[Non-SEO]

Wow... if with the females he's also so deep and detailed like in this art philosophy, surely he'll get some good love opportunity, I bet.

[MSL]

 Right.

[MSL]

 20. "The same thought content, the content expressed by me and a professional cartoonist, the content of the latter is much smaller than mine because of the limited artistic level, and I have to cut it out because I can’t draw well."

 This sounds really familiar. There are people who sometimes will say "I wish I could draw better." or "I wish I could write better." because they want to have the power to express better their emotions, ideas and so on.

 21. "Paint what you want to paint; in the end, viewers of art may receive information that may be processed differently."

 Sure. The more complicated is the painting the more different perceptions you'll get. For example, if it's just an apple, most (or all) of them will get it as an apple, but if it's the map of Turkmenistan (without any description, just like colored spot) some people may recognize it as Turkmenistan but for others it will be just a spot or a head of a snail (because it may look like this in the part where is Garabogaz bay, which is a part of the Caspian sea).

 22. "It is impossible for us to guarantee that the content expressed in art will not be "distorted" in the eyes of the appreciators."

 Of course. And not only in art. Even in some political article or some daily conversation.

 23. "Of course, this will also be affected by the artist's art form and artistic level, but we must not forget that the appreciators themselves are also one of the determinants of art content."

 Sure, it's bilateral ("artist - appreciators"). 
 
 To be continued...

[MSL]

 24. "There are many forms of art. " Yes, there are. And also, there is that question (those questions) what's the art exactly, what is pseudoart (pseudo-art; fake art), not real art, is there something that's semi-art (almost art) is something art just because it's in an art gallery, etc.
 25. "In today's society, artists create art only because of money and fame." Well, maybe many or the majority but we can't accuse that all of them are only money-oriented. Of course, in this present capitalistic and neofeudalistic the money (the capital) is one of the most important things, thus the artists, mostly, have to or just do care about it. But probably there are some, at least, artists who do create "pure art" (i. e. something like the "art for art’s sake", in French -- "l’art pour l’art" /which was coined in the early 19th century by the French philosopher Victor Cousin/.) Sometimes I am one of them -- it's when I write some of my poems just because I want to write a good poem and/or to express what I want to.
 I suppose that most of the artists are motivated by a combination of all these: money + fame + pure art creation pleasure + ideas (ideology, fate, etc.) + personal stuff...
 26. "... they will no longer pay attention to the sincere expression of ideological content, and instead express what the appreciators are willing to appreciate." But the wiser ones can (and do) combine it. I have this kind of art attempts (literature related) where I do combine my "ideological content" with form/forms that may satisfy the appreciators (the bigger percentage of the mass, the average reader).
 27. "How many people can "live for themselves, die for themselves"?" Not very attainable. You can see that even the most powerful neomonarchs nowadays (like the present Russia's and China's ones) are not 100% free to do what they want to do because there are some opposing factors or other factors which limit their total control. If you're just an ordinary person, even a businessman, well you may obtain more control over your life, choices and so on but there are many factors which may limit you like nature, local laws, enemies, friends, partners, emotions... So, there are different degrees of "live for myself" -- it may be 0.01/100 to 99.99/100 but never 100/100.
 28. "there is no moon, the world will never have a peaceful day, and all things cannot sleep. " About this (what if there was no moon) we know that according to some scientists the Earth would experience drastic changes in its rotation, tides, and calendar: the days would be shorter, between 6-12 hours, and the years would have over a 1000 days. The water would spread more evenly across the planet, reducing the friction and the high tides. The Earth's axis would also change, affecting the seasons and the climate. The ecosystem would be disrupted, especially for marine life and predators. The nights would be darker, and, of course, there would be no moonlight. But this doesn't mean that all things cannot sleep or will never have a peaceful day.
 29. "Heaven" -- if you mean the paradise, well it's just a religious idea, not proven to exist by the science.
 To be continued...

[Ethnicel]

Wow, men, that's so deep, isn't it...

[Arthur·Jensen]

Right.

Thx for commenting on my philosophical ideas when the translations are shitty(because I used google translation. I was too lazy to translate them myself lol)

[MSL]

 I even didn't finish yet. Plan to finish reading and comment later anyway.

[MSL]

 And I am continuing now.

 30. "the balance value contributed by two individuals is not necessarily 0". Well, maybe we're talking about some dynamical balance? Like at one moment, it's 0.34, then it's 1.00, after this returns to 0.34 and then changes to 0.40 and decreases to 0.00 before jumps to 0.57... Something like this, like some endless balancing, but never like an ended balance.
 31. " the individual is in a state of balance relative to another individual, but It may not necessarily be in equilibrium with other individuals other than these two, so this property is called relativity." Indeed. I doubt it's possible everybody to be balanced towards all of the rest. You can't be balanced equally towards some liberal and some jihadist at the same time, right?