Hello,
More precision about more of my philosophy about the meaning and purpose of human life and more..
I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
I think i am smart and i think i am a philosopher, and now i will talk
as a philosopher about from where comes the meaning and purpose of human life:
I think the meaning and purpose of human life can not come from the
morality of the master as have said the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche,
since the morality of the master also has a weakness and a problem and it needs Democracy so that to avoid it or prevent it, and read about it in my below thoughts of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and about morality so that to
understand it, so i think that the meaning and purpose of human life comes from morality that is like a "mixture" of the moving forward of morality with this better and better perfection and with a kind of positive energy that i am talking about as
following:
More of my philosophy of from where comes the positive human energy..
I think i am a wise type of person, and i will say that the positive
energy that makes us be a much better world comes from the way you are
moving, so you have to be careful about the way you are moving, so i
think that the efficient way of moving is that you have to make
your personality better and better by making or constructing better and
better things, and i think that it is the best positive energy that
makes us be a much better world, it is why i am talking as i am talking
so that to make you better "adapt" and be better and better humans, and
this is why i have also invented the following proverb that abstract
much more correctly this way of doing by positive energy, here it is:
And here is my new proverb in french and english:
"When you walk towards a goal in life it's like you walk down a forest
path towards a goal, but when you walk this forest path you can look at
flowers and pretty trees and be happier or you can also learn more and
have more experience which is useful while walking in the forest, then
life is like this, you can go through it towards goals, but going
through it you can also have pleasures that make you happier and you can
learn more and have more experience and that is useful to you, and i
think this conception of life makes you more positive."
"Quand tu marches vers un objectif dans la vie, c'est comme tu marches
dans un chemin de forêt vers un objectif, mais quand tu marches dans ce
chemin de forêt tu peux regarder des fleurs et de jolis arbres et être
plus joyeux ou tu peux aussi en apprendre plus et avoir plus
d'expérience qui est utile en marchant dans la forêt, alors la vie
ressemble à cela, tu peux la traverser vers des objectifs, mais en la traversant tu peux avoir aussi des plaisirs qui te rendent plus heureux
et tu peux apprendre plus et avoir plus d'experience et cela t'est
utile, et je pense que cette conception de la vie te rend plus positif."
So you have to understand that my proverb above is like
trying to well balance between, in one side, our strong human desire for success and the fear or the disliking of failure to attain the goal,
and, in the other side, i am showing in my new proverb the good sides or advantages or the pros of walking our lives towards the goal or goals
even if failure or failures happen(s), and i think this conception of
life of my proverb permits to be more positive, also you have to align
the usefulness of the utility with the global mission of the country or
global world.
And the meaning and purpose of human life also comes from morality that is also providing a kind of of Social Assistance and Social Solidarity and we have to have social programs that help the weakest members of the society or the poors of the society in
a kind of way, so we have also to have a level of Class Struggle that is like a competition that ensure that those kind of rights of providing some kind of social programs that helps the weakest members and the poors of the society are fought for in a
civilized way inside such places as the congress and in Democracy. And read my following thoughts of my philosophy about Class Struggle so that to understand correctly from where i am logically inferring it:
More of my philosophy about the study that reveals the Richest people are never the most talented and more..
I invite you to read the following interesting article:
A 40-Year Scientific Study Reveals the Richest People Are Never the Most Talented (and Why That's a Really Good Thing)Yep: The smartest, most talented people almost never reach the highest peaks of success.
Read more here:
https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/a-40-year-scientific-study-reveals-richest-people-are-never-most-talented-and-why-thats-a-really-good-thing.html
So as you have just noticed by reading the above interesting article that a 40-Year scientific study reveals the Richest people are never the most talented, but it says more precisely that intelligence, skill, and hard work will certainly get you far in
richness and success, but the most successful people are never the most talented, since an element of luck is evolved, and this element of luck is mostly seizing a "lucky" opportunity, like being at the right place at the right time, meeting the right
person, reacting to an opportunity in the right way.
More of my philosophy about capitalism and about the rich and more..
