PHILOSOPHY OR DRINKING WINE?

Philosophy as simple living: Diogenes of Sinope

Matti: "Philosophy! But for what reasons? It's no use!"                                

Maria: "I don't know... It gives a faculty to recognize when a man or a woman is indoctrinated and brainwashed. I mean... I mean a prisoner of some world view. A prisoner of science, politics, economy, nature, men or... or whatever."

Matti: "Bitch! What on earth is philosophy of any use for anybody? Explain."

Maria: "Yeah... The use is such that one grasps that a man being able to think nothing but work and money is not free. How is that? By philosophy... Can you?"

Matti: "Can what fucking what?"

Maria: "To reason... Or being able to think something else."

Matti:

Maria: "Thanks! Bitch."

Matti: "Hey come on! That's not fair."

Maria: "One educates oneself... That is philosophy about. And a mean to the peace of mind. Philosophy is a lifestyle. But philosophy as a lifestyle and a culture is disappearing due to the academic philosophers deifying science and matter."


Matti: I wanna... No! Wanting is good.


THE CYNICS: FREE ONESELF FROM CONVENTIONS
(A radio discussion about the Cynics BBC 45 minutes)

On Categories: Entities Imply Things and Wholes

That is a thing or a whole.

X is one and  many. 

A controversial claim! If Mrs. Jones is one person, how can she be many too? And if a group of politicians consists of many individual politicians, how can it be one when it is actually five persons? One is not identical with five.

Next, metaphysical categories:


A thesis: Two different categories x and y differ in each other absolutely, E.g. they are neither identical with nor similar to.


From a thesis follows:


if a category x includes A, a category y does not include A (self-evident when contemplating and grasping the implication). But then it is entailed A is also a category and x is not the same as y.

A question: Is a thing in the same category as a whole?

From a question:

No, because they are two different categories. A whole is more abstract than a thing, a contingent thing like a book of Kafka.

How would many books be one Book?

A claim 1: A thing inheres its attributes and its identity remains over change and time.


A claim 2: A whole is its parts, simple parts, but it loses and gains parts during its existence. So, its identity doesn't remain over change and time, such as a human body or the nature.


A conclusion: A is a substance and A is not a whole because a substance is not identical with a whole (from a thesis, a claim1 and a claim 2).

WHAT IS VIOLENCE AGAINST HUMANITY: A SUGGESTION

The representatives of every species have a natural way to act. So have human beings too, a woman or a man, and vice versa.

For instance, for birds flying is a natural habit. For fish it is natural to swim in the seas, rivers and lakes. For humans thinking is natural and practical habit to survive in the nature - and big cities.


If birds' wings are cut off, their natural function is prevented. If a human being is not allowed to report what he or she sees, his or her natural instinct of being in the world has been destroyed. What one sees may be an illusion and what masters tell him to see is an illusion -->                  Seeing is possible a being in illusion.

Peace doesn't mean silence inside of mouths and lack of contradictions in human relationship. Peace in society doesn't collapse when people criticizes a leading bloc and claims our real life is not what authorities, news and movies tell us and when people disagree with and rebel. In brief, to prevent one's thinking by force is violence, not peace.
"Freedom" of speech occurs  in China

and

"Freedom" of speech doesn't occur in China

So, what do you think about ideologies?
 
But is to protect one's thinking peaceful then? Let's think it together, dear friend:

1. If one must protect peace, it is not violence (Protection: why not a violent act? I don't know... this seems to be a weak premise.)
2. If two parties or persons have a quarrel, peace disappears (from experience)
3. If peace disappears, one must protect peace (Peace is better than war; self-evident)
4. They start to fight
5. Peace disappears (from 2 and 4)
6. One must protect peace (from 3 and 5)

     7. So, the protection of peace is not violence (from 1 and 6). 

But the protection of peace by violence is violence (the logic of despotism).