What do you know? ;)

I think perhaps that you are mixing up and confusing knowledge, determining relative truths, and wisdom when using knowledge (or relative truths).

You can know that 1+1=2 without having any real clue as to who you truly are. Knowing 1-1=2 doesn't help you be happy, understand others, have empathy, patience etc. But knowing who you are enhances all of these.

But most 'knowledge' is also not black and white, and knowing who you are helps you determine what is important (to you), the relative truth of things, etc. You can learn, but perhaps not place the relative truth as accurately as you might, if you truly knew yourself.

Btw, to be clear, I dislike philosophy that causes indecision. Considered decisions (even if they end up being wrong) are fine, but 'I can't make a decision' is generally not fine. So in my view, philosophy needs an end point - that is, an end result/outcome/platform that contributes to decision making.

From what I gather, you don't like paradoxes? Haha, nevermind. The decision comes from the self, if you can't arrive at a decision in a "space" where there are none, at what point can you arrive at a decision what so ever?

And its all good and fun, but in the event of omission and bad designation, if agreed upon then 1-1 does equal 2 and there is no question about it. Then, is not the decision decided upon founded on a lack of truth, whether or not the truth is relative?

I enjoy people who can entertain an idea and not accept, rather than accept and not entertain. Is not the ability to make a decision from the self, and not in regard to people who make orders founded on a lack of sources? I would say, yes, it is.

So, why not make a decision? What is your favorite quote, then?

This too, shall pass.

Having a bad time? It will pass. Having a good time? It will pass.

Paradox's are fine - you can still make decisions while facing a paradox. You are reading something that is not in my writing.

As for the decision coming from the self, does that really need to be said? If not yourself, then who or what makes your decisions for you? No one else of course. You retain complete and utter responsibility for your decisions.

There is no one favourite. I have a list of favourites:
- if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got
- you are tied to what you fight
- they don't care how much you know until they know how much you care
- there is no such thing as blame, only contributing circumstances and personal responsibility
- if you are not growing, you are dying

"If"
is high on my list

I was going to write a whole lot of words, but I went back to your original post and noticed something. Hehe.

I am interested in people's point of view, be they fool or philosopher. The reason I am interested in is because I have stumbled onto a question which engaged all of my mind and made every little speck of information relevant. Fools include altercations to point of view that are unheard of in educated people. These folk see a point of perception where others have not clouded, tested or for lack of a better word, altered the decision they have made. The educated people then have the information on the structure of knowledge which, as ages go, comes and goes, from one position to another. Definitions change, history changes, and books are unearthed. Translations differ based on the politics of the day, and symbolism is not founded solely on aristocratic legion. With ideas being changed as easily as a breath from a nearby thinker, or a gesture from one about to speak. What really is determined, how is there knowledge, and what is true? One statement denied by all these aristocrats may actually be the truth of sages.

Seeing as how my resources are limited I am very interested in the quotes of ages past. Whether the age is bright or dark. Not everything is useful, like an educated person with a disregard to dignity sending others to look for something that cannot be found, while the supposed "fool" considers things lightly and simply walks into the bushes knowing the way home. Know what I mean?

The point is simple, to learn what is relevant to love, solve the problem of what is not love and discern what comes from love. In the event that this love is true, is that not the purpose of all that -is- on the earth? All that -is- in the world?

I would have said that happiness is the point of life, with love being a part of that.

I can't vote on a 'wisest quote on Earth," but this thread does bring a quote to mind with regard to rating/ranking things as such:


It's from a pop song by Robbie Williams

I would rate things based on what caused you to begin your journey through life.

I rate things differently depending on how pertinent they are for speaking to whatever I'm trying to speak to in a given context/situation.

See above, "how do you rate the morning sun?" and tell me what it means.

The morning sun being something we've seen a thousand times, and varies, etc. Is indescribable and has no opposition towards which to be rated against. If you were to compare it, then you stumble onto the dilemma, is the mirror worth the face? But if you do not compare you are brought to find both the mirror and the face have value. The sun and the moon.

My question on the other hand, is in reference towards an all consuming idea. Where did it come from? What inspired it? If you had to choose one quote that encompassed everything you had made motions towards. What would it be? What describes both the darkness and light? The sun and the moon?

For me? "Know thy self."

How do you differentiate between self and other, exactly? Are you referring to 'knowing yourself' in a way differently than you know others? Why is this quote so meaningful to you?

As Descartes put it, "There are thoughts." From thoughts we are aware that we can doubt what we sense. So, immediately we are aware of the self, and what is not the self. The other is harder to prove, and requires a dialogue. Because there weren't sound recordings during Descartes' time, or for that matter video, there is little doubt that his research became stagnant. How can I prove another, if I only I write?

The self can be filled with knowledge, and yet cannot see. When you stumble onto doubt of your senses you begin to ask questions. They start without qualia, and when you begin to describe the distinction of the apple to another, and they agree. You think, "Indeed, it is only I, we see exactly the same." Later on the questions develop, "That cloud looks like a mountain." But others see it differently, and they claim that it looks more like a sitting monk, or dildo. Once you notice alternative thoughts from even your assumed senses of what is going to be said or examples of things that cannot be known to you, especially when you stumble onto their evidence. I'd say then, there is cause to believe the other exists. But, if you don't not know the self, and the other, being more of an expert or not, is then not questioned on terms of qualia, or not relied upon for their point of view. would be a break of the golden rule. Which I would say is founded from the self.

With the introduction of lies, one might appeal that they know another better, and as soon as they imply more than themselves, then it is reasonable to assume that the other knows themselves better than the one who knows them. Having said a lie, not being able to know the mind of the other they become muddled. How often are these two talking, how often does one think less than they hear the words of another?

Sighhhhhh, I'm getting a headache.

You and Marvin both.

You think you've got problems? What are you supposed to do if you are a manically depressed robot? No, don't try to answer that. I'm fifty thousand times more intelligent than you and even I don't know the answer. It gives me a headache just trying to think down to your level. Marvin the paranoid android.

I know how to get from Shepton Mallet to Gillingham Dorset without going through Maiden Bradley. I didn't know that on Saturday.

That's not what Cogito Ergo Sum means. It means that in a state of doubt/skepticism regarding all existence, the one thing we can be certain of is that there is something conscious/thinking; otherwise we would not be conscious/thinking of the issue at all in the first place.

It implies nothing about a distinction between what is and what is not 'the self.' That's a matter of territorial boundary-construction, i.e. of defining borders between self and other, which is an act of mind/culture, not a discovery of something that exists prior to its being constructed culturally and/or socially/cognitively.


Yes, we are able to perceive others that seem similar to ourselves, i.e. with bodies, minds, speech, etc. but whose thoughts we are not directly conscious of the way we are aware of our own internal experiences.

Nevertheless, you are also not aware of what your hand or other body parts are experiencing except insofar as you feel sensations they are sending to you. When your hand sends out a pain signal, it is similar to your baby crying and so just as you would nurse your hand when it is in pain, you take care of your crying baby by giving it food, attention, cleaning, or whatever.

In this way, our prerogative for self-care extends outward to anything that reaches out to us to communicate. The baby is just an easy example because it is really just an extension of the mother's body that broke off once it developed sufficiently to be able to breath and eat on its own. Ultimately, we are capable of interpreting anything and everything that communicates with us as part of ourselves, including nature and the universe as a whole, which is how we're able to empathize with God the father of the universe/creation in its entirety, just as a child is able to empathize with a parent of whose family the child is a part.

Que de sum?

Yes, but how, what, when where why and who?

Are you mixing Spanish and Latin here? What are you saying?