Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:30 pm
When the person asn't even implied they are playing that game.
Everybody who trips over paradoxes/self-contradiction is playing that game.
So that's all of Philosophy.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:30 pm
When the person asn't even implied they are playing that game. Why do you feel the need to fuck them over for ? Is that all you care about?
No, burning down the Church of Philosophy is what I care about. Most of what passes around for Philosophy robs people of their humanity.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:30 pm
When the person asn't even implied they are playing that game.
Everybody who trips over paradoxes/self-contradiction is playing that game.
That there is any ''Tripping'' is just an assumption made by you. You have no idea if another person is playing a game, you can only assume another person is playing a game with you. And even if they were playing the game. Why is it necessary to fuck the other over for playing the exact same game that you yourself are playing? what's all that about? Do you need to make wrong to be right ? What if you are both right?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:38 pm
That there is any ''Tripping'' is just an assumption made by you. You have no idea if another person is playing a game, you can only assume another person is playing a game with you. And even if they were playing the game. Why is it necessary to fuck the other over for playing the exact same game that you yourself are playing? what's all that about? Do you need to make wrong to be right ? What if you are both right?
Hence why my sentence stared with IF.
IF you are playing language games, then I will fuck you.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:31 pm
No, burning down the Church of Philosophy is what I care about. Most of what passes around for Philosophy robs people of their humanity.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:42 pm
No playing language games here.
But if that's the assumption made there then you are just fucking yourself over.
That's not my assumption at all.
My assumption is that in 6 pages you have been unable to say anything remotely fruitful except "Knowledge is suffering. Suffering is a problem because it's unpleasant."
Before even engaging you, I offered you the choice: Stoicism or Epicureanism, both of which offer "free solutions to the problem of human suffering".
In other words - they are already selling what you are selling.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:42 pm
No playing language games here.
But if that's the assumption made there then you are just fucking yourself over.
That's not my assumption at all.
My assumption is that in 6 pages you have been unable to say anything remotely fruitful except "Knowledge is suffering. Suffering is a problem because it's unpleasant."
I've been replying to your comments for the last 6 pages, so if I haven't yet said anything fruitful yet then I guess it must be because there was nothing fruitful coming out of the discussion to be fruitful about.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:48 pm
I've been replying to your comments for the last 6 pages, so if I haven't yet said anything fruitful yet then I guess it must be because there was nothing fruitful coming out of the discussion to be fruitful about.
Before even engaging you, I pointed you at Stoicism and Epicureanism, both of which offer "free solutions to the problem of human suffering". In other words - they were selling what you are selling 2500 years ago.
Instead of engaging my astute observation you blessed me with...
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:26 pm
Choice is for the born, it's the desire to be born as and through the knowledge of yourself which is more desire.
If you had the choice to be born or not which choice would you choose?
Which seems like a rather odd thing to say, a non-sequitur even, when you claim to be talking about "solving the problem of suffering".
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:43 pm
Before even engaging you, I offered you the choice: Stoicism or Epicureanism, both of which offer "free solutions to the problem of human suffering".
In other words - they are already selling what you are selling.
Thanks for the that knowledge. I'm fully aware of that post you made a few pages back, you don't need to repost it.
But did it / has it solved the problem of suffering? or does suffering still exist?
Also, I hardly think what is free can be up for sale - can it?
Choice is for the born, it's the desire to be born as and through the knowledge of yourself which is more desire.
If you had the choice to be born or not which choice would you choose?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:49 pmWhich seems like a rather odd thing to say, a non-sequitur even, when you claim to be talking about "solving the problem of suffering".
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:57 pm
And that's exactly why I said it.
You intended a non-sequitur? OK.
It's a far more effective linguistic instrument in comedy than in problem-solving.
Lets just remind ourselves what I said. I said ..
Choice is for the born, it's the desire to be born as and through the knowledge of yourself which is more desire.
If you had the choice to be born or not which choice would you choose?
