Dustin Hoffman

 Acting

This is my style of acting.  To act as if you had seen a thought coming from me.  

Acting to me is a psychological endeavor on a metaphorical level.

As I have studied in the past 20 years the ultimate question: what is acting.  The answer is founded in Aristotlean logic.

Acting: "plot is (character) revealed through action." - Aristotle 

In my 20 years (of learning to be am actor) when you look at that phrase it helps embrace the very nature in acting for me personally.

I am not a method actor per se.  This doesn't end there.

- Marco

March 18th 2014

 Re; the following is my argument for existentialism A fusion between both divergent thinking and conceptually as plagiarism. Meta physics is something Nietzsche was attempting to debunk based on nihilism as its main attribute.

I refer to this anti-thesis one that Nietzsche invented as an algorithm or what he refers to "precursor" re; Spinoza and why logic inspires the creative element. Basically what Nietzsche is trying to proclaim is that there is no such thing as stolen knowledge; this also proves how divergent thinking is a cause for pragmatic reasoning. (Although Nietzsche would outright reject my view as flawed.) I am arguing not in favor of what Nietzsche pronounces:

(1) should reason be mistreated

(2) but he limits it to chance reasoning.

Example: the fact Spinoza (through the combination of instincts) confirmed a belief Nietzsche thought was born out of his own private thoughts. Therefore, it is not only a coincidence but has to happen between supremely eternal beings or what Nietzsche infers as 'twosomeness'.

"I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by "instinct." Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness..."

― Friedrich Nietzsche, From a postcard to Franz Overbeck, Sils-Maria (30 July 1881) - Marco

======================

Rarely do I coexist with anything Nietzsche has offered, but this paragraph I can respect.

"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history" — yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die. One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened."

―Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense

======================

Spiritual truths seem strange and mysterious only because humanity lives in its own imagination. — Philip Arnold

=====================

Probably the least pronounced of all things being equaled, is it thought, of as renewal. - Marco

It's all in the approach. As a person that battled through my personal struggle with mental illness. I had to convince myself that playing a victim was what caused it. Second, when you learn that is the case, I had to struggle in coming to terms with not resorting to playing a victim (retort it) and not to use it only as some form of a defense mechanism. Once you become subconsciously aware of it, that changes the perception you have and in turn how you project yourself onto the world. It is in this manner, I now realize I have no control in how others see me. I observe my behavior and govern my freedom in a manner of thinking about how I unlearned from the habits I ultimately made work against me. The enemy comes from within, first. To be subconsciously aware of your psychological state instantaneously. It is a an effectual biographical look at myself, as I express it here to you now.

Conclusion

My psychiatrist did not want to listen to me playing the victim of a society that I rebelled against. He wanted me to see (me) and not adjust to society. But to see myself in society on terms that are worthy of who I am objectively. I think I have. Not because I am affected by society. But because I know what I want from this place of a psychological nature. All without being a victim that society makes us, unless you invert it - then examine, unlearning what the model is trying to turn you into. You displace the victim and acknowledge that you rather be a victim. It's a trajectory that's changed me, my life, and is prevalent in what I do.

- Marco

 

 

This is unhealthy full blown neurosis (method acting).  I know what is I'm saying. My point is it might fly in the face of what he is saying, though if I want something badly enough, it won't be at the same cost for my personal undoing.   People know who I am.  I can act dangerously as well.  Immersion is not technique.  They are conceptually driven.

- Marco

Verse by Marco

 "In good spirit"

God if this is the chaos in my life, which comes only by your design. I am a better man for it. The collision between stars if not yet born. The fragility of a moth to a flame. I am yours, I surrender. And heavens flowers bloom like never before. I now believe in everything that awaits. It is you. You have guided me and everyone else that never thought (to know) that what they see is not what you see. This is the secret to life. To knowing how much you are present in us. It is a perfect design without showing us your face.

I understand it.

Thank you for this.

- Marco

===================

The breath of angels

I have come to this place.

And I can't even imagine as to why nor how I got here.

But the birds are singing a different tune,

where my thoughts in this empty house,

I can hear.

You see, my dog left me today.

And the winter just got a little longer.

Each of my steps a little heavier in the heart.

But through these thoughts,

I have come to this place.

It's all I have, there's everything around me.

I no longer am surrounded by things,

my ears filled without noise.