I invite you to look at the following french video that is
talking about capitalism and the rich:
Deviens riche ! | Streetphilosophy | ARTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4I5bFIK6Go
I think i am smart, and i have just looked at the above video,
and i think that the women in the above video is not talking correctly,
since she is saying that when a person possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people struggle because they do not have much money, it is an immoral person, and she is talking like the following article,
so i invite you to read it:
It’s basically just immoral to be rich
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich
So now i will answer this philosophical question, so i think the
defects of the above article is that he is wanting to manage money
and wealth of the rich by much more equalizing in a society, but i think that it is not the correct way, since you can understand capitalism by looking at for example the Financial sector, so you can understand more capitalism and the mechanism of
diversity that brings "resilience" and that needs a good allocation of resources in capitalism by reading my following thoughts:
The biggest benefit of finance, is to provide opportunities to people,
in the sense that in a world where there is no finance, the only way to
start a company is to be born rich or to have saved for a long time. In
a world where finance works well, the people with talent can actually
start firms and reach their dreams without waiting to either have saved
the money, or be lucky and receive it from their parents, and once you
create this opportunity, you will have the most talented people take
advantage of those opportunities, which favors growth, which favors a
good allocation of resources and, ultimately, innovation. But we have to
know what is the problem with finance, and here it is
So then you are understanding from the above that capitalism needs
a good allocation of resources, since efficiency also says that giving
much more money or making rich the talented people that want to efficiently invest in projects an ideas such as in capitalism is also an efficient allocation of resources, since also the talented people know how to efficiently distribute again and invest
again efficiently there big money and richness in other projects and good ideas, so capitalism brings this kind of efficiency, so then this means that it is not correct to say that when a person possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people
struggle because they do not have much money, it is an immoral person, since saying so is also extremism and archaism of Class Struggle, and talking about Class Struggle here is my thoughts about Class Struggle:
And today i will talk about Class struggle of Communism and Marxism,
so i will first ask a philosophical question of:
Is Class struggle "valid" and a good thing to have ?
I will say that there is not one type of Class struggle, because
we can have "levels" of Class Struggle, such as the Class Struggle of Communism and Marxism under Mao Zedong in China, and i think it is logically inferred in Marxism from the fact that there is antagonistic contradictions that are contradiction between
the Chinese communists and Chinese bourgeoisie and between the imperialist camp and the socialist camp, so we can also consider that this antagonistic contradictions also comes from the fact that we are genetically predisposed to being smart or having a
good memory efficiency etc. so this gives much more "chance" to those that have this kind of genetical predispositions to become rich
and successful, so this is why Communism and Marxism says that we have to equalize much more between people, so this is why i think it is also a kind of competition that gives this kind of Class Struggle, but i will say that the fact that we equalize
much more between people in a society is not good for "diversity" inside the society and it is not good for efficiency, since we have to have a level of diversity that brings "resilience" to the organization of a society, and even in economy we have to
have a level of diversification of economy that brings resilience, so this is why i think that the level of Class struggle that we have to have doesn't look like archaism of Communism or Marxism,
since i think we have to have some kind of Social Assistance and Social Solidarity and we have to have social programs that help
the weakest members of the society or the poors of the society in a kind of way, so we have also to have a level of Class Struggle that is like a competition that ensure that those kind of rights of providing
some kind of social programs that helps the weakest members and the poors of the society are fought for in a civilized way inside such places as the congress and in Democracy. Now there is also other antagonist contradictions between the government and
the people under Democracy or the communist regime, and inside two groups or more inside a political party or within a communist Party, and i think that we have to have civilized ways and manners like by vigorous criticism and self-criticism so that to
resolve those kind of antagonist contradictions. And of course i have also just invented quickly a proverb and a poem so that to make you understand this way of doing, and here they are:
More of my philosophy about my new proverb about Democracy and more..
As you have just noticed, i have just invented a proverb about Democracy, read it below and read all my other proverbs below, and as you notice in this new proverb that i am saying:
"Since the basis of Democracy is to better and better discuss so that to bring good sageness and good soundness"
So this "better and better discuss" means that it is "inherent" to it that we have to also be well educated and that it needs Elitism, and as you are noticing in my new proverb that i am saying that Democracy needs Elitism that is existence of an elite
as a dominating element in a system or society such as congressmen and congresswomen of the USA congress. So i invite you to read my new proverb and all my following thoughts so that to understand:
Here is my new proverb:
"The basis of Democracy is not that people have to govern, since it is inferiority of Democracy, since the basis of Democracy is to better and better discuss so that to bring good sageness and good soundness, and after bringing this good sageness and good soundness, we can govern correctly with this good sageness and good
soundness, this is why Democracy needs Elitism such as the congressmen and congresswomen of the USA congress so that to bring good sageness and good soundness."
And of course you can read my just new poem below that also speaks
about the basis of Democracy:
And read my other new proverbs below that i have written quickly..
Here is my just new poem, and notice that the lightness in
my new poem means: The state of having a sufficient or considerable amount of natural light.
So here is my new poem:
---
Darkness for me is not madness
Since darkness is also a "mechanism" that brings better lightness
Darkness for me is not madness
Since better lightness is not coming just from U.S. state of Kansas
Darkness for me is not madness
Since better lightness is also coming from the USA congress
Darkness for me is not madness
Since the USA congress is also a place where to better discuss
Darkness for me is not madness
Since the better discuss is not loneliness and is not being novice
Darkness for me is not madness
Since to better discuss is also like our beautiful princess
Darkness for me is not madness
Since the better discuss brings better Sageness and better soundness
---
More of my philosophy about Freedom of Speech and about Turkey and more..
I have just looked at the following video, and i invite you to look at it:
Erdogan: 'We shouldn't confuse criticism with i...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-0TlT4hnCg
I will ask a philosophical question of:
D