February 4th 2011
Two words of intellect which I've transmitted via your wannabe ingrates without a moral seeded in their tiny little brains: One enters Socrates' (mind). The other enters Plato's (mind).
This is philosophy people.
But not one you might think of yourself.
The reason being, where philosophy of law from Plato's musings, the divided line if you will. The Socratic Method of Socrates teachings, waged academic pursuits into the widest range of possibilities known to man, were born from those ancient classrooms.
--------------------------
Now you feel the return of Marco Almeida.
Where Marco Almeida - has entered some prime real estate opportunity, the same cannot be true of the person he is.
Therefore, only Marco Almeida must have some idea to commit the same practice, the same way, over and over again e.g. 'repetitively' not 'redundantly'
This very small but humble teaching, the art of humility let us pray of humility.
--------------------------
The question is does it matter which words were entered into either of the philosopher's brain even matter, which now gives you a false impression of Plato's laws.
Everything in the universe now consists of something to do with Plato's laws.
Therefore, the same cannot be said of a person of Plato's equal, be him or woman, man or her.
-------------------------
It is because of this disparity in resourcefulness, that clever Plato, always understood himself a negater of art. The art of philosophy, cannot be taught, the philosophy of itself can (be taught), which that clever little Plato was enabled. Plato felt he was onto something.
-------------------------
This is when the man of law, collided with the man of reason-ability.
------------------------
The man of reason, never truly understands the laws Plato insisted be taught, though that in itself would only be a rejection of regularity between variables. So Plato thought, let's make law something that defines normalcy. Although normally Plato would act as clever than most others; LAWYERS ARE YOU READING THIS.
-----------------------
Normalcy always declined the invitation to legitimacy, legitimacy declined the truth of 'normal' to be subject to things such as decency, or let's say indignity, or even torcher chambers. No thought Plato, the law is too good for that; I am special knowledge of such power, they simply do not exist in law. Does man have a threshold not to withstand the cause of law, because law has no age limit, no barrier, no complacency, no economic value, simply - law has a variable over every other living thing.
Here is where you are retarded Plato.
You have no say in irregularity.
Absolutely none.
They say Plato was a manipulator of no substance, or mind, or substantiating human sacrifice unconditionally speaking.
^ That was Plato's way of suffering the human condition, to say that laws were not made to be broken, that they defeat the purpose in all things young or old.
It was as if an unrestricted insurance claim, unlimited in potential on one anonymous condition of purging victims who actually enjoyed the thought of philosophy baring nothing else, simply continuity of choices, perhaps open ended, perhaps shut out. But Plato always felt uncomfortable (inferior) so - so like many or next to most lawyers. They pretend that you do not exist.
-------------------------
The problem wasn't that Plato didn't know how to do philosophy; it was that he didn't claim to know philosophy had a purpose of it's own, only he was unaware of it.
Candid as Plato was, that time before him allowed for it to happen, so we got stuck with lawyers make-believing they were philosophers for a shorter period of time than they could be called out on it.
That way they might get spooked to easily, there flushing their careers away at shore.
----------------------
The truth about the divided line, was only implemented, because Socrates drew that line, on the other side of the debaters. Where Socrates secret society of non-linear thinkers held votes for the wicked philosophers of Plato's domain.
It was there the divided line came into being.
They say those were the ballots in between democracy, that Socrates won unanimously, but Socrates followers were sworn to secrecy on the subject of winning. They said unto Plato, let's just let him play, we're nice enough to do that aren't we.
They say Plato has been fooled ever since. In fact if true, he refuses to acknowledge the same answer to the same question, over and over.
=====================
No comments:
Post a Comment