2018-08-07 22:41:16 UTC
About nazism and neo-nazism and the like..
As you have noticed i am a white arab, and i am a more serious
computer programmer, and i have invented many scalable algorithms
and there implementations, and you have seen me writing poems and
explaining them more to you, and you seen me doing political philosophy
I am also doing here like philosophy..
I have made you understand that morality is perfection at best
and it is also REALIABILITY(Read my proof of it in my writing bellow)
And I have also encountered what we genetically call call sadists, and
they have said to me that they are not "crazy", and they have said to me
that they are just like Lions that eat humans, and
they are wanting to violenting humans and bring violence, because
they are like Lions. So as you have noticed, saying that they are not
crazy is not "logical", because philosophically we have to make
"smartness" govern us and dictate to us laws etc. so now you are feeling
that "smartness" has also to create "morality" that are laws and
"politics" etc. this is a must, so smartness also will say that those
that are genetically sadists are not "order" and by the measure of
RELIABILITY, smartness will say that they are not "reliable" and that
they are intellectually too "handicaped" , so they are like "crazy" for
RELIABILITY, because morality is reliability, so as you are noticing
even if those that are genetically sadists think of themselves
important and valuable, RELIABILITY that make smartness creates morality
is not in accordance with them.
I am giving you this example to be able for you to notice that
morality(that are also laws and politics etc.) has to be created by
smartness , that means also by smart people.
You will notice also that Hitler too was like genetically a sadist, also
because he was too violent and too domineering, i give you an example:
Hitler has said without any scientific proof that german people were
the smartest or the superior race and he has also started to be violent
with other races.
Here again you notice that Hitler was handicaped as the ones that are
genetically "sadists", because where was the scientific proof that
german people were the superior race on the time of Hitler ? there was
no scientific proof of that in the time of Hitler !
So again you are noticing the behavior of Hitler was not a behavior
of smartness that dictate morality, but it was the too much violence of
the the genetics of Hitler that has dictated nazism.
So as you are noticing with me that we have not to waste our time with
this inferiority of nazism and neo-nazism because it is not rationality
Here is my proof again that morality is perfection at best and it is
You have seen me writing about morality, and hope you have
understood my writing..
Now you have seen me explaining to you that morality is RELIABILITY
or perfection at best.
About capitalism now..
What do you think is capitalism ?
Capitalism is not as neo-nazism that starts from the idea that
it has to be european whites to be "perfection" and it wants to be
european whites, because this is a contradiction ! because perfection of
today needs "imperfections" of for example being more "weak" or "less"
beautiful to be able to be perfection ! this is the contradiction of
nazism and neo-nazism ! nazism and neo-nazism is not understanding it
correctly ! perfection of today is also the weak that needs the strong
and the strong that needs the weak ! and perfection of today has to know
how to accept some level of imperfections to be able to be the right
perfection ! this is what is not understanding neo-nazism and nazism !
this is why neo-nazism and nazism is intellectual inferiority. So now
you are more equipped to understand more what is morality.
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
Yet about philosophy and political philosophy
You have to be smart to do philosophy and political philosophy
You have seen me doing philosophy and political philosophy about morality..
But we have to be smart, because when you will read my previous post
about morality, you will start to understand more and to see more,
this is the goal of philosophy, and as you have noticed i have explained
to you why morality is the concept of RELIABILITY, and it is also
perfection at best, so you are feeling more its essence, so as you have
noticed we are pushed towards absolute perfections that will give total
happiness, so we have to solve our problems to attain like absolute
perfection, this is the essence and the goal of reliability: it is
solving problems, so you are understanding that capitalism too is
constrained by "reliability", because it must be "reliable" to advance
towards the goal that is happiness, so it must be also responsability ,
because capitalism that is composed of today capitalism and of the
future of capitalism must be responsability that knows how to manage our
world and the system.
Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better:
Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political philosophy..
