| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 09 04:59PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about indian meditation and detachment.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to read the following interesting article about indian meditation: Meditation as a tool for Detachment https://jothivita.com/meditation-as-a-tool-for-detachment/ So as you are noticing that i have just talked about indian meditation by saying that indian meditation wants us to stop seeking pleasure of the senses so that to lower our expectations so that to not be hurted by our desires, and when you read the above article about indian meditation you will notice that it is saying The following: "Meditation becomes a tool to help develop Detachment" So as you are noticing that i was correct by speaking as i was speaking about indian meditation(read it below), but i think i am a smart philosopher, and i make you notice that there is a logical analogy between indian meditation and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, since the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wanted to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that indian meditation permits to attain this level of control, since when you develop detachment with indian meditation, it easy for you the process of becoming the superhuman of Friedrich Nietzsche that has mastery over his emotions and who takes joy in simply existing. More of my philosophy about how to make friends.. I invite you to look at the following video of a beautiful white european women: I Have No Friends | Why I Don't and How I've Learned to be Okay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umpAC4pKFV4 So as you are noticing in the above video, that the beautiful women is saying that she has no friends, but i think i am smart and i will make you understand my way of doing, so how do you think i am making a lot of friends ? so by logical analogy you have to understand the way of indian meditation, since indian meditation wants us to stop seeking pleasure of the senses so that to lower our expectations so that to not be hurted by our desires, so my way of doing looks like indian meditation but it is not indian meditation, since by talking to you as i am talking about my philosophy and by posting here my poems of Love and by showing to you my kind of personality here in internet and by showing to you my thoughts... i am like building universal Love, but i am smart and i know that so that to build universal Love you have to build a trust relationship with others or a high level of trust relationship with others, and when you build this trust relationship with others it becomes easy to become universal Love or it becomes easy to make a lot of friends, so this is why i am building a trust relationship with others here in internet and i know that it is the basis of universal Love, so by logical analogy it is like indian meditation that wants us to lower our expectations by stopping to seek pleasure of senses so that to not be hurted by our desires, i mean that i am like lowering my expectation by being this basis of universal Love even if i have not a lot of friends, since i am confident that it is the right way that make us easily become universal Love and make us easily having a lot of friends. So i am positive. More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more.. I have just looked at the following video about: NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy, because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism: More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and Existentialism.. I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy: Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020 https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020 And notice that it says the following: "The Stoics suggest that what's most important in order to lead a good life is internal rather than external. It's about developing the right character, the right state of mind," I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that developing the right character and the right state of the mind in Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is "not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not absurd, and read it below. My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more.. I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy: SARTRE - Le regard des autres https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking, since first you have to understand the following: Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope" by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here again i am not in accordance with it, since i say that human existence is not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the above philosophical question since you have to measure how to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the basis of my philosophy by reading it below: I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs More of my philosophy about sex and about civilization.. I think i am smart, and when i look at sex, it is like layers of sophistication from the low unsophisticated layer that is sex that comes from our animal instincts to the much higher layer of sophistication that transcend our animal instincts, sex is for me like an inferior state of being alcoholic, since sex is for me a really inferior thing, this is why i am working harder so that to transcend towards a much higher level of sophistication, and this is why you are seeing me talking about universal Love as i am talking, and this is why i am talking about my philosophy and about my strengths, so you have to read my below thoughts carefully so that to understand my way of thinking and doing: More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. I invite you to look at the following video about gays and lesbians in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOcE27EXN0 I have just quickly noticed how gays and lesbians and bisexuals of the above video speak about there weaknesses, so i think that gays and lesbians and bisexuals have the tendencies to speak about there weaknesses as such, and it is not my way of doing, and as i can say in french: "Si j'ai un bouton moche sur mon corps qui ne part pas, devrais-je parler aux autres de ce bouton moche ? alors tu comprends bien que ce n'est pas la bonne méthode de faire, car c'est mal vu de parler ainsi de ses faiblesses aux autres, alors comme tu comprends bien il faut du savoir-vivre ensemble, car les relations humaines ont besoin de règles à suivre." Here is the translation in english: "If I have an ugly pimple on my body that won't go away, should I tell others about that ugly pimple? So you understand that this is not the right way to do, because it is frowned upon to talk about your weaknesses to others in this way, so as you understand well, you have to know that human relationships need rules to follow so that to be able for us to be organized correctly into a society." This is why you are noticing that i am talking as i am talking by also showing my strenghts to others, so i invite you to read my following thoughts so that to understand my kind of personality: More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 09 03:32PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about how to make friends.