Just the silence.

When I walked into my house (as if for the first time. . . )

knowing she wasn't there nor going to be.

The house feels so empty.

She was my life force.

And I've just had the greatest revelation.

I. . . 

uh. . .

realize that without her I know nothing.

So now I'm at peace.

(And that is the greatest peace of all.)

- Marco

P.S. I will love you forever.

 To do as humans do is a deconstruction. This means relationship to human models is a means. (Machines = means to a means.) That AI can only be a geneationally generated - therefore isolated theoretically driven model. The language used to program AI will be inadequate to its own end game. Provided that machines cannot decide on things independently.

(This is a possessive element similar to any machine related reality. Possession of your own brain = possession of their own program, such is being, such is awareness of cause, such is mind independent of thought, such is love, such is feeling, etc...)

1- You can have a machine possess philosophical models of human elements to conceptually instruct them.

2- (I am using this as an example which limits machine-life not to possess character and identity...)

3- But a machine cannot act pragmatically out of its own volition or free will.

Machines will always be based on command. It means that machines are meant to regurgitate and comply only as information models. Machines cannot feel. That is a fact. Machines will only superimpose that humans feel. But they will never understand empathy. Machines don't know why humans feel nor know the cause associated. No matter pattern. Nothing will ever program machines to feel. This is an undeniable fact. You can program a machine to kill. But it will never offend nor be offended nor offer a reproach designed to pass for feelings.

As mentioned above... "Means to a means" = that without its own end to a means. Machines will not act to the interests of solidarity insofar as humanity requires human empathy.

-Marco

====================

°○°▪︎▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different?

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

Context: Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different? Why do ideals, ideologies, whether political or religious, exist at all? Is it not one of the divisive concepts of man that has brought about conflict? After all, the ideologies, the left, right or centre, are put together by study, by the activity of thought, weighing, judging, and coming to a conclusion, and so shutting the door on all fuller enquiry. Ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. They are like belief or faith that separate man from man. And this separation comes about through time. The ‘me’, the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if the tribal divisions can ever be bridged over. Man has tried to unify nations, which are really glorified tribalism. You cannot unify nations. They will always remain separate. Evolution has separate groups. We maintain wars, religious and otherwise. And time will not change this. Knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about that global comprehension, global relationship, a global mind. So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in ‘what is’, the actuality, totally disregarding the movement of time?

the secret to privacy 🔏

 

●°●°●●°▪︎°▪︎°

There's a group of rich people that own land with few nice cars parked outside that tell me we're all the same and I didnt work hard enough to get to where they are. That, I could have and should have worked harder. What do you think of this statement. Is it simply how hard you work that tells whether you'll be rich and successful?

○°○°○°▪︎°▪︎°

It's not how hard, it's how much (you work).  There is an element where the two fall under the same category = you work hard as well as work a lot to get where we are today. 

There is no weakness in that.

In fact it is a matter of reputation vs material interpretation.

Your reputation that you work hard and work much is the opposite of material (capaitalist) ends.  The material types are elitist group of people that make their wealth independent of actually being lazy to have earned a reputation that is to be respected.

My point is I respect (my respect draws from therefore is conditonal to) people that work hard and work much.

I opposed the alpha lifestyle where elitists aka with alpha frat style mentalities, are posers, fakes.  They "work hard to play hard" taking vacations and make it habitual to act in a way that does not appeal to real people.

In conclusion, we all are born slaves.  We are not born to be slaves.  We are born to serve and that is my point here.  You do not have to possess a slave mentality.  It is a better alternative in thinking about your position in life, rather than consider yourself a victim based on comparison.  The false idea.  The circumstances are the same, but the signs (if your can see/read) them are hard to ignore.

I look no further than narcissistic assholes hell bent millionaires that couldn't hold a candle to these thoughts.  I preach but no ill will only to those that will leave their baggage at the door.  

God bless being Canadian for who they are, what we should represent.  

I am a Liberal.

- Marco

If beauty were dark (clouds)

 We are what we fail to become..

- Marco

The coming of wisdom

 The question of what is right from wrong is the ultimate test of wisdom. The manner from which all things are expressed into its equal or lesser parts. When I think of it, there is a certain amount of timeless quality to be gravitate toward. The expulsion of the will.

- Marco

Secularity and the origin of wisdom (a priori)

 If life originated purely by chance then shouldn’t it continue depending on chance and not choice for logical consistency?