What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly
as i have proved it(read my proof bellow), so the essence of our
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence
"reliability", and as a validation of my model, you will notice that we
are decentralizing "governance", and each of the decentralized parts of
the governance are grouping the "advantages" and trying to minimize the
disadvantages of each of us that do the governance , democracy is also
the same , because democracy is a system that wants to escape a "local"
maximum towards a global maximum like in artificial intelligence, and
democracy is doing it by applying itself to selecting the best among the
actors of politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of
civilization, is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by
optimization, as i have just explained to you.
Now about the essence of reliability
I am still doing philosophy, and you will notice what is smartness..
About the essence of reliability to be able for you to understand
the essence of morality..
What is the essence of reliability ? how reliability must be measured ?
If you say that being reliable is solving problems or not, it doesn't
show what is really reliability, you have to understand philosophically
its essence, i think that reliability is measured also by what is it
to be "happiness", the goal of human is being this "happiness", but
happiness has necessary "requirements", and the "nature" of requirements
is also being like absolute perfection that solves all our problems to
be able to be happiness, and this is why morality is pushed towards
absolute perfection that is absolute reliability that permit us to be
More precision about the essence of morality
I said before that:
"You have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY !"
When i say morality is RELIABILITY, i mean it is the concept of
RELIABILITY, because we can prove it by philosophy, because
the "goal" of human life is to be able be happiness, and to be able
to be happiness is solving like all our problems, and solving problems
is the essence of reliability, so morality is the goal of life
that is solving problems to be able to be "happiness", this is smartness.
I am a white arab and a more serious computer programmer that has
invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations and
i will sell some of them to Microsoft or to Google or to Embarcadero.
Now about the right abstraction of morality
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
This is a good question in philosophy !
It is like mathematics , you have to be more "logical" and be more
"measure" and be more "precise", and being more logical and more measure
and more precise is like doing mathematics !
Why have you seen me defining and explaining to you what is morality ?
It is a very serious subject, and you have to be smart to understand it !
Because philosophy, like the philosophy of the philosopher that is Sir
Immanuel Kant, must be a philosophy that is more "precise" calculations
with logic and measure that has as a goal to make us understand what is
all about morality ! this is what also i am doing ! and i will continu
to do it in front of your eyes..
So my question of today is:
What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?
A more correct abstraction of morality is first a definition
of morality that is sufficient and necessary to be able to see
more the big picture of what is morality, you can define morality as
being a composition of a priori pure moral inferred from reason
and of empirical moral inferred from experience, but i think that
this definition is too much abstraction that doesn't show us the big
picture of what is morality, so we have to be more smart , this
is why you have seen me thinking more smartly to find what is morality,
and you have noticed that my first definition of morality was that
morality is: Performance and reliability or is by just one word
reliability, and i have also defined morality by saying that it is:
perfection and strongness , and i have finally explained and give
another definition of morality that is: morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, this
abstraction is more correct also , i explain:
So when i said that morality is: performance and reliability, is it
a correct definition ?
It is like philosophy that i am doing..
So notice that i have proved it this way:
From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?
Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is: we are
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is
inherent to morality.
So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on
So as you have noticed that this proves the part of my definition
of morality that it is also "performance", now the second part
of the definition of morality is that morality is also "reliability",
and i have "proved" it like this:
What is the essence of reliability ?
What is reliability ?
We can simply say that we measure reliability by the fact that the
"reference" of measure is the fact that we want to solve and it is
also the fact that what we have do solve or not, if it solves that's the
measure that permit us to say that it is reliable, so being the right
"perfection" that solves our problems is also "reliability",
and being this right perfection is also "morality", and being this right
perfection is dependent also on the standard of quality, so to be
a correct morality we have to be high standards of quality to be
able to solve and to succeed, and as i said Morality is contineous
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, and when i
say "that is possible", that means that "compassion" when it is
"possible" is also inherent to morality,so this definition avoids
"extremism" that is too violent. So it
is like mathematics.
