Battle is Our Bond

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
— Plato (c. 424 BC to c. 348 BC)
One-Sided Distribution; Another planksip Möbius in Plane Sight

One-Sided Distribution in "Plane" Sight

Battle is Our Bond

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
— Plato (c. 424 BC to c. 348 BC)

The titled responsion is something that I find myself thinking about quite often.

Flattening the curve of this one-sided distribution is partially accomplished with the intentions of intersectionality but I challenge all participants to study the Classics prior to demanding unsubstantiated formes of equality under their ideal bell curve.

Plato - planksip
Plato was a philosopher in Classical Greece and the founder of the Academy in Athens.He is widely considered the pivotal figure in the development of Western philosophy.
What does the historical Plato have in common with the imagined version of Plato? Find out on planksip.

No One's Self Identity

The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Lopsided emphasis towards imagination negates the beauty of reality. Tether the meta with the physical and the function will become self-evident. Negating knowledge to know one's self is a bias, repeated to the point of heuristic is tragic and part of the condition from which humanity suffers. Expand on this dichotomy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - planksip
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Francophone Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century.
What do Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Plato have in common? Find out on planksip. 

Especially if you are the Judge

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.
— John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The titled responsion sounds a little judgemental, especially when repeated over and over again.

Lopsided distributions can signify an ignorance of sorts, ordered in such a way as to promote and propagate bias in the favour of a particular outcome. The smokescreen is plain to see when your view is grounded and viewed from a distance.

Whatever individuals accept, on subjects on which it is of the main significance to accept appropriately, they should have the option to protect against in any event the basic complaints. Be that as it may, somebody may state, "Left them alone showed the grounds of their assessments. It doesn't follow that sentiments must be simply parroted in light of the fact that they are never heard as opposed. People who learn calculation don't just submit the hypotheses to memory, however, comprehend and adapt moreover the exhibits; and it is silly to state that they stay oblivious of the grounds of mathematical certainties since they never hear any one deny, and endeavor to negate them."

John Stuart Mill - planksip
John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory...
What do John Stuart Mill and Frederick the Great have in common? Find out on planksip.

Undoubtedly, such a showing gets the job done regarding a matter like arithmetic, where there isn't anything at all to be said on an inappropriate side of the inquiry. The eccentricity of the proof of numerical realities is, that all the contention is on one side. There are no protests and no responses to complaints. However, regarding each matter on which distinction of supposition is conceivable, reality relies upon an equalization to be struck between two arrangements of clashing reasons. Indeed, even in the regular way of thinking, there is consistently some other clarification conceivable of similar realities; some geocentric hypothesis rather than heliocentric, some phlogiston rather than oxygen; and it must be indicated why that other hypothesis can't be the genuine one: and until this appears, and until we know how it appears, we don't comprehend the grounds of our assessment.

In any case, when we go to subjects interminably more muddled, to ethics, religion, legislative issues, social relations, and the matter of life, three-fourths of the contentions for each contested feeling comprise dispersing the appearances which favor some supposition not the same as it. The best speaker, spare one, of classical times, has left it on record that he generally contemplated his foe's case with as extraordinary, if not with still more noteworthy, force than even his own. What Cicero rehearsed as the methods for measurable achievement, needs to be imitated by all who concentrate on any subject so as to show up in reality. He who knows just his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons might be acceptable, and nobody may have had the option to invalidate them.

However, in the event that he is similarly incapable to invalidate the reasons on the contrary side; on the off chance that he doesn't to such an extent as comprehending what they may be, he has no ground for inclining toward either feeling. The sound situation for him would be suspension of judgment, and except if he satisfies himself with that, he is either driven by power or receives, similar to the consensus of the world, the side to which he feels most tendency.

Nor is it enough that he ought to hear the contentions of foes from his own educators, introduced as they state them, and joined by what they offer as nullifications. That isn't the best approach to do equity to the contentions or carry them into genuine contact with his own brain. He should have the option to hear them from people who really trust them; who shield them decisively and do their extremely most extreme for them. He should know them in their generally conceivable and influential structure; he should feel the entire power of the trouble which the genuine perspective regarding the matter needs to experience and discard; else he will never truly have himself of the part of the truth which meets and eliminates that trouble. 99 of every a hundred of what are called taught men are in this condition; even of the individuals who can contend smoothly for their sentiments. Their decision might be valid, however, it may be bogus for anything they know: they have never hurled themselves entirely into the psychological situation of the individuals who think uniquely in contrast to them and thought about what such people may need to state, and therefore they don't, in any appropriate feeling of the word, know the regulation which they themselves declare. They do not have a clue about those pieces of it which clarify and legitimize the rest of; the contemplations that show that a reality that apparently clashes with another is reconcilable with it, or that, for two clearly solid reasons, one and not the other should be liked.

All that aspect of reality that turns the scale, and chooses the judgment of a totally educated psyche, they are aliens too; nor is it actually truly known, however to the individuals who have gone to similarly and fair-mindedly to the two sides, and attempted to see the reasons of both in the most grounded light. So fundamental is this order to a genuine comprehension of good and human subjects, that if adversaries of exceptionally significant certainties don't exist, it is basic to envision them, and flexibly them with the most grounded contentions that the most skillful contentious third party can evoke.

It's All an Illusion, Use Your Allusion

Only the dialectical conception of ... reality as a social process ... dissolves the fetishistic forms necessarily produced by the capitalist mode of production and enables us to see them as mere illusions which are not less illusory for being seen to be necessary.
— György Lukács (1885-1971)

The socially skewed perspectives of Marxist eschatology are exactly that despite any and all claims of materialism. Some say cultish behaviors and to this, my response is, ya, more or less. Moralists, like Montaigne, challenge the bourgeois from the inside out while Marxists want to irradicate the wealthy through Negative Dialectics (Adorno)? A revolution of sorts for the workers, which makes sense from Marx's perspective and oppressed life but not so much from the working class Marxism claims to defend. Capitalism is not without its faults and materialism is eating us alive, driving us towards biodiversity oblivion but Marxism was and never will be the answer.

György Lukács - planksip
György Lukács was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and one of the founders of Western Marxism, an interpretive tradition that departed from the Marxist ideological orthodoxy of the Soviet Union.

Iterative Processes in Plain Sight

Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.
— Steve Jobs (1955-2011)

The titled responsion is ongoing and iterative. Obviously.

Steve Jobs - planksip
Steven Paul Jobs was an American business magnate and investor. He was the chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Apple Inc., the chairman and majority shareholder of Pixar.
What do Steve Jobs and Francis Bacon have in common? Find out on planksip.
photo of plane with smoke tail
One-Sided Distribution; Another planksip Möbius in "Plane" Sight

The planksip writers' cooperative is sponsoring a re-writing of this article (2,500 words) with $2,500 CAD in prize money for the best article as voted by your peers in the planksip writers' cooperative. Judged by your peers, your chance to join a community of creative thinkers and win over $750,000 CAD in prize money is your entry point into becoming a planksip journalist.

We want to change the way people engage. The planksip organic platform is dedicated to supporting your voice as a writer and a thought leader. Join today, membership matters!

Joining the planksip Writer’s Cooperative
The planksip writers cooperative gives members writing assignments, of which they compete for cash prizes. This article highlights the benefits of membership as well as outlines the rules and guidelines for submissions. Becoming a planksip writer is easier than you think.
Share this post