Your Essential Thing

[Age]

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

Who gives a fuck?

i, for one, certainly do not.

Such games show that you don't.

What do you propose it is that I do not know exactly what I mean?

I have already explained, that what that person was proposing was not what I meant, AND, I also have explained what I did mean.

If some one still does not understand, and cares, then just ask a clarifying question.

If, however, some one really does not care, or as you would put it, if some one really does not "give a fuck", then obviously they would not respond with any thing.

If, however, if some one is responding, then that implies to me that they really do "give a fuck".

If people are going to ask me "is that what you meant?" and what they propose is not I meant, then I will tell them so.

[Age]

You don't seem to know what you mean.

But I know exactly what I mean.

From your statement are you implying that you are still unsure what I mean?

If yes, then this could be very quickly, simply, and easily resolved with some clarifying questions from you, to me.

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

It's okay.
When you insisted that I specify "on earth" in another thread,

Did I actually insist that you specify "on earth" in another thread, or insist you do absolutely anything, anywhere on earth, or even in the Universe?

Or,

After you proposed that; There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture. did I just ask you the simple clarifying question; How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

As I already partly explained, when this is written, we do not know what races or cultures there is. So, to write in a way that proposes you do is just misleading, from my perspective.

If you want to write, "on earth", or not is of no real concern to me. But just to make is absolutely clear I never insisted you do any thing, and I also never will. Is this clear enough?

I decided to pull your leg.

Why did you decide to do that? What do you think the chances are of us ever meeting so that you could pull my leg?

Since "on earth" was a redundancy.

If you say so. But if you want to insist this, then maybe you would like to, this time anyway, clarify; If you really do know something about all of what exists in the whole Universe that the rest of 'us' do not know?

Some might, in fact, even suggest that it is far more unlikely that; There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture than it is likely to be the case.

I thought it would be funny to ask you to ad that to all your posts too.

I do not recall you ever asking me to do that. But you could have.

You did, however, ask me if I do do some thing. I then went on to explain what I endeavor to do do.

What I also recall is you assigned a quote to me, which I never even wrote. Then you told me that I meant "on earth". I then explained that I did not mean that, and, what I did actually mean.

If you intended this to be funny, then I never saw that.

What I saw was you were annoyed with me and so you were trying to get back at me. But again I could be completely or partly wrong.

Maybe you did not see the joke?*

What joke?

Since I now know that you are on the autistic spectrum I image you did not see the joke as other's might have.

Who here saw the joke?

And to those who did how funny was it?

* By the way. This is a perfectly reasonable construction for a sentence. It is not necessary to append "what", "why", "how" or "when".

Considering that you are just sharing your opinion, why did you think it was necessary to add this part here?

Could it be because that is how you ask "others" questions, and, you have to try to "justify" it?

Are you at all aware that if your *sentence is "a perfectly reasonable construction", or not, then this is completely arbitrary?

You obviously do not recognize nor understand the actual intricacies in words and language?

Now is that sentence also a perfectly reasonable construction for a sentence?

Constructiing a sentence as though it is true, but then putting a question mark at the end of it is, to some, confusing and not a perfectly reasonable construction at all for a sentence.

Since I now know that you are not on the autistic spectrum I imagine that you did not see the actual intricacies as I can and how "other's" might have, or might one day, as well

You understand?

No I do not.

But then again that all depends on what you are actually referring to exactly.

So, what are you actually referring to here, exactly?

[Sculptor]

But I know exactly what I mean.

From your statement are you implying that you are still unsure what I mean?

If yes, then this could be very quickly, simply, and easily resolved with some clarifying questions from you, to me.

If no, then do we both know exactly what I mean?

It's okay.
When you insisted that I specify "on earth" in another thread,

Did I actually insist that you specify "on earth" in another thread, or insist you do absolutely anything, anywhere on earth, or even in the Universe?

Or,

After you proposed that; There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture. did I just ask you the simple clarifying question; How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

As I already partly explained, when this is written, we do not know what races or cultures there is. So, to write in a way that proposes you do is just misleading, from my perspective.

If you want to write, "on earth", or not is of no real concern to me. But just to make is absolutely clear I never insisted you do any thing, and I also never will. Is this clear enough?

I decided to pull your leg.

Why did you decide to do that? What do you think the chances are of us ever meeting so that you could pull my leg?

Since "on earth" was a redundancy.

If you say so. But if you want to insist this, then maybe you would like to, this time anyway, clarify; If you really do know something about all of what exists in the whole Universe that the rest of 'us' do not know?

Some might, in fact, even suggest that it is far more unlikely that; There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture than it is likely to be the case.

I thought it would be funny to ask you to ad that to all your posts too.

I do not recall you ever asking me to do that. But you could have.

You did, however, ask me if I do do some thing. I then went on to explain what I endeavor to do do.

What I also recall is you assigned a quote to me, which I never even wrote. Then you told me that I meant "on earth". I then explained that I did not mean that, and, what I did actually mean.

If you intended this to be funny, then I never saw that.

What I saw was you were annoyed with me and so you were trying to get back at me. But again I could be completely or partly wrong.

Maybe you did not see the joke?*

What joke?

Since I now know that you are on the autistic spectrum I image you did not see the joke as other's might have.

Who here saw the joke?

And to those who did how funny was it?

* By the way. This is a perfectly reasonable construction for a sentence. It is not necessary to append "what", "why", "how" or "when".

Considering that you are just sharing your opinion, why did you think it was necessary to add this part here?

Could it be because that is how you ask "others" questions, and, you have to try to "justify" it?

Are you at all aware that if your *sentence is "a perfectly reasonable construction", or not, then this is completely arbitrary?

You obviously do not recognize nor understand the actual intricacies in words and language?

Now is that sentence also a perfectly reasonable construction for a sentence?

Constructiing a sentence as though it is true, but then putting a question mark at the end of it is, to some, confusing and not a perfectly reasonable construction at all for a sentence.

Since I now know that you are not on the autistic spectrum I imagine that you did not see the actual intricacies as I can and how "other's" might have, or might one day, as well

You understand?

No I do not.

But then again that all depends on what you are actually referring to exactly.

So, what are you actually referring to here, exactly?

FFS.
Run along!

[Nick_A]

So we can easily verify that we cannot experience our essential question by the process of inductive reason. Philosophy reveals our limitations.

So far as concerns philosophy only a selected group can be explicitly mentioned. There is no point in endeavoring to force the interpretations of divergent philosophers into a vague agreement. What is important is that the scheme of interpretation here adopted can claim for each of its main positions the express authority of one, or the other, of some supreme master of thought - Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant. But ultimately nothing rests on authority; the final court of appeal is intrinsic reasonableness. The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), from his book Process and Reality, page 39, first published in 1929.

The living purpose of philosophy is to invite the experience of remembrance of what is necessary to experience our essential question. But people use philosophy to argue interpretations resulting from inductive reason. Yet philosophy does offer indications of a quality of reality making deductive reason possible. Only a few seem to transcend argument for the sake of the essential question..