|
Panos |
|
Newbie |
| None Specified |
|
|
Wednesday, February 12, 2014 |
|
Sunday, October 5, 2014 11:32:03 AM |
15
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day] |
|
moniquester wrote:Daemon wrote:Those whom the gods love grow young. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) From experience, I can tell you that Oscar Wilde is either a dreamer or greatly delusional! I have yet to see anyone grow YOUNG! No matter where you look, everyone is growing older. Even the multimillionaires, and those who are in positions of power, and the famous--they too, grow old--and no amount of gods loving them will change that. And they die, too! Oh Oscar Wilde, I greatly enjoy your sweet sense of innocence; however, you have been either misguided or have misjudged the situation completely! Can you believe it? Even I am growing older every day! In fact, I am only a short way from acquiring a government paycheck. That makes me OLD! And that's okay!!!
Those whom the gods love grow young.
...
No one grows young => The gods love no one => (Why)Do they/we (still) exist(?)
|
monamagda wrote:"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
<3
|
Drag0nspeaker wrote:Panos wrote:It's no wonder why such a big majority of people have this chaotic perception about anarchy since most of them either allow the media educate them(sic!) or define something by it's literal translation.
I'm not educated by the media (I know anything I see in the media is either a lie or a mistake)  I simply use the correct definitions of words according to the dictionary. anarchy n
Absence of any form of political authority. American Heritage1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government Collins1. a state of society without government or law. Random HouseI equated "total anarchy" with "no government". That is totally true according to the definitions. If you mean something different, call it something different, don't try to redefine words.
I didn't disagree that anarchy means no government. I just mentioned that anarchy isn't something that requires an ethical and moral society but something that describes an ethical and moral society.
It would be stupid to say we'll wait until all people are moral and ethical and then we'll apply anarchy.
You can disagree that an ideal society will be one with no government(anarchy),
but I don't think it's wise to use the literal definition when describing the movement.
That's because, as a movement, anarchy is much more than a word meaning chaos.
It's a political term and I could legitimately define it as the opposite of chaos, as people living in harmony.
As I pointed out, for me it's something like an ideal future, one should aim to move towards it and not to apply it right now.
The only thing you can apply instantly is dictatorship.
Finally, I don't imply it's the correct way of thinking, just a personal belief and sometimes way of life.
I'm not an anarchist the way it is defined.
|
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I am not anti-government (a total anarchy - no government, everyone do as they please- would only work if every person were absolutely ethical and moral).
It's no wonder why such a big majority of people have this chaotic perception about anarchy since most of them either allow the media educate them(sic!)
or define something by it's literal translation.
There are many types of anarchism.
I would suggest to read some Bakunin-collectivist anarchism.
Even if it's not realistic enough to be applied in the present,
it surely broadens your insight and may give you something to fight for.
I think..
Friendly greetings
|
|
We need to know what we are and not what we may be :)
|
|
In the grave we are all equal
|
|
Children are raised to have an antipathy to books
|
|
Let's Stay Friends
|
Bully_rus wrote:
Is Mein Kampf fully complies with conditions of a good book?
For me a good book is a book that you can disagree with.
The purpose of a book should be to show you undiscovered places
and to involve different perspectives so that you can argue and evolve your thinking.
That's something like a dialectical method between you and the book.
So yes, a book(likeable or not) as long as it challenges you, is a good book.
|
Nikhil More wrote:I am not geting meaning properly of this quote 
Maybe you haven't read such a book yet :)
|
|