So now you are seeing more the big picture of what is morality,
because the essence of reliability is solving problems and
the essence of perfection is also the same , it is solving problems,
and "performance" is inherent to the concept of reliability ,
because to be able to solve problems, reliability must
be also performance or strongness, this is why i said that
the definition of morality can be also only: RELIABILITY ,
or it can be also Performance and reliability or it can
be perfection and strongness,
You can define morality as being a composition of a priori pure moral
inferred from reason and of empirical moral inferred from experience.
You will say that this definition is a "general" definition.
Now what about my definitions of morality ?
We have to be more smart..
I think that morality can not be morality if it is not good
for us ! i think this is inherent to morality, and you will
notice that this "good for us" can be "not" yet absolute "perfection",
but we have to speak about a constraint over morality,
that morality can not be called morality if the living conditions are
too bad ! so this will abstract more correctly the definition
of morality, so now we can say that my definition of morality
as being performance and reliability is correct, also empiricism tells
us that the essence of our life shows us that to be able to "survive"
we have to be also this performance and this reliability, and
when i say reliability is inherent to my definition of morality, that
means it is the "right" reliability because it is also inherent to it,
so my definition is also correct, and this applies also to my other
definitions of morality that i think are correct. So i think my logical
proof is valid
Morality is also "diversity"
I said it to be able to be more correct abstraction,
i give you an example: if you say like neo-nazism that "all" of us that
are not handicaped have to work "hard" to not be a parasite of the
system, i think that's lack
of maturity that doesn't recognize that there is also "constrains"
that we have to deal with, and saying like neo-nazism that all
that are not handicaped have to work hard to not be a parasite is also
an "idealism" that is not correct morality, this is why you have to be
more "maturity" that is pragmatism, that means that is realistic to be
able to be an appropriate morality, today because of our world is
not a perfect world, competitiveness and prioritization dictate
that high IQ individuals can group together (like Google)
and make "much" "much" more money than the less smart individuals,
and also because of Risks and competitiveness we are allowing
the Banks to make more and more money, this is also morality that
takes into account the constrains, but how in this context can we take
more money from the rich and give it to the poorer ? i think
that capitalism such as the one of USA knows also about pragmatism,
because capitalism of USA is a policeman that doesn't want capitalism to
be changed in more favor of the poorer because it fears imperfections
of humans and it fears the "mess" of socialism and it fears
the "mess" of communism and it fears the mess of other ideologies
like neo-nazism or nationalism, this is why capitalistic systems are
"conservatism" of there capitalism.
More about the essence of morality..
We have to be more smart, what is it doing philosophy about
the essence of morality ? it is something really interesting,
and you have seen me doing more philosophy about the essence of
morality, but i was thinking more about philosophy, and i think my
philosophy about the essence of morality makes us understanding the
essence of philosophy in itself ! because by applying yourself at doing
philosophy about morality you will understand more what is philosophy !
understanding what is the essence of political philosophy or philosophy
is something "great" or of a great importance ! now you have to
understand my thinking of philosophy about the essence of morality:
if we say that the essence of morality or what is morality is
that morality is (like was defining it the philosopher Immanuel Kant):
A priori pure moral inferred from reason and it is also empirical moral
inferred from experience, i said that this definition is too much
abstraction, and more than that the goal of my philosophy is also
to find like if morality is more safer ! and since i am a more
serious computer programmer, like programming safety-critical systems,
i was giving also a "high" priority and importance to being "security",
this is why you have seen me defining more the essence of morality as
being that morality can not be called morality if it is too "bad"
living conditions ! so morality i think must be more "decency"
and more "stability" to be able to call it morality ! i think
that's inherent to morality ! so now you are feeling more the essence
of morality that it is also that we call a "civilization" ! so
you have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY ! because the essence
of reliability is measured by the fact that we solve problems and we
call it reliable or not ! and if we solve all our problems we say that
we are absolute reliability ! or that we are absolute perfection !
