TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:43 pm
I have seen what philosophers call “communication”.
Wiio’s laws apply...
Actually there's a lot of successful communication too, but that part went over your head.
It demonstrates your inability to properly process context, Mr. Communication Expert.
Weasel words.
Quantify it.
Should I read every topic on the forum and attempt to calculate an exact percentage?
You do it
You also said that philosophy has no goals! While you clearly have a goal!
This is a performative contradiction! How am I supposed to interpret your meaning?!?
Yes I'm optimising to reduce miscommunication. Which is best done by properly processing context, that's what you lack.
I'm not optimising much with you though, not worth the effort.
That's not a "goal" in itself, idiot.
You also said that philosophy has no goals! While you clearly have a goal!
This is a performative contradiction! How am I supposed to interpret your meaning?!?
Yes I'm optimising to reduce miscommunication. Which is best done by properly processing context, that's what you lack.
I'm not optimising much with you though, not worth the effort.
That's not a "goal" in itself, idiot.
It fits the intentions and extensional definition of a “goal”.
But I guess your brain isn’t very good at drawing such parallels.
Either way you claim to insist on classical logic, but you seem to be rejecting all of its axioms!
You also said that philosophy has no goals! While you clearly have a goal!
This is a performative contradiction! How am I supposed to interpret your meaning?!?
Yes I'm optimising to reduce miscommunication. Which is best done by properly processing context, that's what you lack.
I'm not optimising much with you though, not worth the effort.
That's not a "goal" in itself, idiot.
It fits the intentions and extensional definition of a “goal”.
But I guess your brain isn’t very good at drawing such parallels.
Then using your legs to walk to the store is also a goal. It's optimising things, much better than crawling on all fours.
BECAUSE it fits the intensive and extensive definitions I am applying the law of identity and concluding that "aiming to minimise communication" is THE SAME AS as a "goal".
Therefore. By deduction - philosophers who attempt to minimise communication have a goal.
By the law of excluded middle philosophers who do not have a goal do not optimise to to minimise communication.
You also said that philosophy has no goals.
This is a contradiction!
You have pissed on the very thing you claim to embrace. Classical logic!
So do you care about classical logic or not?
You keep shifting the goalposts!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:21 pm
BECAUSE it fits the intensive and extensive definitions I am applying the law of identity and concluding that "aiming to minimise communication" is THE SAME AS as a "goal".
Therefore. By deduction - philosophers who attempt to minimise communication have a goal.
By the law of excluded middle philosophers who do not have a goal do not optimise to to minimise communication.
You also said that philosophy has no goals.
This is a contradiction!
You have pissed on the very thing you claim to embrace. Classical logic!
No, it doesn't fit the definition of goal. You honestly fail to comprehend even the simplest English words.
Philosophy itself doesn't really have a goal. SOME philosophers make it their dedicated goal to improve communication. Some don't, they just improve it the same way you use your legs to walk to the store. Some don't even attempt to improve it.
Honestly this isn't about logic, you need a therapist.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:21 pm
BECAUSE it fits the intensive and extensive definitions I am applying the law of identity and concluding that "aiming to minimise communication" is THE SAME AS as a "goal".
Therefore. By deduction - philosophers who attempt to minimise communication have a goal.
By the law of excluded middle philosophers who do not have a goal do not optimise to to minimise communication.
You also said that philosophy has no goals.
This is a contradiction!
You have pissed on the very thing you claim to embrace. Classical logic!
No, it doesn't fit the definition of goal. You honestly fail to comprehend even the simplest English words.
Philosophy itself doesn't really have a goal. SOME philosophers make it their dedicated goal to improve communication. Some don't, they just improve it the same way you use your legs to walk to the store. Some don't even attempt to improve it.
Honestly this isn't about logic, you need a therapist.
So there is an authority on “philosophy itself”?
Can we ask them if philosophy has a goal?
“This isn’t about logic” he said. Using logic. Committing yet another performative contradiction.
Logic is language. Dumbass.
From Greek “logos”. The spoken word!
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
