Feel like a king. Live as a peasant.

 Question for you Trump lovers. (If Trump is not the anti-christ)

Even if you could prove to me Trump will give you everything you ever wanted suddenly now it's happening?  Are you serious?? You're easy targets.

Let me tell you what inspires me on a personal level. 

1- Talk to me about doing things that are objectivrly freeing.  

2- This follows what allows me to be a person that believes no matter how hard making the right choices are, even if it means I fail in life, is the choice I will always make.  Yes. Even if to my detriment.  That is truth. That is identitfying with the devil on your shoulder.

3- Leadership when tricked upon you is disguising itself and resorts to the use of threats is not true (leadership.)  Trump of course has it all backward and you know he's good for nothing.

Why academics is not philosophy

 

WHY LOGIC IS NOT PHILOSOPHY
Logic itself is not even qualified to be a branch of philosophy because it is not philosophy! Logic is just another conjuncture of academics dogmatism! If not, why will logic be the only branch of philosophy that lacks criticality of questionability or endlessness of questionability. It is only logic among all known branches of philosophy that has a conclusive outcome, which is contrary to the philosophical tradition of limitlessness of criticality of questionability.
If "philosophy is (and cannot do without) questionability of criticality of (understandability of rationality and reasonability or perceptive reasonability in a Reminiscencingly-transcendented conception, consummation of thoughtfulness and finality of understandability) knowledge": where does logic situates itself therein? Instead, logic has been attempting to lord itself over philosophy(through fallacious dictation and other means), or to through the back door become the investigation officer of Philosophy, even when itself does not has the parameters of investigation subjectivity like other branches of philosophy.

WHY ACADEMICS IS NOT PHILOSOPHY 

Academics and philosophy is not the same: for one is consummation of dogmatism, garbage in and garbage out, as well as copy and paste of education and learning; while the other is questionability of criticality of knowledge: wherein knowledge is understandability of rationality and reasonability or perceptive reasonability, in a Reminiscencingly-transcendented conception, consummation of thoughtfulness and finality of understandability. In essence, it is better off to say that the more academics one becomes, the less philosophy he assumes.

My response:

I like it. There are far too many false academics that dismiss philosophy as a cause for neurodivergent thinking. If you think outside the box and are able to quantify it - it suddenly fails to be of academic inquiry for the chauvinist.
-------------------
Asking for the simplest definition of truth.

My response:

Truth is the reduction of habit.  That is to say: truth is a reduction of all things you qualify as true but can also be false at the same time because you've attributed a logical rational formula to observe the universe with.

Rebuttsl

Marco Almeida Philosophy and academia are not mutually exclusive.  The term “outside the box” is an extremely subjective, hackneyed catch phrase.  It’s better to consider the elements of a thought than to discard nuance and context with such labels.  If I suggest the world is flat, am I simply a creative outside the box thinker?  We do have objective realities, self evident truths and established axioms.  This allows a pilot to board a jet and take flight without having to recreate the sequence of physics axioms in advance of each takeoff from the runway.

My response

you are on the far right opposite end of this spectrum.  All you pointed out is an attack on the term I used which in your view obliviously tries to undermine my coefficient as elementary or nonsuch. I find your take in an appeal, which improperly attempts to negate my main idea (without me directly commiting a fallacy whatsoever.)  But you do you.
Rebuttal

Marco Almeida Both academics and students of philosophy fall into the trap of attempting to categorize the very intangible and elusive nature of human perception, and adding their bias.  Comment on observations, lose the adjectives that speak to bias. Speak as simply as possible.

My response

George Hermane hold onto your objectives.  I welcome them.  I reject your notion, however, that reflect upon using a bias in any manner whatsoever.  You are promoting something in protest of myself which is a bias in and of itself.  Myself, inductive reasoning being how qualitatively I think, therefore present my ideas. Only to cleverly be debunked?  Is that how this works?  I have had professors IN PHILOSOPHY. They are maniacs. They recycle the talent pool of what traditional academics are. Spineless.

Notice: I took the defensive position. It does not reflect my intentions. You cannot prove to me academics are navigational tools for the unknown in becoming a philosopher.  Too many adjectives?  Am I a metaphor for you?? Give me a break... I have related back to you in simple clear terms that hold water.