Posts from Forum

It seems like a competition has really started here – who can create the largest map. I no longer want to participate in this.

The mind is one of the subtle mental shells covering the soul – the living being itself.

These are just words. Let me rephrase the question. How do you determine who is smarter between two people?

2R55Max, ariputra:
The art of a good orator is to convey a thought to the interlocutor, using a minimum of text and filler. It's really not enjoyable to read your lengthy texts. You get a reaction from many like:

It seems like a competition has really started here – who can write the longest text. I don't want to participate in this anymore.

The funniest thing is that everyone will stick to their own opinion. No one ever proves anything to their opponent in such arguments, especially with the way they present their thoughts: "You don't understand anything (idiot, go away, you're stupid - choose the appropriate word:D), let me explain it to you." All these lengthy posts are just wasted effort, but it's entertaining for outside observers.

These are just words. Let me rephrase the question. How do you determine who is smarter between two people?

2R55Max, ariputra:
The art of a good orator is to convey an idea to the listener using a minimum of text and fluff. Your lengthy texts are really not enjoyable to read. You often get a reaction like:

You're right, I'm not much of an orator, and the way I present things leaves much to be desired, but I write about what interests me, and I'm not trying to prove anything or convince anyone. I'm not forcing anyone to read if they're not interested.

If something interests me, I will read it regardless of whether there is a lot of text or not.

But the smarter one is the one who doesn't think they are smarter, that is, the one who is more humble and modest.

Added 16 minutes later

The funniest thing is that everyone will stick to their own opinions :) No one ever proves anything to the other person in such arguments, especially with the way they present their thoughts: "You don't understand anything (idiot, go away, stupid - choose as needed:D), I'll explain it to you now." All these long posts are just wasted effort, but it's fun for outside observers :)

If at least one person is interested, then it's not in vain.

That was my only insult, and even then because I was frustrated and couldn't hold back.

You're right, in such an argument, everyone will stick to their own opinions because it's not really an argument in the true sense of the word. In the past, the person who lost the argument had to admit it and accept the point of view of the person they lost to. But now, even if "I" lose, even if "I" know inside that "I" am wrong, "I" will never admit it because of pride. But in this case, there is no goal to prove anything; I simply want to share what interests me, and I'm not forcing it on anyone. If you disagree, that's fine.

Message from Dirty_Player:
That's all just words. I'll rephrase the question. How do you determine who is smarter between two people?

Teleport on Friday with caster or ihtiandr?

2R55Max, ariputra:
The art of a good speaker is to convey an idea to the listener, using a minimum of text and filler. Your lengthy texts are really not enjoyable to read.

Each person's communication style is different. A forum is for communication and discussion of various topics; if there is at least a dialogue between people, it means it is interesting to them, and the opinion of those who are not interested in reading is not taken into account, as they only interfere with the discussions of those who enjoy it in the form it is presented. You can choose not to read and not go into details, just like with other existing topics.

The fact that you write and constantly emphasize the length and volume suggests that you misunderstand what the art of a speaker is. Apparently, for you, understanding oratory lies in a message of no more than 10 lines. LOL.

The expression "oratory" has more than one meaning. Your understanding – that it is the ability to convey the necessary information with a minimum of words – does not take into account the types and forms of oratory (I will not list them, as scientific, complex textual explanations probably scare your mathematical view of the essence of this expression).

Any speech consists of three parts: introduction, argument, and conclusion.

1. The introduction should include a brief summary of the idea whose validity will be proven (a quote from the interlocutor) in the second part of the speech. There are various types of introductions, and its choice depends on the overall goal and the audience to which the speaker is addressing.

2. The main part of the speech is the argument.
- It can be of three types, or perhaps more; I don't know any others, and it can combine all three:
a) logical, when the speaker logically proves the validity of the idea to the audience
b) emotional, which requires great dedication and acting skills.
c) informational, with the provision of evidence based on reference material and links.

3. Conclusion, where the main ideas of the speech and proposals are briefly summarized again.

In short, oratory is a rather complex structure that requires intellectual and emotional creativity in public speaking from the speaker.

A minimum cannot be any proof if it does not repeat itself with precision several times. And similar expressions, but with different words, carry different semantic loads when addressing listeners, as each word has its own "absolute" meaning, as well as, moreover, synonymous and antonymous... subtexts.

And those who simply find it difficult to engage their brains (in relation to discussing textual material) and analyze long messages (their battery probably runs out quickly, and laziness knocks on their side) – read them in 3-5 passes; it will help :) or don't read them.

Message from Mizrael:
The funniest thing is that everyone will stick to their own opinion.

For example, I understood ariputra in many ways, and he understood me in many ways, although the views were initially from different concepts. There were disagreements, but I understood something, and he understood something, but a normal form of presentation and the absence of anger and sarcasm led to understanding and resolution of the dispute.

The art of a good orator lies in conveying a thought to the listener using a minimum of text and unnecessary words. Your lengthy texts are really not enjoyable to read.

