Proposal for difference between types of pattern

[Impenitent]

You do realize we are using words, right? Definitions of words are so we can understand one another, you do understand this simple concept, right?

I don't know about Steve Jobs or what that's supposed to mean

I understand that simple concept more than you realize, as you completely missed this simple reference...
You have misquoted me, that was TVoT. Here, see above, I have corrected it for you.

My mistake... ask Lacan about definitions...

Everything you have learned has come from words,

what words fully describe sensory perceptions?
That all depends on how much work you put into conveying such perceptions. I'd say that by this day and age their are sufficient words in the dictionary, for you to convey that of your perceptions.


really? completely describe what you see on the screen at this moment... but perhaps you too can join the Vienna circle...

you, it would seem, just choose to ignore the ones you don't like, such that then it would seem that you know not, of what you say. But I can see you as part of the: 'Some that define it to be everything that most people believe in,' or in other words the group of: "knowledge, not!

the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...
That's such bullshit, your logic is flawed, as it does not necessarily follow, as one has neither necessarily read ALL philosophy texts nor necessarily remembered ALL that they've read, verbatim.

those who are familiar with the philosophers I mention understand their arguments... I bet you had fun with Nietzsche as well (and no, I am no Nietzsche, but he especially did like to quote philosophers - as most all philosophers do...)



The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two.

more than a few words are seldom necessary



To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?[/color]


-Imp

play what game? I don't "know" anything, but I have studied philosophy for years... if you want to read some of my longer philosophical arguments check out the older threads on the ILP boards that I used to moderate...(google my name and ilp)...

I find philosophical substance without reference isn't that substantial...

by the way, you can usually google the names that I mention and find links or brief summaries of their work if you think my references are in error... e.g. do your own homework ...

-Imp

[The Voice of Time]

testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...

I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...

if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?

what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?

-Imp

There is no scrutiny, you have not made a point that is anything else than blank denial. And it's not scepticism, it's extremist scepticism, it is beyond the point where scepticism makes sense.

And btw you cannot "claim scepticism", scepticism isn't an argument, it is a way of thinking.

[The Voice of Time]

I think what you are talking about is the difference between pure and applied maths.

No I'm not. Applied Math is as much Math as Theoretical Math. You still use the logical system and do not work by natural phenomena, not at least before after you've abstracted that natural phenomena into the logical system.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This round:
Imp in blue
SoB in Green

My mistake... ask Lacan about definitions...

Are not his words as to definitions, definitions themselves?

Everything you have learned has come from words,

what words fully describe sensory perceptions?

That all depends on how much work you put into conveying such perceptions. I'd say that by this day and age their are sufficient words in the dictionary, for you to convey that of your perceptions.

really? completely describe what you see on the screen at this moment... but perhaps you too can join the Vienna circle...
I could take the time to do so, but your analysis would be suspect, due to your conflict of interest, in doing so.

you, it would seem, just choose to ignore the ones you don't like, such that then it would seem that you know not, of what you say. But I can see you as part of the: 'Some that define it to be everything that most people believe in,' or in other words the group of: "knowledge, not!

the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...

That's such bullshit, your logic is flawed, as it does not necessarily follow, as one has neither necessarily read ALL philosophy texts nor necessarily remembered ALL that they've read, verbatim.

those who are familiar with the philosophers I mention understand their arguments... I bet you had fun with Nietzsche as well (and no, I am no Nietzsche, but he especially did like to quote philosophers - as most all philosophers do...)
And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them, you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two.

more than a few words are seldom necessary

To what? To snipe someone, if only in your own mind? Or to edify? Which do you concern yourself with the most? Why are you truly here? Whom do you serve?

To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?[/color]

play what game? I don't "know" anything, but I have studied philosophy for years...

I say you are playing a game now, so you don't know your name, or where you were born, or what you age is? You do not know the earth to be a spheroid? Or do you believe it to be flat?

if you want to read some of my longer philosophical arguments check out the older threads on the ILP boards that I used to moderate...(google my name and ilp)...

So I guess the boys of Rush, at any particular concert venue, just play a few notes of each song and say, "if you want to hear the entire song, buy our album." If you're going to participate here at all, why not actually participate, where you actually say something for everyone, and not just you're, so called, in crowd? It seems like a game to me; google me? Really! It seems like the, "pat yourself on the back," game.

I find philosophical substance without reference isn't that substantial...

Yet I can quote, countless times were you make comment without reference.

by the way, you can usually google the names that I mention and find links or brief summaries of their work if you think my references are in error... e.g. do your own homework ...

I've attended University and was majoring in Philosophy. But unlike some here, that only see philosophy as the recounting of their study, I see that it is an ongoing process, and that ones study is only to be used as archaic example, so as to know how to proceed with their own philosophy.

[Impenitent]

And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them,

no, that is your assumption

you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

if you had read Nietzsche, you would know.

The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two.
more than a few words are seldom necessary
To what? To snipe someone, if only in your own mind? Or to edify? Which do you concern yourself with the most? Why are you truly here? Whom do you serve?

your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...

To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?[/color]

play what game? I don't "know" anything, but I have studied philosophy for years...

I say you are playing a game now, so you don't know your name, or where you were born, or what you age is? You do not know the earth to be a spheroid? Or do you believe it to be flat?

if you want to read some of my longer philosophical arguments check out the older threads on the ILP boards that I used to moderate...(google my name and ilp)...

So I guess the boys of Rush, at any particular concert venue, just play a few notes of each song and say, "if you want to hear the entire song, buy our album." If you're going to participate here at all, why not actually participate, where you actually say something for everyone, and not just you're, so called, in crowd? It seems like a game to me; google me? Really! It seems like the, "pat yourself on the back," game.

you are the only one playing a game... as I previously said, your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...

I find philosophical substance without reference isn't that substantial...

Yet I can quote, countless times were you make comment without reference.

by the way, you can usually google the names that I mention and find links or brief summaries of their work if you think my references are in error... e.g. do your own homework ...

I've attended University and was majoring in Philosophy. But unlike some here, that only see philosophy as the recounting of their study, I see that it is an ongoing process, and that ones study is only to be used as archaic example, so as to know how to proceed with their own philosophy. [/quote][/quote]

it seems the recounting of your studies is very lacking...

reinventing the wheel is so philosophical.

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them,

no, that is your assumption

This is the most stupid thing you've ever said, Here it is complete:

...those who are familiar with the philosophers I mention understand their arguments

...you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them,

no, that is your assumption

God that's dumb. Is English your second language? In your 'first' statement above, you're saying that you believe those philosophers words to be valid. While clearly I'm saying that I may see them as invalid. Only a fool believes that the philosophers he's aligned with, speaks to everyone in the same way. You assume your blanket statements as to a particular philosopher, applies to all students of philosophy. You have no right to make these assumptions, as they are ill informed.

you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

if you had read Nietzsche, you would know.

And where in the hell did this come from? I think we are having a serious communication breakdown, as you have not corrected my words above, 'that you are not a Nietzschean,' and you separated that which belonged together.
This:

And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them, you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

That which I have changed to cyan highlight above, should not be taken apart, as it conveys one idea.

SoB: The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two.
Imp: more than a few words are seldom necessary
SoB: To what? To snipe someone, if only in your own mind? Or to edify? Which do you concern yourself with the most? Why are you truly here? Whom do you serve?
Imp: your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...
No, but your ill-informed responses are. You're beginning to seem, an idiot.

To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?[/color]

play what game? I don't "know" anything, but I have studied philosophy for years...

I say you are playing a game now, so you don't know your name, or where you were born, or what you age is? You do not know the earth to be a spheroid? Or do you believe it to be flat?

if you want to read some of my longer philosophical arguments check out the older threads on the ILP boards that I used to moderate...(google my name and ilp)...

So I guess the boys of Rush, at any particular concert venue, just play a few notes of each song and say, "if you want to hear the entire song, buy our album." If you're going to participate here at all, why not actually participate, where you actually say something for everyone, and not just you're, so called, in crowd? It seems like a game to me; google me? Really! It seems like the, "pat yourself on the back," game.

you are the only one playing a game... as I previously said, your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...
Yes, I can see, that you can only see, another's ignorance, contained in yours. That you are not smart enough to see a communication breakdown.

I find philosophical substance without reference isn't that substantial...

Yet I can quote, countless times were you make comment without reference.

by the way, you can usually google the names that I mention and find links or brief summaries of their work if you think my references are in error... e.g. do your own homework ...

I've attended University and was majoring in Philosophy. But unlike some here, that only see philosophy as the recounting of their study, I see that it is an ongoing process, and that ones study is only to be used as archaic example, so as to know how to proceed with their own philosophy.

it seems the recounting of your studies is very lacking...
Says the megalomaniac, as someone fails to agree with him. I'm sorry for you!
reinventing the wheel is so philosophical.
Philosophy is not necessarily contained in history books, rather they are a testament on how those of the past proceeded, 'in their time.' Often they are merely a guide for those philosophers of the future, as each age brings new things to consider. Anyone that cannot see this, is far from being a philosopher, rather they are a mere parrot, living in the antiquated past, never learning or growing, much like a dusty recording device.

[Impenitent]

And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them,

no, that is your assumption
This is the most stupid thing you've ever said, Here it is complete:

...those who are familiar with the philosophers I mention understand their arguments

...you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them,

no, that is your assumption

God that's dumb. Is English your second language? In your 'first' statement above, you're saying that you believe those philosophers words to be valid. While clearly I'm saying that I may see them as invalid. Only a fool believes that the philosophers he's aligned with, speaks to everyone in the same way. You assume your blanket statements as to a particular philosopher, applies to all students of philosophy. You have no right to make these assumptions, as they are ill informed.[/quote]

where does it say that I (or anyone else) believe anything? where does it say that I think anyone's arguments are valid?

you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

if you had read Nietzsche, you would know.

And where in the hell did this come from? I think we are having a serious communication breakdown, as you have not corrected my words above, 'that you are not a Nietzschean,' and you separated that which belonged together.
This:

And as you assume, that because someone has read them, that it is necessary that they agree with them, you profess that you're not a Nietzschean. Why is that, because you don't agree? Case in point! Your argument defeats itself.

That which I have changed to cyan highlight above, should not be taken apart, as it conveys one idea.


Where did I say that I did or didn't agree with Nietzsche's points and critiques? where did I say that reading a philosopher necessarily means you agree with them?

and if you had ever read Nietzsche, you'd know it was a question of style...

SoB: The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two.
Imp: more than a few words are seldom necessary
SoB: To what? To snipe someone, if only in your own mind? Or to edify? Which do you concern yourself with the most? Why are you truly here? Whom do you serve?
Imp: your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...
No, but your ill-informed responses are. You're beginning to seem, an idiot.

Thank you for your insults and personal attacks...

To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?[/color]

play what game? I don't "know" anything, but I have studied philosophy for years...

I say you are playing a game now, so you don't know your name, or where you were born, or what you age is? You do not know the earth to be a spheroid? Or do you believe it to be flat?

if you want to read some of my longer philosophical arguments check out the older threads on the ILP boards that I used to moderate...(google my name and ilp)...

So I guess the boys of Rush, at any particular concert venue, just play a few notes of each song and say, "if you want to hear the entire song, buy our album." If you're going to participate here at all, why not actually participate, where you actually say something for everyone, and not just you're, so called, in crowd? It seems like a game to me; google me? Really! It seems like the, "pat yourself on the back," game.

you are the only one playing a game... as I previously said, your ignorance of philosophy is not my problem...
Yes, I can see, that you can only see, another's ignorance, contained in yours. That you are not smart enough to see a communication breakdown.


I see (and have seen) it far too frequently

I find philosophical substance without reference isn't that substantial...

Yet I can quote, countless times were you make comment without reference.


I haven't the hubris to think all my comments made philosophical substance...

by the way, you can usually google the names that I mention and find links or brief summaries of their work if you think my references are in error... e.g. do your own homework ...

I've attended University and was majoring in Philosophy. But unlike some here, that only see philosophy as the recounting of their study, I see that it is an ongoing process, and that ones study is only to be used as archaic example, so as to know how to proceed with their own philosophy.

it seems the recounting of your studies is very lacking...
Says the megalomaniac, as someone fails to agree with him. I'm sorry for you!



again, thank you for the name calling... it is too bad you didn't stick with your studies as you would have found that the study of philosophy is a recognition of that which had gone prior before inventing a "new" theory... the "new" is rarely there...



reinventing the wheel is so philosophical.
Philosophy is not necessarily contained in history books, rather they are a testament on how those of the past proceeded, 'in their time.' Often they are merely a guide for those philosophers of the future, as each age brings new things to consider. Anyone that cannot see this, is far from being a philosopher, rather they are a mere parrot, living in the antiquated past, never learning or growing, much like a dusty recording device.[/quote]

you almost had it...

but you know how the past proceeded because you know the "guide"...

oh wait...

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

You have been spouting BS since the beginning, so back to the beginning to show how nonsensical you've been.

testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...

I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...

if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?

what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?

-Imp

"Existence has been variously defined by sources."
"In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence."
"Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything."
"Some define it to be everything that most people believe in."
"Aristotle relates the concept to causality."
--Wikipedia--

Imp, obviously see's it as in the third and first, above, except that he ignores the second half, in red.
I assume that 'you'(?), TVoT, and I, see it as in the first, (including the half in red), second, (in blue), and forth, (Aristotle), above.

definitions do not create existence

ask Ludwig...

-Imp

No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it. They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?

[Impenitent]

You have been spouting BS since the beginning, so back to the beginning to show how nonsensical you've been.

testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...

I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...

if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?

what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?

-Imp

"Existence has been variously defined by sources."
"In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence."
"Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything."
"Some define it to be everything that most people believe in."
"Aristotle relates the concept to causality."
--Wikipedia--

Imp, obviously see's it as in the third and first, above, except that he ignores the second half, in red.
I assume that 'you'(?), TVoT, and I, see it as in the first, (including the half in red), second, (in blue), and forth, (Aristotle), above.

definitions do not create existence

ask Ludwig...

-Imp

No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.

yet you gave nothing but definitions...

They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?

I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.

defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.

and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus

and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations

please, continue showing...

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

definitions do not create existence

SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.

They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?

Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.

defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?

and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?

and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?

please, continue showing...
What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, thought I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.

[Impenitent]

definitions do not create existence

SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.

everyone "knows" this?...

"All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists."

and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.

They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?

Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.

"I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?

defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?

and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?

I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...

and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?

The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...

please, continue showing...
What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, thought I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.

"Most of my words are mine"

there is nothing new under the sun...

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.

[Impenitent]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.



demonstrate this "knowledge" then.




Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.

sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?



brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...





Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.

again, where did I scold you?

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.

I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.

ask Bierce...

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.

[Impenitent]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.

you have yet to prove what existence is and you have yet to demonstrate what knowledge is... (4000+ years of philosophic debate have yet to do it either, but you "know" that it "exists" in libraries that you haven't read yet...)

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.

you closely imitate the philosophers I mention; and your refusal to educate yourself on their writings is no assumption...

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?

yes, you "know" so much about philosophical skepticism...

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.

Ah... and your definitions give you knowledge and truth? who could disagree with knowledge and truth? Descartes? Gettier? dictionary writers? Carnap is smiling...

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?

I simply pointed out your plagiarism and your refusal to educate yourself... why would you feel scolded? your "new" philosophy of "...disagreement as to what the definition should contain..." is the gateway to justified true belief... oh wait...

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.

once again, do your own homework...

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.

The quote was his, but you "knew" this of course, without having read him...

-Imp