for further info

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003832

  The above definition confirms that language is prone to miscommunication between the people; for its purpose is not in communication but stating different perceptions. Language use is another utterance in nature perceived differently by both the speaker and the listener. Arthur Schopenhauer said that ‘‘the world is my idea’ ….   that what he knows is not a sun and an earth , but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself.” He meant that all the thing we interact with in this world is in fact just the idea imputed by different senses projected only in the brain. Thus the utterances are just another input to the listener, which is susceptible to perception of the perceiver, the individual. As the language use is another form which is vulnerable against the perception of the listener, it’s the mode of expression only for the speaker, or in the case of writing, the writer, and whether another individual understands such utterances relies heavily on the perception of that individual.

  Bearing that the language is susceptible to the individuals, language as perception fits how people communicate. When a person sees a flower, he interprets color, shape, and other visible (or olfactory) characteristics of that flower. He expresses these characteristics by speech or by writing. Assuming the listener or the reader realize this language as communication tool, they either only agree or disagree and approve or disapprove of that statement. Through reasoning they do this and by that means through deductive or inductive methods. When the receiver interprets the given language use through these methods, we encounter miscommunication. The deliverer only claimed, such things like color and shape, but the people generally assume other characteristics acquired by their previous experiences/ perceptions. “We really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words,” Nietzsche said. For example, the statement, “I think” can be interpreted in numerous ways: that it is I who think, and thinking operation requires some sort of subject that things, that there is an ego for which ‘I think” or that I know what thinking is. However, the essence of the expression, “I think” is just that “I think.” And the listener or the reader should not and cannot assume the reason or the state of which the deliverer is in, for they are above the perception of one and these assumptions of language have caused miscommunication.

  This sort of relinquishing the assumptions and being at the interaction of different perceptions, when different perceptions clash, may be most effectively explained in situations when talking to a foreigner when the “language” – as in French or Korean- is different. When a French man says, “bonjour,” –under presupposition that we do not understand French – he intended to say “hello,” and he did say “hello” under his perceptions. But to us, it brings no assumptions of what he means. It is just an utterance of which bears absolutely no meaning. The clash between perceptions causes different results, in language, miscommunication. If the perceptions of perceiver are indeed ours and ours only, as Fichte said, “As both, I must be what I am, absolutely by myself alone – by myself originate conceptions, by myself produce a condition of things lying beyond these conceptions.” Where the conceptions are only in existence because of my existence, I as an existence creates this world beyond my existence. Thus where perceptions of mine are justified this so-called language for communication is invalid.

  This language for communication had blind-folded the mankind, and caused different unnecessary conflicts. As the fox in the Little Prince said that “Language is the source of misunderstandings,” trusting the language solely as if it was the tool for communication, had caused misunderstandings far beyond another, when in fact, it was no more than mere expression of different perceptions. Language had provided mindless assumptions derived from the utterance of others and will continue to. However, what is important is that language is a form of expression of such perception. Difference in perception and the difference in expression cause the language to work differently.

  By this I am not challenging the purpose of language and how it was created but the fact in which trust in this utterances which are just our perceptions had caused many miscommunications and its purpose to be marred. And the misunderstanding of the purpose of language now have caused the gap of the misunderstandings to be wider and excluded us from the perception we must receive as the result of language interaction. So the moment we eliminate this misunderstanding, we eliminate the misunderstanding and fabrication, and free ourselves into experiences through our existence to be ours and thus realize the purpose of language is mere expression. In order to accurately catch at least the intended facts of which the deliverer is stating, the information or the thoughts, the acceptance of language not as a tool for communication for you but the expression of the perceptions of the writer or the speakers is vital.

-plz forgive the errors in grammer, spelling, and use of terms-

It is evident that the nature of freedom is the absence of limits. By this the goal is not to complain the situations in which there are limits but rather how those situations are not actually free. To Hegel, to be “free” is to be “free by Nature,” and in a “state of nature” which “is assumed in which mankind at large are in the possession of their natural rights with the unconstrained exercise and enjoyment of their freedom. (p.572)” The freedom is acted when freedom itself is enjoyed. This brings an inquiry, ‘how can one get the freedom first to enjoy it, when the way of exercising freedom is to enjoy it.’ The fact is that freedom is above the matter of human enjoyment. One does not usually feel happiness for what he has but rather disappointed at things one does not have. This is especially true when dealing with metaphysical concepts such as freedom. Since metaphysical concepts are intangible and insensible, they are hard to grasp as a form of enjoyment. Such activation of freedom suggested by Hegel is not the real case.

Then how exactly is the freedom realized? “The great point is that Freedom in its Ideal conception does not have subjective will and caprice for its principle, but the recognition of the universal Will, and that the process by which Freedom is realized is the free development of its successive stages. (579)” Here, Freedom does not have a subjective touch of any kind. The realization of the true universal Will is also the realization of the free development of the man. The Will of the Spirit is the source of which the history is manifested and since history is the realization of freedom, it is also the guide of the freedom as well. This Spirit guides history towards Freedom, working the events to meet the end. However, it is very stubborn to connect the events through abstract concept. Such history can be absent of mankind, with no necessity of it. Also, it degrades the significance of freedom by removing from the standard of the man, a goal for the Spirit, a role which mankind cannot play, (but only seem to play).