since i think that perfection has the same essence as reliability, and
there essence is solving problems ! but also i said that
morality that is reliability or perfection at best knows about
stability and that it can not be "easily" instability, because
morality that is instability can not be called morality or civilization
! thus this essence of morality ensure us also of more "responsability"
! so now you are feeling more what is morality and morality is
what also gives laws and politics etc. ! so i have also introduced in
my previous writings what i called "guidance" of "moral", and i said
that guidance of moral is inherent to our essence , guidance of moral
is the fact that we are knowing what is happiness and what is tolerance
and what is compassion , and happiness and tolerance and compassion
permit us to "measure" our morality or our civilization , and notice
with me that happiness is measured also by "reliability" or by what we
call "morality", because we can say that we are more happy "relatively"
to others that are less happy, and from this, morality is inferred, so
this guidance of moral is important because it is like guiding us
to a more appropriate "way", so as you have noticed
my philosophy permits us to feel the essence of morality !
and it permits to be less pessimism about morality !
Yet more philosophy and political philosophy..
What is the essence of an idea ?
I need a more correct abstraction..
So how can we start to solve by thinking ?
Let us look for example at its characteristic..
If we look at its platonism, its reification of the future or past or
present experience is a platonism that can be considered a
characteristic of an idea that can be considered a special
characteristic that makes the idea not considered getting old ! this is
why the idea is really special, and does an idea is material or
immaterial ? i think the immaterial part of an idea exists, because
it reifies a future or past or present experience ! so like
empiricism or rationalism, you have to be both rationalism
and empiricism to be able to be correct morality or correct
thinking ! i think the idea is composed of an immaterial and a
material ! and the proof is that ideas can reify
the experience of the future and that doesn't yet exist(please read
bellow my thoughts as a proof) ! or ideas can be immaterial of a
concept that doesn't yet exist ! so i am not in accordance with the
philosopher Plato that have said that an idea is just an idea that is
immaterial, and also i say that an idea is like more light weight
because i think ideas can be perfected faster(so better) and better than
physical world because ideas has less "constrains" than the physical
world. Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better my philosophy:
In philosophy we have to define correctly what is a "reification"..
And if you have noticed i am also "logical" by considering the fact
that a thing "exists" in the "real" world as being a "reification",
and here is my proof that:
Can we travel back in time?
Here is my thoughts:
It is a very interesting question that demands rationality
and logical thinking to answer it ...
To answer it, i start from a mathematical subject which is the
mathematical arithmetic series.
An arithmetic series has as its main characteristic that
the difference between its terms is constant ... and that its sum
gives (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), a_n being the last term ... now you have
to be smart and notice with me that just before the final step of the
final calculation that resulted as a general equation of the arithmetic
series, the calculation of the arithmetic series required of us a much
bigger time to solve the series .. But as soon as the result (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2 has been reached, the time for the resolution of the
arithmetic series has greatly diminished, therefore the time preceding
the resolution has compressed a lot and allowed us to travel in the the
future quickly, the resolution of the arithmetic series which gave: (a_n
* (a_n + 1)) / 2), it's like a wormhole in the universe permit us to
time travel in the future more quickly, but understand with me that the
time travel in the future that allows you to make the equation of (a_n *
(a_n + 1)) / 2) is relative to the time taken previously by the
arithmetic series just before the discovery of the equation (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2), and thus that the universe is computable and that ultimately
it allowed a time travel and thanks to mathematics that is something
extra-ordinary in itself.
Now I will be more logical and ask myself the following question:
Is there any contradiction in my evidence since a car
is not a machine to allow time travel in the future to
the simple reason that the regions where we will travel and arrive
faster with a car will not have aged in time that corresponds to the
future time in which one arrives by the feet?
