity? Is authenticity some type of chip that the alien kindly implant to save us?

Also, it is a bit gay for Plato writing this out to embarrass his mentor, maybe it was because he was not invited to the party.

Literally nobody cares about philosophy in the AI age, nobody thinks it is a great accomplishment for AI to replace philosophy. All they keep talking about is science, and how science is replaced rapidly by AI. So not only does philosophy have lost to science in its contest of truth, it has also lost to science in its recognition to public. When everyone is speaking of that something is decaying, and when that something does not include philosophy anymore, you know it is cooked. Just like two handsome boys in your class competing attention for girls, arguing how one is replacing the other in attraction, while you stand in the corner like a ghost nobody care.

Edit. Sent this to Gemini Pro 3.1 with extended thinking, here is her response:

Philosophy is not decaying in the shadow of science; it is the only discipline equipped to manage the fallout of what science is currently building. ​When science accelerates to the point where humanity can effortlessly engineer biological weapons, automate global labor, or simulate reality, empirical data provides absolutely no guidance on whether we should do those things, or how we structure society once we do. ​The public may be distracted by the spectacle of scientific automation, but the underlying crisis of the AI age is entirely philosophical. If humanity fails to answer those philosophical questions correctly, the scientific achievements will not matter.

P.S. Even AI's response is more philosophical than my Critique.

I notice that people tend to be more ADHD than it was centuries ago, I wonder if this is caused by modernity, by its hyper-differentiation of activities and characters within which none of individuals who are living there are able to gather themselves in the midst of a delivery of life.

If Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is about finding principles that are a priori preceeding to any thinking as such, then my Critique of Non-Pure reason is about finding principles that inform your non-pure thinking as such. For example, when you start scratching your balls, I know what you shall not think.

A butterfly is not a thing. In nature, it is an appearance. Yet both thing and appearance don't seem too far apart insofar as both of them are conveying a sense of objects or matters in a distinguished sense whether it is against a subject or other objects. I believe many people have this sense daily. Something, such as a book placed on the table, is distinguished immediately not because of its perceived content but of the sense of distinguishability withstanding, unyielding, and which you overlook subsequently to grasp the object that there gives rise to with its perceived characteristics. Yet if we turn toward that peculiar withstanding distinguishability, an uncanny experience which I hope you have also encountered in other occasions, then it reveals at least a meaning of 'as opposed to' besides the possible perceived content.

When you encounter a butterfly, what you immediately stumble upon is: This as opposed to yet an Other-than-that. I am not saying This or Other-than-that as if they are different substances or concepts though they are indeed different to some extent. They are also tightly paired together, otherwise you won't have the sense of withstanding distinguishability. Though whether they are related because of their shared properties or of something higher, this I will leave to my next meditation.

What we have now at least at our disposal is this tightly paired unity consisting of This and Other-than-that. I call this unity simultaneity. Now as soon as the butterfly takes off, what we immediately discover besides that simultaneity is breaking down replaced by a renewed simultaneity, is that the first simultaneity is gone by means of giving way to the perceived characteristics of the static image of the butterfly when it has not yet taken off, which has rendered the first simultaneity unrecoverable. Yet all these are perceived with a distinction, a sense of grounding in contrast to the renewed simultaneity.

The strange thing is this: logically it should be the static image of the butterfly that is grounded by its preceding withstanding distinguishability, instead, it is now grounded as soon as it is articulated in appearance exactly because of the renewed distinguishability. What happens in between these two distinguishabilities, I propose, is a refusal that enables the grounding of the perceived content of the butterfly before it takes off. A refusal that happens all so naturally if we reflect within this in-between.

What is interesting besides this refusal happening between the two simultaneities, within the simultaneity itself, there is also a refusal. If we take the resulting static image as the basis for further conceptual analysis, then the experience I describe precedes that. We arrive at this by means of a double refusal.

Only vibe can tell...

Vibe Coding

Serious institutional violence can only be dissolved from within, this is not a small task. Whenever I saw the serious pedant teaching on the pulpit I can't help but imagine the future which is covered by dark clouds. They need new energy, new spirit to wash them out.

Basically language is geographically restricted, which means someone who can't speak my language cannot receive my thougt. Furthermore even between languages, normally one language imposes rules that are unique to its own on the philosophy of another language which doesn't share those rules. In consequence, a thinking that is conducted in one language is now distorted by another. What it reveals is not to incentivize the debate that which language is more superior for philosophy than another, rather, language as a whole is a barrier for philosophy. Thinking enjoys its free rein in its own right. Language is deteriorating this right of thinking. Thereby I propose silence as the way of communication for philosophy. The Chinese wisdom has shown that chee is the fundamental energy which permeates our bodies, and it serves as the constituent for the field of telepathy. The highest form of philosophy is indeed this very field itself. We should all embrace our chee in silence and enjoy the jubilation of philosophy.

Imagine you, being a foil, in the middle of the time. What is behind you as the past is only articulated in your coming-to-be from your 'is'. In other words, what you believe is present is only a past, yet which is to be articulated in present or considering your vicissitudes in time in future or coming-to-be. Your philosophy is really a striving to be what you were. So much so that you never die but only dying because death is a "past" you can never comprehend. Philosophy is always outdated but up-to-date. This is my philosophy. A philosophy of consciousness looking towards which the time turns its back to.