What is the what is

 Fear is the mind killer that tests your patience 

Marco 

●°•●●°○°●°

You cannot fear the unknown because it is not known, in actuality, you only fear what you think you know.

°●○°○°○°○°○°○°

Test:  I can fear my executioner who is unknown to me, I can also accept fear.  I can accept the unknown.  Therefore, I can accept fear I have in my executioner. 

Debunk this.  

- Marco

°○●●•••••

You don’t fear your unrevealed executioner, you fear the known coming to an end by the executioner.

°●○°°▪︎○°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

False.  Entirely false.  Only a hypocrite would say that I fear my end according to an external variable that is unknown to me.  Think about that.  My entire argument is that what is unknown I give unconditional moral agency to.  If that moral agency is breeched, (my motive is fear based.)  Then, I ask are you qualified as a psychic.   

Answer: Marco is Socratic a philosopher.  

No one knows that.  

Not even you.

Hence, my argument.  Fear is not my own hindrance to the executioner.  If the executioner has an end in mind, I accept what is my fear as well as the unknown.

The unknown = I would argue is Socratic an end, that Socrates himself was poisoned due to his own courage.

End.

°●•●•●$▪︎

I can accept the unknown together with fear.  Therefore, your point is moot.  

Your claim says that I cannot.

- Marco

°▪︎▪︎○☆-

Acceptance is not fear.

°○○°°○#○#

 You don't know that.

- Marco

●°●°##○#

To accept the fact you only know what is known removes the thought of needing to know everything which is what creates that fear. In fact every emotion is created by thought and the attention of that thought. When you accept something you no longer give that thought attention thus the emotion of fear never arises pertaining that.

°▪︎°●°●°●°●°

In theory someone can state my refutation to what your proofs are: (is that my argument ontologically possesses a philosophical end point.) I stated this using your proofs act's as fallacy.  

Your fallacy pertaining to what is unoriginal in philosophy and that - that it's wrong.

I can eliminate your argument by simply adding that fear is not an emotion based on a thought process. It's that simple. It's a fallacy in its entirety.  

I did this by simply using a noun.

What is fear is as real as what is acceptance. (To that fear). Your entire premise persists. That fear is not an emotion I can feel only because I know it. Totally moot argument. Totally. Then, you use the same noun to negate my argument? Clever.

My argument is ontological. (As I stated.) Because only I fear is what I fear. Only god tells me what is fear. Unless you want me to spoon feed you.

If you can't understand my line of reasoning, god help us all.

- Marco

°○°○○°☆•

You’re right, fear of x presumes knowledge that x is bad.

°○▪︎○•@!!!!!!

But if x is bad I have already accepted the norm in that I accepted 'x' that I act only as a condition of my moral agency. What specifically are you saying is presuming I am fabricating my assessment.

- Marco

○°○°○°○°○°

And off the record against what you fail to understand. I said x = norm.  

1- That a thing in itself requires moral agency being the norm.  

2- There is no way I can ever know (because I would never presume an unfounded fear for 'x' being a material emotion).  

3- Therefore, why would I predict x = bad. Unless we all are confined to x's actions at all times. How do we exhibit or attempt anything acting on something unknown to us. 

My point is we cannot predict behavior based on fear.

- Marco