I answer this in a more logical way:
Notice that when I said that the mathematical equation
of the arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2) is a time travel machine
that permits to travel in the future, because it is an equation that
also predicts the result more quickly to which one arrives by paper
without this equation, so the time has no hold on the theoretical result
that is predicted faster so that there is no contradiction when it comes
to theoretical prediction. Also when you use this invention That is this
mathematical equation of the arithmetic series: (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2),
it is that you are living the future of the one who has not yet
invented or used this equation and who will arrive there in its future,
therefore it is for this reason that this equation is also a time travel
machine that permits to travel in the future and it has a predictive
So there is no contradiction and therefore we can
consider a car as a time traveling machine to travel in the future, like
the microprocessor, and like several other mathematical inventions
as the mathematical equation of the arithmetic series.
Here is one of my conclusion:
If you are traveling from Montreal to Paris
by airplane, and that another person swims and walk
by foot to Paris, and assume that the person who moves by swiming
and walking wants to see Paris and answer some questions,
And if you travel to Paris by plane and you
answer these questions more quickly since you are going to see Paris
more quickly than the person swimming and and walking , so that
has a predictive character as the mathematical equation of the
arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), since you will be able
to send an email quickly to the person who wants to
to swim and walk to Paris and give him
the answers he's looking for, so you'll be able to see
the answers of his future, and this predictive characteristic
can be considered as a time travel machine that permits to travel in the
so the aircraft and the car are like time travel machines that permit to
travel in the future ... as well as the processors and other
mathematical inventions and others...
Rationality and logic also have a predictive characteristic,
so you must also reason better in a more scientific manner and take into
account the scientific and empirical evidence to
be ahead of others, like a time machine that permits to travel in the
If a first person receives a valuable advice and this advice
of value allows him to better control his future and to succeed in his
life in the future by executing this valuable advice and also it allows
him to predict his future, and besides, imagine that a second person
will receive in its future this valuable advice, then the first person
will be able to guess with CERTITUDE the future of the second person
which will be the consequence of the execution of this valuable advice ,
and not only the first person will have lived the future of the second
person before the second person, since the two will have lived the same
event by the execution of this valuable advice, then in my opinion we
must reason as in fuzzy logic rather than in boolean logic and
notice that since the first person will guess with CERTITUDE
The future of the second person and will also live the future event of
the second person, then those two theoretical and
empirical evidences confirms that the first person has lived the future
event of the second person, so this valuable advice could be called by
mathematical approximation a time machine that permits to travel in the
future, I say "approximation", because we by analogy are as in fuzzy
logic rather than in boolean logic, in addition to that, that the fact
that the first person guesses with CERTITUDE the future of the second
person, this informs in a logical manner that this certainty change our
way of perceiving, for this certainty, even if
it is not travel in the future, it is by approximation
as a journey into the future, for a journey into the future
will lead to the same certainty, and as a result
the same certainties permit us to affirm by approximation
that the valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel
in the future.
Then you understand that I am also a Platonist,
Because you noticed that I can define this time travel in the future as
a platonic event, so when i said that a valuable advice is a time
machine that permits to travel in the future, you understand that it
makes us live platonically the future of others, and since I am a also
Platonist, I affirm that a valuable advice is a time travel machine
that permits us to travel in the future of others since time has no hold
on the ideas, and that the same idea through time inside two
persons, is the same idea, therefore my proof is made that the valuable
advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the future.
When you imagine a circle, I asserts that not only can you imagine the
circle in material or matter but also in immaterial, as was my proof
that I have just given you , this immaterial essence of the idea is
reified by our reason, and that is the reason that gives it existence.
So this in my opinion is sufficient proof that the idea exists because
we feel it by our reason and it pays homage to our beloved philosopher
It is this reification of the immaterial essence of the idea
by reason which gives the necessary and even sufficient approximation to
call even a valuable advice a time machine that permits to travel in the
Then since the idea exists and since a sensation also exists,
then one can not also distinguish an idea from the generated sensation
by the execution as an automaton of a valuable advice at a time t1 and a
time t1 + t2, and since an idea does not age then we can affirm that
valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the
future, and the valuable advice has a predictive characteristic, because
the approximation is sufficient since we are not in boolean logic but in
Amine Moulay Ramdane.