Toronto wrote:By the Socratic view of a philosopher, Machiavelli I shouldn't think would be one. And I certainly wouldn't call Mussolini a "lover of wisdom".
By what the word philosopher means, every body is one since every body loves to be wise..with most not knowing that how to be wise is in Love of fools, since the first thing a wise man knows is that he is a fool.
Toronto wrote:In the Socratic view, they are lovers of different "fooldom".
Fooldom is ontologically both the opposite and composite of wisdom:
therefore, there is not only fooldom which is different to wisdom but there is also fooldom which is the same as wisdom. And vice versa.
Toronto wrote:That's not the golden rule, the golden rule is do unto others as you believe they "should" do unto to you, not how you think they will.
It works out to the same thing when you love opposites and see that opposites are composites.
In Hate of opposites, we must not only conclude as you do: that they are only different, but also that they don't work or are very hard to work.
Toronto wrote:I am ignorant as to what you mean so please, for my sake, rephrase the question.
When you made this ruling:
"Rule, in the Socratic view at least, is done only though opinions. Opinions are not philosophic. Hence, when one rules they cannot be ruling with philosophy."
when you said that rule is done only thru opinions which are not philosophic,
you were actually making a philosophical point or philo. ruling about how to rule or what constitutes rule!
So how can you rule without philosophy when at the same time you have a philosophy that no philosophy rules? lol
So to re-phrase:
are you saying that your philosophy of rule is that there is no rule by philosophy but only by opinions that are not philosophic when all opinions are also based on a philosophy? smile
Toronto wrote:Thereby making the term "philosophic opinion" being an oxymoron.
BUT, -----that conclusion is problematical ONLY IF we hate morons or any phiolosphy!
With Love for oxymorons, there is NO problem!
In Love, that oxymoron proves that you must mean something else: ste!
In that Love, that st else makes perfect sense and makes your oxymoronic rule wise:
there is a rule of no rules;
there is philosophy of no philosophy;
there is a religion of no religion;
there is an opinion that is no opinion;
there is a problem that is no problem.
In Buddhism, there is a rule that there must be all detachment and no attachment.
So does that mean that being attached to detachment is a problem?
Yes, BUT ONLY IF we hate attachment!
So Buddha MUST mean and have meant st else:
there shd be all detachment from Hate of any words,
there must be attachment to Love of all words.
Or, vice versa:
No detachment from Love of all words.
All attachment to NO Hate for any words,
or all attachment to Hate for NO words.
So too in Socrates' oxymoronic rule, in which there are only opinions and no opinion is philosophic, he means that
there shd be NO philosophy of Hate for any philosophy,
there are to be only opinions based on The Opinion of Love(TOOL) for all philosophy,
that all rule is based on that TOOL!
Toronto wrote:No, it simply wouldn't be considered philosophy (according to this view, and I am only speaking in the Socratic sense of philosophy(SSOP) and not my own).
Correct....based on that SSOP.
Toronto wrote: Philosophy is the constant question of opinion/social convention, and it is the questions themselves and the engagement in dialectic is the practice of philosophy.
Toronto wrote: The opinions reached through philosophy are not themselves.
Was some sentence-ending word omitted?