dimreepr

Indeed, but when one of his innocent pilots is shot down during a routine flight, who's he going to go crying to... As stalin said "one anecdotal death is diplorable, a million deaths is a statistic"... Indeed, but I wonder if the, recent, Russian version of the Eurovision song contest is designed to draw in his allies; he can't win on his own. Let us not forget the initial timing; how many day's after China hosted the Olympic game's did he choose to start this?

His deliberate incursions into NATO members airspace is obviously trying to get a positive reaction from the West. I don't buy the idea that he's testing for weakness, I think he's hoping to drag China into the conflict. Otherwise he's just poking a bear for fun.

No backsies... 😉 What makes you think karma has a rollover? Karma is about damaging ones soul, cause and effect is a purely internal affair. "Damaging one's soul At Apology 30c7–e1, Socrates cautions his jurors about the risk they face. The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves: Now, the claim that trying to kill a man unjustly is a greater evil than being killed unjustly may seem simply obvious from a moral point of view."

If you think about, properly, we can only have faith in our reason/perception, not in a solipsistic way, but in a human way; for instance, we tend to assume that our culture is the correct one, we also tend to assume that we are correct, we also tend to assume that only other people are biased etc. But thanks for the downvote, I shall wear it with pride (irony). Patronising much!!!

Maybe, you only think you know?

Then Nietzsche piped up and suggested that Hitler could be the one, if he wished hard enough...

Indeed, but you can believe in the wisdom of the people that spawned it...

I'm not trying to be tricky, I'm just asking you to debate/discuss honestly. If my hypothesis is correct, then this is the pattern we'd expect to see: His teaching was passed through the filter of many generations and different cultures before it was committed to paper, so yes the details are slightly different for each writer, but at the time of writing, the meaning was understood; but 3 centuries later, the politicos decide what's relevant despite the lack of understanding/context of the original meaning...

Please, be specific...

When did I suggest otherwise? It's interesting that you choose to respond to a redacted version of my post, rather than argue my point.

Perhaps, but like Socrates maybe his students, ignored his thought's on the limitations of writing down our cultural wisdom. Besides, how does this argue my point? If anything it confirms the degradation of meaning through time, of a fixed position.

I sugest the opposite might be true, in the written word, the information remains whilst the context is degraded as the generations change; data without context is useless. The many cultures that relied on the oral tradition, Aborigines for instance, understood why the changing language and other details, doesn't change the fundamental message of how to live meaningfully with in that culture; Camus' observations on the myth of Sisyphus is kinda relevant here. Edit. this reply was merged. Isn't that why we never seem to learn from history?

I suggested it's more reliable at conveying the correct context, of the information, for understanding across the generation's. The written word is an essential part of our society, despite its limitations in terms of context; so for me @iNow it's more of an Heisenberg type question. 🙂

Yet a rabbit foot does seem to be ubiquitous across many culture's without a natural border. Convergent evolution, perhaps...

Indeed, but a teacher telling a story usually is, even if they're just a parent talking about santa.

Of course they change, that's my point...

Indeed, but why is just a guess.

The problem is, we'll never know which branch would be more successful, since we've got both in a sort of Brownian motion ("A strong cup of tea"); but it's fun to think about. 🙂

But those that do understand it's meaning are disconnected from the pupil's that need to understand (for their own good), an oral teacher can at least understand why the pupil doesn't understand and can plan a lesson to compensate.

Your constitution was written by the people who authored (fully understood) it, and ever since the noise has grown and it continues to denude the original meaning.

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

That, in a village wide collective, depends on the complexity of the message, usually human truths can be explained quite simply; the ten commandments, for instance, can usually fit broadly, in many culture's. In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand; if each of the twelve disciples, past on their understanding to twelve more, wouldn't that become enough (I'll bow to your mathematical prowess if the anwers no.)? Whereas, the written word when the author has died, however profound the message is, becomes the source of so much noise, in terms of the shear number of different interpretations, that the original message becomes whatever best fit's one's avarice...

In general I do agree, my only caveat being, the non existence of god as an argument for the dismissal of religious philosophy. I apologise if you haven't suggested this, other poster's must have bled into my thinking when replying to you. Indeed, one can memorise a joke and regurgitate it, but without the correct intonation, no one would laugh and it would wither on the vine.

Socrates' Thoughts on the written word. I think Jesus and Mohammed had similar thought's: Perhaps there's a reason Jesus' teachings weren't written down for many decades. And perhaps Mohammed's attempt at fixing the written word in the Quran, was an attempt to fix the problem. I can't help but think, that if the teachings were handed down orally, this conversation would be out of the question. If religions were allowed to evolve with society, then neither side of the argument would question the need for god or established real world 'facts'.

nuance, could b a different