Philosophers, social life and machines

Philosophers, social life and machines

When some philosophers are talking about machines, they are not meaning that those machines are machines. They are simply mean things. When they are talking about tune in the machine, they are meaning that the tuning of life or service has the same effect than tuning in the machine. If the machine would put too much tuning parts that means that it would be destroyed and things are starting to travel too fast, and then the results could be devastating.

This means that if things like a business would be boosted too much, the drive turns too hard. And then there would be problems with the time, that the person has no time to make things properly, and that would cause the problems. In the worst cases, the reputation of the company is lost, and that is a really bad thing for business.

So the other times when philosophers are meaning something else, what they are spoken in the times when they are talking about hard particles. If we are thinking about the planet, what is full of solid rock that means that the planet would be a very tough particle.

But if something would impact it, the damages would be indelible. That particle needs the magma for fixing damages, and if the planet, what is made by solid stone would hit the meteorite it would crush, and nothing fixes the errors. The particle needs soft material for fixing damages in the core. And that thing is visible also in the social relations at private and public life in working and leisure.

If we would kick people out when they are saying something negative nobody dares to tell us if there is something wrong in the field. That means if we cannot listen, henchmen, that they have no time to make their work, or there are no skills or tools that would cause problems. And one of the best ways to isolate self from the truth is just kicking people off if they are giving the information, what is not pleasing us. The same thing is suitable in every relationship. If we would yell the other people and be always tough and probably violent, we must face thing, that we are losing our relationships.

This is the thing about tough things. If we would be too tough there is no chance to fix things. If we are wrong, we can still face our faces in two ways. Another is that we would start to blame every other person in the world, and yell that "we cannot give you even the simplest works to do". And that means that the fault would be made by the henchmen.

And in the best situation is that if the henchman would be some "summer Goofy", who would not continue in that place anymore. Maybe other people understand that the boss would not have time to select the proper workers for holidays, and this might save the reputation of the boss. But the thing is that the boss would have the responsibility to follow the work in the field.

 Maybe somebody would believe that some summer worker makes a bad job, but what if this happens simultaneously. What if the everyday thing is that the yards are full of garbage? Are those things the fault of some summer worker, or would there something in the workplace, that the bosses are always choosing the wrong workers.

How statistics and numbers are telling lies

How statistics and numbers are telling lies

In the beginning, I must say that words and numbers are telling lies, people are telling lies. Big numbers in statistics are a good and very confessing way to tell people, that most of them are behind some decision. And if most of the people are supporting something, the resistance is unnecessary. Who would resist things, what is benefiting the entire area like some new factories, but I will return to that thing later. The information what is delivered could be lies, but they can also be a little bit twisted, which means that the information would deliver in the form that 30% of people are supporting some decision, even if 70% was against that thing.

So as I have written many times before the most effective version for making statistics look like the real thing is to choose the sample that way, that it supports our interests or opinions. This means that we can choose persons for interviewing who are using the products, what we represent. This kind of things are probably some cases done by tobacco industries. The persons, who make interviews are choosing only smokers for the poll, where is "researched" people attitude about smoking. This is the best way to manipulate politics. If 80% of people are smoking, why there should limit that thing?

This is the key element in the manipulation of statistics. Its mission is to confess political leaders that most of the people are supporting some things, and that's why people should keep their mouth shut about things, what are a little bit embarrassing like the smoking disturbs people, who are not smokers. This is one thing, what we can use as an example of the use of statistics in the political field. One of the purposes of those statistics is just rolling the other opinions and researchers.

When we are thinking about the influence of the numbers and ethical marketing, we are normally facing situations, where some merchandise is marketed by using term price is only 4,95€, and that thing is basing the element that 4,95 looks like better than some prize, what is 5 or some other square of numbers. This thing is normally used marketing method. But how the numbers are used in statistics. One version is to say, that 60% of people, who are answering for questions have some kind of opinions, and at the same time is used the big numbers, that there were 261 000 persons, who have interviewed during research.

And there is no other information, like how the selection is done? Who were those 261 000 persons, who were selected for that sample? Big numbers are confessing thing in the public texts, the thing is that big numbers are meant for falling people, who are a different kind of opinions about things. Statistics and Gallup-polls are a fascinating combination when people are trying to influence politics and their decisions.

When we are thinking about one of the best examples when the politics are tried to confess, that some decision is really good are the cases, where the people are confessed, that they should support the building of the new factory. The thing what is told is that the project brings 10 000 new workplaces for the area, and that is a very impressive way to tell things. But one thing is forgotten to tell, and that is the type of jobs.

And actually, one other thing is also forgotten and that is are those workplaces going to hands of local people? That kind of things is forgotten to tell, that what kind of education is needed in those jobs, and also that people can send job applications form everywhere from the country is sometimes forgotten to tell. So this kind of things is normal weapons from marketing things.

About the philosophical schools of thoughts

About the philosophical schools of thoughts

Philosophical schools of thoughts are many times mentioned in the biographies of philosophers. There are found many interesting schools of thoughts, like Neoplatonists, Leipzigeans, Modern German and many more ways to think about things. There is seen many very good ideas, how to put those persons in the boxes, where people can choose, what school of thoughts of philosophy would the philosopher advocate.

And this kind of things are good looking, but if the philosopher self should put self to some of those boxes, that thing would be really difficult. If there would be the allowance to become a philosopher, what depends on the knowledge, what shool advocator the philosopher would be, there would be no philosopher on Earth, who would not have peptic ulcer or who even wrote a single word.

When we are thinking about things like putting people to boxes, that thing would be a nice way to destroy the interest of philosophy in the beginning. Those things like classes of philosophers make studies very hard, and very complicated. And one thing, what people might not understand is that the thing in philosophy is to teach a person to think own thoughts.

Not copy other people thoughts. Even a child can make copies of texts, and in that case, the person must not even understand a thing. I don't speak languages like Japan, but I could copy texts if I can copy marks from one place to another, and I must not understand a thing about that. 

Sometimes some people asked me when I started to write, whose thoughts I will write. In those cases, I don't care a thing, what other people thought. But when some person, who knows everything better than I come to ask things like that, they should tell, what that kind of things are meaning to them? Who cares, who have written those words?

When we are thinking about those words, what is the matter, is the writer of the words some Plato from Ancient Greece, or some modern philosopher? When we are thinking the modern philosophy, we can ask, how modern that thing could be Advocators of the modern philosophy shool is mentioned persons like John Locke, who lived in the last 17th century. That thing means that there are only a few changes in the way of thinking in the knowledge theory. Locke lived about 300 years ago, and that man is still very qualified philosopher.