| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2005 12:01:05 PM |
| Object: |
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 4 |
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 4
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
I was trying to determine the dialog as
a formal thinking.
Much of the record of Plato exists as such.
He has characters including Socrates. And the
conversants meet and taalk.
And his schoolmaster is presumably the one
to listen to.
Plato's works are not easy to figure out, by the
way.
For instance, Lysis, is a story of the greek/gay
boyfriend.
And if the dialog is to be understood a certain
relation of the friend to the kind is the story.
And to relate mem to men in friendship, rather
than love was the true content.
A man was to introduce the boy, Lysis, to true
friendship rather than to the man's potential
lover.
Socrates lied profusely in front of the
man would would be Lysis's lover.
As a form of thinking this dialog is consistent
with most other's of Plato.
A truth must be cognated and understood rather
than merely read aloud.
And to figure out if Socrates was gay is the dilemma
of the dialog.
Alot of reading and figuring must occur to
get the story straight.
Maybe five kinds of friends are defined by
Socrate's.
And to allude to the man who would be Lysis's lover
in the implied fashion only was the whole story.
And so the story teller was to be this man unless the
man sitting beside Socrates decided to talk.
And he never did.
So the two boys sitting and listening to the
frienship discussion of Socrates thought he was
their suitor.
Evidently the place to go and talk and listen
to mentors was a popular place. And to have
such a royal court is the exact meaning.
A court's scholar was to be the best findable.
And to treat the occupants of the court to his
school's form was this dialog.
Socrates would talk of friendship completely all
the while trying to get the suitor of Lysis to
start talking.
And court to court competition was the story
for the schoolmaster.
A reader of Lysis is supposed to recognize the
form of the dialog and state the premise of
Socrate's.
And in this story it was the level of rigor of
the court of Lysis.
A certain form was tried five times as the
means to communicate the true suitor to Lysis.
And five times the schoolmaster failed to
convince Lysis to think harder.
A simple story was Lysis. And the question for
the true philosopher reader was the form utilized.
A dialog to test the form was the story's form.
And if the question the boys left with was,
"Was Socrates my suitor?" then it was
a common abstract court.
If the boys left with the question,
"Does all friendship include love?"
then it was the school's.
And so the boys are to be understood to
have jumped up at the insistence of the
court's scholar who entered the court to
find Socrate's teaching.
In the end the teacher was to only
take the boys to the place where men
are allowed to be men.
He took them to the ????????
Meaning the location defines the understanding
of the boys. In the last scene.
And to define the location as the resolution
to the real question is an open one,
for this scholar has not the correct apriori
of the Greek courts.
Whatever the location, it answers the question
of the kind of court they sat in.
And so the abstracted location as the method
of answering, is the example of the school of
Socrates in the school's reading. And not
the reading of the content.
A story was to be inferred. And to read
as a school of Plato student is to learn.
Making my inference of the forms presence
a correct one.
So I pass a philosopher's readership test.
But, fail a historian's test of Greek readership.
My computer is failing now so this shall be a two
part posting.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 4 |
12 Aug 2005 01:09:12 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 4
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
[snip 135 lines of crap]
A story was to be inferred. And to read
as a school of Plato student is to learn.
Making my inference of the forms presence
a correct one.
[snip more crap]
If it is a product of text randomizing software, both were written by
an idiot. If it is written by meat, the meat is spoiled.
Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" (Book VII of "The Republic") is
philosophical hornswoggle with a generous helping of self-promotion.
It was the best anybody could do at the time, but that time was 2360
years ago. Hey Eagleson - did you just get your new volume of the
"Plato Coloring Book?" For an idiot who colors in monochrome, you
exceeded yourself by messing outside the lines
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 4 |
12 Aug 2005 12:36:25 PM |
|
|
I am back now, my computer
did not fail yet.
A kind of analysis was evident on the
subject. And to tell the student the
reason was to not let the student ponder.
And so when Plato sat and read aloud
a dialog the student is then left with the
task of learning.
And to learn because the proper teaching method was introduced is never
the form
of the dialog.
A content is to be the realm of both announced and implied kind. And
learning appears a rather complicated thing.
What is the schoolmaster to learn of is the
question for every student of Plato, always.
In the finest tradiation of being the best philosopher the student must
learn. So hint.
A ethics content as the story is a pale shadow of the true
philosopher's content.
Every word is utilized three times.
A logic is to be inferred always. And the school's form as a single
logic is never the selected one in the dialog.
As a talking philosopher the dilemma of miscommuication is a subject
always present in Plato's dialogs.
And the exact cause of the dilemma is a kind of taught thinking lind.
A lack of the proper apriori of knowledge is never the cause of the
true dilemma.
A real incapacity to have knowledge exists.
And so the man would would be Lysis's lover was always lied to using
Plato's form, by the way.
A concret lie.
And so to continue the analysis of the dialog another story was
required. And the exact form as discussed here was found.
Each word is to be read three times.
Read once for comon abstract content.
Read a second time for the form.
Read a third time for the school's example.
A school's example is simply Plato's form.
A form present is the logic. And in Lysis it was the five times used
court definer.
And the gay question was the mere begininng of the philosopher's
reading of Lysis.
Aristotle is not my reader this time. It would have been Plato. And
the rigour is equivalent to the simple analysis.
I have not written the statement of the true form of the dialog for
lack of reading. I simply must read all examples.
Whatever the outcome I would expect two to suffice. And so given two
examples, I claim all follow the same form.
And so my implied second undisclosed dialog of Plato is left to the
readersip to define.
A topic of the dialog was discussed and the dialog to define the
dilemma of the school was this anaylsis's form.
An implied story. A second example was read by this philosopher.
And a true philosopher would have never a second's thought as to which
one I read.
And so I leave the USENET readship as the story Lysis ended because I
have an Interupting mentor. Aristotle was to be the No.4 statement.
Making the location I seek to travel to, right now, without the proper
word given in the apriori was the kind of ignorence I displayed to
Plato. A slight trangression due to pressing needs caused this
philosopher to have never read all Plato's dialogs.
And so right now in the example of Lysis, I sign off the Internet and
go to the location where I am a student. Yes, I have disclosed the
court of Plato in relation to my court's form.
And as a student of Aristotle, the location in the abstract as applied
using Plato's form answers the question.
Yes, I write and...........................
note:Aristotle does not allow implied resolutions. And this analysis
simply defined a court for the first time. I had no idea of this level
of scholar competition.
So I took the time to define my own court. And so the abstract form
was used, of course, as with Aristotle and the location of my true
court defines.
Abstract reading will eludicdate the form.
A man's court.
Making the gender of the court the school's form. Socrates is always
obviously entering into the proper gender discussion or not.
And the reason is for historic purposes.
all that high nobiliy implied social ettiquete
made the type of man define his court.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