It seems this only provoked our orators into writing even longer pieces.

Okay... I wanted to ponder this question.
Why are some people kind, and others are not?
Is it possible to learn to be kind?
Does a person's kindness depend on the number of hardships they face in life, on the one hand?
And on the other hand, if a person has no hardships, does that make them kinder?
What gives a person the strength to be kind?
Is a person born with an inherent "gene" for kindness, or does upbringing play a decisive role in learning to be kind?
Is there a difference between a "well-mannered" person and a "kind" person, and who is better?

What you write and constantly emphasize – the kilometers and lengthy texts – indicates that you don't understand what constitutes the art of oratory. Apparently, for you, understanding oratory means conveying a message in no more than 10 lines. LOL.

The art of oratory lies in making people enjoy listening (in our case, reading). If people don't want to listen (read), then that's a reason to think about it. Notice that I'm not the only one pointing out the lengthy texts.

Any thought can be condensed, leaving only the most important points. A simple example. A thesis that is defended at an institute consists of 100+ pages (not for everyone, but for many), and it needs to be defended in 6-7 minutes. It works.

Why are some people kind, and others are not?

Get ready to read :D

Pash, it's not that difficult to answer here, but the answer can only be given through the interpretation of the writings of the Church Fathers (those who interpret the meaning of the words written in the Bible). If you are genuinely interested, I can answer your questions.

Pash, it's not that hard to answer here...

Max, I'm interested in opinions:)

The art of an orator lies in making people enjoy listening to them (in our case, reading). If people don't want to listen (read), then it's a reason to think about it. Notice, I'm not the only one pointing out the lengthy texts.

Have you ever wondered why more people aren't interested in reading Orthodox literature at home? According to your conclusions, I should focus on the fact that everyone is an atheist.
Why is it that when I go to church, I see a sea of people, and the flow is endless? There are no more than 1.7 million people in the city, and each church has a similar situation, and there are many of them. I've noticed that a very large number of people attend, but none of my friends or acquaintances talk about it.
The same is true in our case: some criticize the lengthy texts, others decide to remain silent, and a third group responds in the same way.

Added 3 minutes later

Max, I'm interested in opinions:)

There is an explanation for why there are evil people, why there are good people, and there is a way to transform from evil to good. But this is a whole "science," so to answer specifically, and most importantly, to understand, you need to read about a third of the forum thread for a simple initial understanding. :)
I didn't mean to write something myself that would be a third of the forum thread:D

Why are some people good, and others not?
Is it possible to learn to be good?

"How good you feel after a meal! How content you are with yourself and the world! Some people, based on their own experience, claim that a clear conscience makes a person cheerful and satisfied, but a full stomach does just as well, and moreover, it's cheaper and requires less effort. After a substantial, well-digested meal, you feel like such a generous, tolerant, noble, and kind person!
It's strange how much our digestive organs control our minds. We can't think, we can't work if our stomach doesn't want to. It controls all our passions and emotions. After a pork chop with eggs, it says: work; after a steak and porter: sleep; and after a cup of tea (two spoons per cup, steeped for no more than three minutes), it commands the brain: now get up and show what you're capable of. Be eloquent, profound, and gentle. Look with a clear eye at nature and life. Spread the white wings of trembling thought and fly, like a godlike spirit, above the noisy light, soaring between the long rows of burning stars towards the gates of eternity.
After hot pastries, it says: be dull and mindless, like an animal in a field, be a brainless creature with an indifferent gaze, in which there shines no life, no imagination, no hope, no fear, no love. And after brandy, consumed in the right amount, it commands: now fool around, laugh, and dance so that your neighbors laugh; babble nonsense, make meaningless sounds; show how helpless a poor creature becomes when its mind and will are drowned, like kittens, in a few gulps of alcohol.
We are all miserable slaves to our stomachs. Don't strive to be moral and just, friends! Carefully observe your stomach, feed it with reason and care. Then satisfaction and virtue will reign in your heart without any effort on your part; you will become a good citizen, a loving husband, a tender father – a noble, pious person." J.K. Jerome

Okay... I wanted to ponder this question.
Why are some people kind, and others are not?
Is it possible to learn to be kind?
Does a person's kindness depend on the number of hardships they face in life, on the one hand?
And on the other hand, if a person has no hardships, does that make them kinder?
What gives a person the strength to be kind?
Is a person born with a "gene" for kindness, or does upbringing play a decisive role in learning to be kind?
Is there a difference between a "well-mannered" person and a "kind" person, and who is better?

Pasha, in your case, it's easy, just change your last name to DOBROvin – that's it.

Why are some people kind, while others are not?
Is it possible to learn how to be kind?

There is no pure good in nature, just as there is no pure evil. It's like yin and yang in Chinese philosophy - they harmoniously complement each other and transition into one another, with yin already containing yang, and yang already containing yin. After realizing concepts such as God and fate, everything becomes extremely simple and clear - everything that happens is right.