Maybe or maybe not - you are asking for the word 'trust' as it would apply to ALL your interests here. If you trust yourself then there is chance in agreement which are psychologically neutral. My point is: If you believe that you possess the unconscious drives (i.e. psychological impulsivity) which are your defense mechanisms for negating what we subconsciously see or do, that is free will (choice). FREE WILL by definition is not just something we are in favor to and throw babies out of windows.

When you see past both free will vs trust - you will have no motive which also choiceless awareness comes into play. This is pure unadulterated wisdom.

So my second point following my criteria (stated above) means that you are already rooted in wisdom. There is a polarity in your query. One which the paradox is that if we consciously believe what happened yesterday, nothing there happened by chance. The original outcomes always remain constant from the day before. Not until did you apply a condition to those things (e.g. rules based theory) did you find things that you decided were true or changed your psychology. Logic is a formulation of rules. Rules change as you regulate your behavior, and the way your perform logic to enhance your psychological space in time. This is a awareness which you become the observer. And the observer is the observed. Once you record things in this manner, the world changes around you according to perception and the arrangement of your attunement to logical thinking. I am talking about your own self formulated rules on a meta level. (Aristotelian logic)

Note: I noticed how some of the responses your question has generated incomplete variables. I only attempted to, at the very least, provide you with some form of postulates that you may pick apart from.

Great question though!

- Marco

Lacan

 For Lacan, what is the relation between language and lack?

From what I understand, Lacan holds that the subject is marked by a structural lack that cannot be filled by anything of any type in our world. This is because the subject cannot exist as a subject without the other; therefore, it is always dependent and can never be fully complete on its own.

This process begins in what Lacan calls the mirror stage, where the subject first confronts itself as divided and incomplete. From that moment on, it seems that there is no possibility of being a fully complete subject.

However, what I find difficult to understand is how Lacan connects this structural lack to language/symbolic. More specifically, how does language function as part of the explanation for this lack?

As I understand it, our dependence on the other takes place through language/symbolic—within what Lacan calls the symbolic order. 

Many Lacanians argue that lack emerges because language itself is incomplete; it cannot fully express or articulate what we desire, and therefore it cannot help us obtain what might fill that gap.

But I still find this difficult to grasp. Why should we rely on language or the symbolic order to explain the existence of lack?

It seems more intuitive to say that the lack arises from the world itself—that there is simply nothing in reality capable of fully satisfying us. On this view, language would merely be part of that world, and therefore also subject to the same limitation.

In other words, language would not be the cause of the lack, but rather another consequence of the same structural condition.

If lack is truly structural and inherent to the subject—almost like a built-in feature of our existence, then it seems that the lack belongs to reality itself. It affects both us and language, rather than being produced by language.

So my question is: why does Lacan connect language so closely to the origin of lack(as a cause or reason, not as a consequence of how the world and us work/are structured)?

Or is this simply just a particular interpretation among Lacanians?Am I missing something here?

°○●°▪︎°○°☆°☆°▪︎

He means to go beyond what is [already known=symbolic order] is to qualify what is the unknown= revolutionary. Language, therefore, should not be considered to be 'local' as in recording our private thoughts which we edit from our experience in the external world. What we see in the local version of oursleves (internal) does not represent the actual (external) to challenge the status quo. Once you understand how to divise the concepts in that frame of reference your awarness for innovation as language becomes something new. (i.e. lack)

- Marco

Self centeredness

 Everything is becoming, it is not being.

I question what makes you think you can do philosophy. You don't. You never qualify your ideas. You make claims then refute anything opposite. I can't deliberate with you. Your posts are something that hover over the very same concept of what is metaphysical. The very word 'being' is the inference for which metaphysics is drawn. My point is if everything is becoming, then there is no center. The very assumption contradicts everything that is verifiably controversial, you create controversy here. That's a subjective approach to reason. IT IS BEING. The very foundation of metaphysics is 'being'. Being is the cause for which we act on ideas. Not becoming.

- Marco 

==================

Ignorance.

Process philosophy (also ontology of becoming or processism) is an approach in philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only real experience of everyday living. In opposition to the classical view of change as illusory (as argued by Parmenides) or accidental (as argued by Aristotle), process philosophy posits transient occasions of change or becoming as the most fundamental things of the ordinary everyday real world.

=================

Philosophically speaking, being and becoming are often treated as opposed ways of describing reality. Being refers to what simply is—stable, permanent, and self-identical. Something that truly is would remain itself and not fundamentally change. In classical philosophy this view is most famously associated with Parmenides, who argued that change is impossible because “non-being” cannot exist. If something were to change, it would have to come from what is not, but since non-being cannot be, reality must ultimately be one, eternal, and unchanging. According to this view, the changing world perceived by the senses is deceptive; true reality is pure, indivisible being. In contrast, becoming refers to process, transformation, and flux. Here reality is never static but always in motion, continually emerging and dissolving. This perspective is famously associated with Heraclitus, who held that everything is in constant change, captured in the idea that one cannot step into the same river twice because both the river and the person are always changing. Under this view, nothing possesses permanent being; everything exists as a process of becoming. Because of this, being and becoming appear logically opposed: being implies permanence and identity, while becoming implies change and transformation. If something truly is, it should not change; but if everything changes, it seems nothing truly is. This tension became a central problem in metaphysics.

=====================

Aleksandr Vilinskiy " the changing world perceived by the senses is deceptive; true reality is pure, indivisible being. In contrast, becoming refers to process, transformation, and flux. Here reality is never static but always in motion, continually emerging and dissolving."

Being is movement that is a quality. Movement is the knowledge for seeing. Seeing what is. What is language. What is movement. What is thought. It all corresponds to being.

As I said in an earlier post to this. Being is metaphysics in action. Movement must be free to understand what our movement is. There is the cause for the metaphysical. It has no beginning and no end. Seeing is metaphysical. Therefore, metaphysics is both seeing and knowledge of the 'knowledge of being'. Complete awareness.

- Marco

==================

to simplify what I think. What is wisdom? True wisdom? Wisdom is a personification between knowing what is right from what is wrong and acting on it. (To me personally.) I believe that is a good functioning truth for defining wisdom, not only when arguing, but irrefutable. When you have this awareness, it is the strongest type and can apply to universal ontology. And yes. Yes, god I do believe in. Therefore, my argument would qualify as metaphysical. To what end? Maybe this is a categorical question. I really don't know. But it is not be confused with Kantian ethics. (i.e. categorical imperative)

- Marco

What is learning (universal) vs mechanical knowledge

 Krishnamurti

Ontological :: what is the end of knowledge

 Quit it. Get lost. I know what I am talking about. What a joke. I have had it with experts like you. I know it what it is looking at me in the face because I know it from experience. I don't need to bank on your assessment of how I do philosophy.

I don't believe in this at all. Ontological reasoning is independent of truth. Therefore, the cause of what is an ontological belief. Beliefs do function on the basis of reasoning through our senses only, where objectivity meets its end. My point is that ideas and actions relate to what ontological reasoning is.

===================

Interlocutor:

there is nothing to be believed here. Why do you think, or in this case believe, that "ontological reasoning" is "independent of truth"?

Notice how for you that is an axiom, thus easy for you to build upon it.

==================

You have falsified everything I said to be true. I can also say: I forget how to swallow. You can't say if that last sentence is true or false. For an Alzheimer's diagnosis, someone that has this disease is very susceptible to forgetting how to swallow. My point is I could have the disease or I may not. It doesn't make what you infer as true or false. This is ontological in my view, which works the same way. My second point to the Alzheimer's analogy, is that there is life and death implication based on the disease which is attributed to neurological decline. How do you know I don't have Alzheimer's yet have made these statement's to be false of not having the disease. (e.g. Do I vs do I not have the disease = how do you know?)

Furthermore, to contain my phrases "ontological reasoning' vs "independent of truth" and displace them as mere axioms is a rather convenient line of argument. I have my own definitions that I believe, yes - believe, is factually ontological on the basis of your accusations. Ontological reasoning as something that accumulates (i.e. learning through experience) axiom takes skill. Something Alzheimer's robs us of. I hardly see your point.

=================

• 
  

 you haven't understood the point, and ironically the Alzheimer's analogy actually works against you, not for me. You say ontological reasoning is "independent of truth," then define it as "learning through experience" - accumulating axioms through skill. That is a description of model-building. You are describing exactly what MDO describes: cognitive entities navigating constraint spaces, accumulating operational knowledge. You just call it "ontological reasoning" and assume it touches something called "truth" that "exists independently" of the process. That assumption is the axiom that you are taking for granted, no questions asked, because you cant see that is merely an assumption. Nothing more.

The Alzheimer's case is perfect, but not the way you think. If neurological decline can strip away everything you call "ontological reasoning," then what you're describing isn't access to mind-independent truth - it's apparatus-dependent processing. The disease doesn't "rob us of truth" (whatever that could possible mean in your view). It degrades the apparatus that builds models. That's the whole point. Your reasoning, your experience, your accumulated axioms - all of it is model-building activity performed by a cognitive system. No apparatus, no "ontological reasoning." That's not a problem for MDO. That IS MDO.

So I am not surprised when you say you "hardly see my point." I know. That's because you're standing inside the assumption that your definitions are descriptions of how things really are, rather than tools you use to navigate. The concept of truth isn't something you "discovered out there in the world." It's a piece of your model. MDO doesn't falsify your claims. It points out that "true" and "false" are operations within models, not verdicts issued from outside them.

Let me show you what you keep missing: when you say ontological reasoning is "independent of truth," you are using the concept of truth to make that claim. Read that again. You need "true" and "false" to even state your position. That's not a clever paradox but the structural problem. You cannot step outside your model to verify that your model "touches truth," because every tool you'd use to verify it, reason, experience, your accumulated axioms, is inside the model. No matter how hard you need to believe it, I am afraid that you're NOT "describing reality." You're describing confidence. And confidence, no matter how skilled, no matter how practiced, no matter how secure it makes you feel, is not the same thing as "independent of truth." The tautology you're claiming is staring you in the face.

==============

Jesus. You misconstrued my entire analogy to make an example of me. I guess I can play a victim to your theory. But I hardly believe it. (In favor of my Alzheimer's argument). Tell me, according to MDO, where does knowledge end, the ending of knowledge. What is learning if it is not mechanical according to models that suggest Ontology becomes irrelevant. It may be a theory. But it is not complete. My point is that ontology is universal IN ITS APPARATUS. When I said I hardly see your point, it was not intentional. It is asking you to be honest with yourself. - Marco

Negative Dialectics

 Negative dialectics is a philosophical approach developed by Theodor W. Adorno. It challenges the traditional dialectical model associated with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and later used by Karl Marx.

In classical dialectics, a thesis encounters its antithesis, and the tension between them is resolved in a synthesis, which supposedly reconciles the contradiction and produces a higher level of understanding. Adorno rejected this idea of reconciliation. For him, contradictions within concepts and social reality are not truly resolved through synthesis. Attempts to reconcile them often suppress what does not fit into neat conceptual systems.

Negative dialectics therefore insists on holding contradictions open rather than resolving them. Instead of forcing reality into fixed concepts, it highlights the non-identity between concepts and the objects they attempt to describe. Concepts always simplify and reduce reality, leaving aspects of the object unaccounted for. The task of philosophy, for Adorno, is to remain attentive to these elements that escape conceptual capture.

This approach also has a strong critical and political dimension. Adorno believed that philosophical systems that claim total unity or harmony can mirror oppressive social systems, because they erase difference and contradiction. By emphasizing unresolved tensions, negative dialectics becomes a way of criticizing ideological systems that pretend society is coherent or reconciled when it is not.

In this sense, negative dialectics is not a method for producing final answers but a form of permanent critique. It keeps thought attentive to what resists classification, revealing the fractures within both philosophical concepts and social reality.

=====================

Simplified: Contradiction is equal to antithesis (disorder) vs (order) the laws of noncontradiction work as opposite. To find order comes through the negation of the laws. That is how a thesis comes into fruition by virtue of the cause being true, and if not true non contradiction corrects. The same way contradictions are identified through using logic occur.

- Marco

  What would happen if your self perception was non linear?

