Returning to the many-times-exed-out-of Sophist course, I discover the curious word “antilogos” [άντίλογος] which translates as objection or argument against. This is the original “dialectics”. Instead of thesis-antithesis it was logos-antilogos. The first part of this trilogy, the Theaetetus, is concerned with defining what logos is, and it turned out to be “justified true belief” or an account thereof. So antilogos is how that account does not justify such and such a belief.

I’m an arms dealer, okay? If this seems boring or poindextery consider that this is the foundation of political weaponry.

our aim is… to bring the phenomenon of the sophist closer and closer through the individual definitions.

“Vision-adjustment” using these dialogues is a life-ruiner

definite objective characters graspable in the sophist as he ultimately shows himself

After you get laser eye surgery many many people can be seen to be “hucksters”, slick-talkin oily used car salesmen.

When we call something an “-ology” we are indicating it is a justified true belief that can withstand any antilogos. Jews, feminists, etc. fail to withstand thus, hence their disappearing tactic. The typical jew is easily obliterated with innumerable antilogoi. “So what if I BUY respect with indirect BRIBES??” Let’s think of a rhyming slogan to sweep the nation… A niggerjew is a person too!

“the grasping and conceiving of the sophist must be carried out by following the trace.” This mention of a “trace” indicates precisely that the sophist himself, the substantive content thus far, the object, himself provides us with something that makes it possible for us to track him down

Here we are examining the originary meaning of dialectics. (Someone known as the Stranger–the Xenos [ξένος]–is the “Socrates” of this dialogue by the way.) The Stranger lists some ways of thinking what this “tracking” consists of. Filtering, straining, shaking back and forth, sifting, combing, spinning, weaving. He says what they all have in common- “these are all activities which take apart”. The aim is to set in relief. Do you know what a kike is? Because I know what it is. I’ve tried to set that in relief for you. I believe that if this setting into relief were to be somehow mainstreamed there would be machine guns and screaming. Oy vey, my soul is leaving my body and going down to hell!

Keep in mind that this “setting into relief” is another way of speaking of judgment. Sifting is evil.

things that are the same are set off against each other

I.e. in the realm of appearances there’s no difference between a niggerkike and an ordinary person. It takes sifting, shaking around like gold-panning, before something is set in relief. This is a form of extracting.

Do you see what I mean about “understanding concepts”? One has to sift also to extract the meaning of understanding concepts. It’s a form of purification.

“Oh yeah? Well I sift you as a big jerk!” Thinking that hating evil is itself evil can only arise in the mind of someone who isn’t good at extraction.

It’s really easy to extract the physis of a given woman too, once you learn this method. So lots of practical advantages, besides just political. I’m just going to start referring to certain women as “npc wombs” rather than their names. Oh it’s someone who will help me reincarnate into a mindless retard, aren’t you attractive.

Anyway this is kind of a scary way of looking at it

we must maintain 1.) that the determination of λόγος [logos] permeates the entire comportment of the sophist, and 2.) that the object he hunts is the ψυχή [soul] of another person.

That’s why it’s important to understand how to extract using antilogos. People use poorly justified accounts of reality to capture your soul. This is what jews have done to most people, and which only few are immune to.

Like I said in another post about this dialogue, it’s not really about sophists, it’s about the opposite of sophists. When you set them in relief you simultaneously see what they’re not, and what they’re not is something.

Our expression “beautiful” or the like is much too pale and worn out to render the sense of καλώς in any significant fashion.

Sophists sell both logos and καλώς so look out. They sell the semblance of these things. Part of their business is obviously to pretend they aren’t semblances. In tranquilized everydayness you probably don’t often see that these semblances invite antilogos. Online, antilogos might get you blocked.

In the difficult text in question H shows us how to do the following (if you read very slowly and carefully)

what the natural public conception already has at its disposal: the sophists, the philosophers, and the πολιτικοί [politicians] are all muddled together, the one is taken for the other, and no one is capable of distinguishing them. Now this appearance is made still more explicit and sharper, such that when the sophist and the philosopher are brought so close to each other, whatever might be there to distinguish them will distinguish them in a fundamental way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: