I'm not the one who is trying to win a lost argument, which was never an argument in the first place. It's a pity you never understood that.When your 'observations' of what others are saying to you never match up with what those people are actually telling you that they are saying, that means you are strawmanning. How many people have told you this now?
You're the one who is strawmanning others and then trying to pass of his misrepresentations as 'observations'. That doesn't fly.I'm not the one who is trying to win a lost argument, which was never an argument in the first place. It's a pity you never understood that.
The accusations will continue as long as you keep doing it. Discussion requires someone who can do more than just misrepresent, preach, and dodge questions. There was the possibility of discussion in this very thread, until you decided you'd rather attack me for my choice of avatar than address what I'd said.You obviously think it is, otherwise you would've stopped this line of accusation a long time ago, and actually engaged in discussion.
no comment?the phrase "love of wisdom" comes from plato...and actually refers to two pagan gods, one love, chasing the other, wisdom. the philosopher would be the one who could 'acquire' that wisdom, by desiring it (love) thus be inhabited by the 'god'. this is the pagan view of acquiring the 'mind' of that god, which was called the 'daemon'. it has no masculine or feminine quality...its utterly signatureless...and IT.
modern science is actually the same type religious point of view of that 'god'.
which most people think of as their own "self"...
so devious is the satanic realm.
if someone listens to their I, thinking its thoughts are their thoughts, how can they meet God ?