°•●○•°○○•••

You’d probably experience identity more as evolving patterns than a fixed story. Growth wouldn’t feel like a straight line, it would feel like cycles of awareness, integration, & change

•○●○•••••••

My rebuttal:

After reading your response I feel compelled not only to believe in it being true, but that the truth relates to the same question. That nothing truly is linear. What you've described is how what is meant to function - functions to an effectual end. Logic is a formulation of what emerges consciously or subconsciously autoimmune. My point is running toward danger as opposed to running away from the risk of life or death. The paradoxical nature of our very selfconcept comes to its core. But like a explosion (think of my running to or from danger analogy), the idea is to disperse that "explosion of ideas" into one. The metaphorical element being a polarity between extremes. We make use of our senses to create what we think can be controlled (but without logic, nothing can be true.) So our brains automatically normalize patterns. This makes a world that collapses or its disorder between order and this [order] is our default mechanism. How would we learn if our sense of reasoning were constantly thinking it can't learn how we absorb reality. Therefore, we create limits to what we figure is normally accepted to be true.

- Marco

The truth about love

 What is love actually?

○°○°°○°○°○°▪︎

My answer is: I don't know what love is.  (Therefore, never know.)

- Marco

 A philosopher by nature is legally insane. But not in the psychiatric sense, which rationalists often try to impose as a label on philosophical thought that deconstructs their "tablets." Stigmatizing the bearer of uncomfortable thoughts is the hallmark of rationalists.

A philosopher is legally insane because it is impossible to impute guilt for the freedom of their thought. Nietzsche is not to blame for Hitler's distorted interpretation of him. Free philosophical thought should not "look back" to see how it will resonate in the souls of rationalists, because they will inevitably turn it into a "straw man" that serves their pragmatic goals.

If a philosopher acquires "responsibility" for freely expressed truth, then they are no longer a philosopher but an ideologue. Philosophy itself is not communicative; it merely states what is, without any intention to explain or prove anything to anyone. But if such an intention exists, then philosophy is absent — it is, again, pure ideology.

In this sense, Marx is not a philosopher but a pure ideologue... He is accountable, and he can be held to account... But what can you take from a philosopher who sits in a barrel or does not try to step into the same river twice?

°●●•○°▪︎°▪︎•○°°▪︎

My rebuttal:

What is I see in your dissertation has elements of contradictory supposition, bearing in mind this is only criticism of my own. But because I see what you define as a philosopher being legally insane is that supposition, which alter my course of seeing. What I did not agree with are your reasons behind the genius of your idea. I do see that uncomfortable thoughts made by pragmatists in defiling the causes of one philosophy or making example of the philosopher by perjury. Why not just deem "all philosopher are absurdists" to qualify the same name of said criticism. My point here is: unless you are acting as a critic to inform the philosopher of his or own vices? If you do that, you are equalizing their idea by dismissal. Through that dismissal does not make the argument nor the arguer any less valid than a fallacy if or when committed. It is there that dogmas become the ideologue's domain. My point here is that it is a philosopher that has skill to, whose ideas stand against the truth which tests the ideologue. Fallacies are prevalent in logic. A philosophical end. The philosopher is to identify the error.

In conclusion: marx is a genius whose ideas are highly complex but set our understanding of how our means to perform as societal creatures, the social influx depends on capitalist alienation which his theory will adorn. To outright deny Marx is a strech of intellectual dishonesty.

- Marco

One of the biggest questions in philosophy :
Is reality exactly as we perceive it, or is our mind constructing it?

What do you think?

 I think the answer is found in: how can one perceive anything that does make a philosopher without mind constructing what the philosophy may be. My point is: the construct is evidence of the perception and vise versa. This is also a question of the observer being the observed in all inclusivity into what acts as philosophy vs opposites (i.e. ideologue). My cause is to act as a philosopher to the end that my mind reveals that there is truth in my projection of things. Therefore, the question we are answering is relevant to understanding another form of what this discipline entails: the question then is, how do we know what we know. That is why language is the critical element in all of philosophy with credit to critical thinking and the inception of why words have meaning.

- Marco

March 10th 2014

 When you get to know yourself - that is true wisdom. It is the most fundamental aspect to the human existence as Socrates poignantly stated. So this begs the question, what is the definition of truth, not so much the value of it but its morality. This is the discussion of philosophy in its most leisure - experimental - than finally mastered phase. (The three stages of pique interest.)

Here is a good working definition of philosophy/truth:

If someone says thank you is it suppose to have an actual effect; however they do not really mean it. Does this also not make them truthfully ungrateful. Therefore morality is defined by one thing and one thing only - deny no one the right that pushes your limits.

Who pushes your limits?

Answer: not only do you push limits you test them against moral ambiguity and reset yourself against the false convictions of others. You are programmed to do this and abort it.

- Marco