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I invite you to look at the following video of a beautiful white european women: I Have No Friends | Why I Don't and How I've Learned to be Okay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umpAC4pKFV4 So as you are noticing in the above video, that the beautiful women is saying that she has no friends, but i think i am smart and i will make you understand my way of doing, so how do you think i am making a lot of friends ? so by logical analogy you have to understand the way of indian meditation, since indian meditation wants us to stop seeking pleasure of the senses so that to lower our expectations so that to not be hurted by our desires, so my way of doing looks like indian meditation but it is not indian meditation, since by talking to you as i am talking about my philosophy and by posting here my poems of Love and by showing to you my kind of personality here in internet and by showing to you my thoughts... i am like building universal Love, but i am smart and i know that so that to build universal Love you have to build a trust relationship with others or a high level of trust relationship with others, and when you build this trust relationship with others it becomes easy to become universal Love or it becomes easy to make a lot of friends, so this is why i am building a trust relationship with others here in internet and i know that it is the basis of universal Love, so by logical analogy it is like indian meditation that wants us to lower our expectations by stopping to seek pleasure of senses so that to not be hurted by our desires, i mean that i am like lowering my expectation by being this basis of universal Love even if i have not a lot of friends, since i am confident that it is the right way that make us easily become universal Love and make us easily having a lot of friends. So i am positive. More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more.. I have just looked at the following video about: NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy, because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism: More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and Existentialism.. I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy: Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020 https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020 And notice that it says the following: "The Stoics suggest that what's most important in order to lead a good life is internal rather than external. It's about developing the right character, the right state of mind," I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that developing the right character and the right state of the mind in Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is "not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not absurd, and read it below. My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more.. I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy: SARTRE - Le regard des autres https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking, since first you have to understand the following: Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope" by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here again i am not in accordance with it, since i say that human existence is not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the above philosophical question since you have to measure how to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the basis of my philosophy by reading it below: I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs More of my philosophy about sex and about civilization.. I think i am smart, and when i look at sex, it is like layers of sophistication from the low unsophisticated layer that is sex that comes from our animal instincts to the much higher layer of sophistication that transcend our animal instincts, sex is for me like an inferior state of being alcoholic, since sex is for me a really inferior thing, this is why i am working harder so that to transcend towards a much higher level of sophistication, and this is why you are seeing me talking about universal Love as i am talking, and this is why i am talking about my philosophy and about my strengths, so you have to read my below thoughts carefully so that to understand my way of thinking and doing: More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. I invite you to look at the following video about gays and lesbians in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOcE27EXN0 I have just quickly noticed how gays and lesbians and bisexuals of the above video speak about there weaknesses, so i think that gays and lesbians and bisexuals have the tendencies to speak about there weaknesses as such, and it is not my way of doing, and as i can say in french: "Si j'ai un bouton moche sur mon corps qui ne part pas, devrais-je parler aux autres de ce bouton moche ? alors tu comprends bien que ce n'est pas la bonne méthode de faire, car c'est mal vu de parler ainsi de ses faiblesses aux autres, alors comme tu comprends bien il faut du savoir-vivre ensemble, car les relations humaines ont besoin de règles à suivre." Here is the translation in english: "If I have an ugly pimple on my body that won't go away, should I tell others about that ugly pimple? So you understand that this is not the right way to do, because it is frowned upon to talk about your weaknesses to others in this way, so as you understand well, you have to know that human relationships need rules to follow so that to be able for us to be organized correctly into a society." This is why you are noticing that i am talking as i am talking by also showing my strenghts to others, so i invite you to read my following thoughts so that to understand my kind of personality: More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jul 09 01:00PM -0700 Hello, More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I have just looked at the following video about: NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy, because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsch is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism: More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and Existentialism.. I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy: Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020 https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020 And notice that it says the following: "The Stoics suggest that what's most important in order to lead a good life is internal rather than external. It's about developing the right character, the right state of mind," I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that developing the right character and the right state of