There are many cases in reality when freedom is not yet present, the fact whether this will change uncertain. To define freedom as a state which one can will something within one’s capability, all is indeed free, for all we can do are within our capability but all we cannot do are just not within our capability. But to define freedom as a state which enables the will to be achieved or to be free from the restraints of life, all men are not free. People die achieving only few of the things dreamed; people are restrained in their characteristics and life style. People are left to decide numerous choices, sometimes taking the road not taken, but are pressured by millions of socio-economic factors and certain personal, religious or social doctrines which eventually leaves us dead.

The only way to be actually free is to live with no will to achieve and be dead. Thus no man is actually free, for they are left with restrictions upon living on this land. The realization of the Spirit is no greater than a UFO on the sky; you will know the truth of the existence of extraterrestrials but no one will trust you. Complete freedom is impossible and to call part freedom as freedom seems stubborn, for some degree we are capable within our capabilities, but only not having liberty from the nature. This was just nowhere to be found in Hegelian concepts, where man was subordinated to the being of Spirit, not being man for man himself.

-plz forgive the errors in grammer, spelling, and use of terms-

  You’re not at all like my rose. You’re nothing at all yet. No one has tamed you and you haven’t tamed anyone.  You’re the way my fox was. He was just a fox like a hundred thousand others. But I’ve made him my friend, and now he’s the only fox in all the world.

 -Little Prince to the million same roses-

Skepticism is a perspective of seeing the world to be presented by the different idea’s of different individuals. Therefore, there is no absolute truth to begin with, since all the so-called truths, not only susceptible to anti-theses, are prone to different people. Thus skeptics refuse to believe anything – although this may vary depending on what skepticism you’re in – that is believed. For absolute skeptic( who does not believe in any facts) is faced with a counter-argument: why would a skeptic eat and breathe and live as we do, for he won’t know whether these are good or bad(or even necessary)? They (the pre-skeptics of Greece) defended themselves by saying that they live by conforming to what seems right or necessary. Although this is a giving in towards  a knowledge, this is mere extension of what seems necessary, thus belief.

Upon this, it seems that Skepticism is no theorem but a mere belief like the facts they were skeptical at. However, a true skeptic would consider to be skeptical toward his own skepticism, rather than being arrogant of his superior “logic” which he demounce others with. Yet, a skepticism is a form of thinking that is prone to another skepticism, and he would find that as long as there is no truth in the world, there are also truths to begin with in order to construct his own skepticism.

 Thus, rather than to deny every form of facts and knowledge, the being would try to acknowledge the “truth” as seen and only to argue for basic purposes within the facts. And accept all beliefs as they are.

However, when it comes to our lives, there are many who argue against our beliefs claiming that they are foolish or illogical. They, mediocre skeptics always question the hypothetical situations and others opinion. For example, when a person says “I want world peace,” it is a fact or a perception of truth that, fortunately the person wants peace in the world. But those pseudo-skeptics say “But what if, you are tortured by your friends, family, and government and died? Would you still ask for world peace?” Although it seems that this question attacks the person’s claim of wanting world peace, its hypothetical situation, although possible, was not in the person’s conscious thought when he said he wanted “world peace.” It is not denying the truth of the concept “world peace” but rather deny the opinion, far less of the truth.  

 So, for a skeptic with a cognition to question far above only its meaning of skepticism(not believing), this pseudo-skeptic is an ignorant fool whom have created a wall against all knowledge. What the pseudo-skeptic does is trying to deny only opinions and beliefs of others, not the implication within the opinions and the  beliefs. Those who try to deny the opinion and the beliefs is like denying a Christian person for saying he is Christian. A dreamer of reason.

-plz forgive the errors in grammer, spelling, and use of terms-

Ways to solve

First, get elected as president.
Second, do not have kids or show any happiness (the people get jeolous if not)
Third, fire most of the congressmen.
Fourth, make the capitol easily accessible by both the congressmen and the people

or the shortcut, become a dictator, kill or remove the whinners of the country, destroy geological states and make them into one. Then in between, do something about the economy, right before the exile would be appropriate

  The people of  SK thinks they are above the capabilities of the government, and the same people becomes the congressmen and the president. Also, the same person is writing this post, waiting to be killed in the community. We should all know

“Know thyself,” by Socrates.

we think we know above the government officials, the police or even the firefighters, but the essential for all of us is to be selfish. The people are selfish to achieve the best for the country so they would benefit from it. The political counterparts are selfish to achieve the best for the country or the best for themselves, the choice which many miscalculate that the choice which is best for themselves will be good for the people, too. Then the people without taking the responsibilities that they chose them to be their officials condemn them to fall from the bridge into the hurl of river while not asking them to step back. Sometimes it seems that all the people with internet access are skilled professionals into every bits of the existance. The experts of every field, they never had the experience of being the politicians undergoing the temptations for the wealth of their own. We(maybe the “experts” would know but not me) won’t know what they would pick, for the choices are indeed difficult. The politicians are also the people of this nation, the elected officials, while their choices may be rotten, the way to change can only be accomplished not through (examples are true cases) throwing axes at judges, fighting with the police in the fire, jamming the traffic in the CBD of the Seoul, the capital of South Korea. People are on one side, conflicting the government on the other. Then the question would be:

‘What is the characteristic more appropriate for the government, working for the people or working for the nation.’

 

-plz forgive the errors in grammer, spelling, and use of terms-