Philosophy Now Forum

It's a worthy question, as it stands Ben. Thanks Belinda James, the deceitful fool, is trying to shift their claim to avoid being held to account. The one ultimately being fooled, themself. Your intellectual dishonesty is being revealed. So transparent. Erm, hello??? That was clearly answering it d...

I'm about to go to sleep [it's night here], but you just further cemented the claim you're unwilling to outright admit. I'll pick up on this, bud. Note: You'll respond to this, but not the yes or no question. Ben JS wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 8:00 pm jamesconroyuk wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 1:40 pm Syn...

Says they wants to follow it all the way down - then refuses to answer a yes / no question, after a series of long winded reactions that skirt the original question. Not accepting your framing isn't swerving. Anyone can see. It's clear who is dodging questions. When someone makes a topic in a philo...

Just for the record, as a moral nihilist myself, I'm curious as to how any of conroy's axioms above pertain to the actual lives we live? So, if perchance, an existential context does pop up in his technical/didactic assessment here please bring it to my attention. That's my "thing" here, ...

It's no holds barred in here...

Just for the record, as a moral nihilist myself, I'm curious as to how any of conroy's axioms above pertain to the actual lives we live? So, if perchance, an existential context does pop up in his technical/didactic assessment here please bring it to my attention. That's my "thing" here, ...

Synthesis doesn’t call existential nihilism logically wrong - it’s structurally irrelevant. [...] actions affirm life, contradicting their “no value” claim in practice, not logic. Is your claim existential nihilists claim there is absolutely no value, James? (I'm asking what you think their claim i...

Answer this directly, if you can - James. Ok, I have 10 minutes spare: For reference - the paper is here: https://www.academia.edu/128894269/Synthesis_Life_is_Good_The_Axiom_for_All_Value Your Claim: Synthesis aligns with nihilism, doesn’t destroy it . Wrong. Synthesis doesn’t aim to “destroy” nihi...

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 9:54 am But life is not an ontological category it's a biological category.

Your usage of 'ontology' is a particular usage i.e. The Ontology of Biology.

Yes - the ontology of biology. You're with me.

This is how the semantic sophistry game works. The pattern is classic:

I define terms precisely.

You ignore the definitions.

I restate calmly.

You gaslight my clarity with subjectivism (“I don’t read it that way”).

I clarify further.

You accuse me of rigidity or dogmatism.

You're responding as if I’ve made a moral or normative critique of nihilism - I haven’t. Let me clarify, again, since it seems you’re still evaluating my position from within the very framework I’m pointing beyond. Synthesis doesn’t say nihilism is “wrong” in a moral or ideological sense. It says th...

Ben - quick clarification, because you’ve misread key points: 1. Plants judging value: I wasn’t implying plants are conscious. Nowhere did I say or suggest that. The point is that even unconscious life exhibits structural evaluation - e.g. phototropism is a basic form of value preference. This suppo...

Logic is not axiomatic, and that is easily provable. So, I will show you exactly why it is rubbish. This is my work. Actually, logic is inherently axiomatic because it relies on foundational principles that define valid reasoning. Without these axioms, logic would have no basis. The structure of lo...

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Apr 29, 2025 6:09 pm Interesting thread, but are you also BigMike or are you just using the same AI writing assistant that he is? The resemblance is uncanny.

BigMike?

What, BigMike Obama???

No I'm real. Here I am: https://independent.academia.edu/JamesConroy22

Okay, you asked for it. It is rubbish. Every form of life is composed of a number of life support systems: Each life support system has a specific job to perform. Do you even remotely know what the job of a mind is or how it is done? Your writing is highly stylized, but not rational. No, it is in f...