the mind in Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is "not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not absurd, and read it below. My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more.. I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy: SARTRE - Le regard des autres https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking, since first you have to understand the following: Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope" by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here again i am not in accordand with it, since i say that human existence is not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy: How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ? I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd", and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy, since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the above philosophical question since you have to measure how to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the basis of my philosophy by reading it below: I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs More of my philosophy about sex and about civilization.. I think i am smart, and when i look at sex, it is like layers of sophistication from the low unsophisticated layer that is sex that comes from our animal instincts to the much higher layer of sophistication that transcend our animal instincts, sex is for me like an inferior state of being alcoholic, since sex is for me a really inferior thing, this is why i am working harder so that to transcend towards a much higher level of sophistication, and this is why you are seeing me talking about universal Love as i am talking, and this is why i am talking about my philosophy and about my strengths, so you have to read my below thoughts carefully so that to understand my way of thinking and doing: More of my philosophy about Gays and Lesbians and bisexuals.. I invite you to look at the following video about gays and lesbians in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOcE27EXN0 I have just quickly noticed how gays and lesbians and bisexuals of the above video speak about there weaknesses, so i think that gays and lesbians and bisexuals have the tendencies to speak about there weaknesses as such, and it is not my way of doing, and as i can say in french: "Si j'ai un bouton moche sur mon corps qui ne part pas, devrais-je parler aux autres de ce bouton moche ? alors tu comprends bien que ce n'est pas la bonne méthode de faire, car c'est mal vu de parler ainsi de ses faiblesses aux autres, alors comme tu comprends bien il faut du savoir-vivre ensemble, car les relations humaines ont besoin de règles à suivre." Here is the translation in english: "If I have an ugly pimple on my body that won't go away, should I tell others about that ugly pimple? So you understand that this is not the right way to do, because it is frowned upon to talk about your weaknesses to others in this way, so as you understand well, you have to know that human relationships need rules to follow so that to be able for us to be organized correctly into a society." This is why you are noticing that i am talking as i am talking by also showing my strenghts to others, so i invite you to read my following thoughts so that to understand my kind of personality: More of my philosophy about what is the american dream.. I will ask a philosophical question of: Does the american dream exists? and if it exists what is it ? I think the american dream is the fact that becoming rich doesn't come only from being smart, since becoming rich can come from "creativity", and I have just talked before about the importance of the following statement in business: "The focus should be on the product, since if the product is good the profits will follow" But notice that it is saying that if the product is good then the profits will follow, so as you are noticing we have to define what is a good product or service ? and does a good product or service only comes from science or from engineering or from being smart? not at all !, since the product and service can become good by the process of creativity, and then we have to define creativity, and creativity needs globalization, since creativity and innovation come from ideas circulating and combining across nations and industries, and i invite you to read about what is creativity in the following interesting web page from Yale university: What Is Creativity? https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-is-creativity And is the american dream the working hard ? i don't think so, since i think that working efficiently is the the good way, since read my following writing so that to notice it: I invite you to look at the following interesting video to understand that working efficiently can make you work much less hours, for example Germany works really efficiently and it works much less hours than Mexico or USA, so i invite you to look at the following interesting video so that to understand that working efficiently is a great thing: Why is working harder making us poorer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD784CHYhGM More of philosophy about one of my proverbs about intellectual openness and more.. I think i have just invented fast a proverb and i think it is really important, and here it is: "Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity." And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it: I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global optimum of efficiency, and it is related to my following thoughts about the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, so i invite you to read them: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More of my philosophy about is Human smartness just a particular survival strategy.. I think i am a smart philosopher and i will explain more, notice in my below writing that the Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice said the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" I think it is stupid, because when you become rich using your smartness you transcend "survival" and you cease to use smartness as only a survival strategy and you can start to use your smartness to become more and more rich or/and to living a much better human life etc. or when you have a high salary you are not thinking much of the time about survival since survival is only to remain alive, but you are living and being in a much better human condition, so this proves that Human smartness is not just a particular survival strategy. More of my philosophy about beauty and about human smartness.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and as you have just noticed i have just explained more the basis of my philosophy(read it below) and now i will ask two philosophical questions and they are the following: Are humans smarter than other animals? And does universal beauty exists ? So i will answer the first philosophical question by saying the following: So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment