All Assertions Exist as Truth Values Regardless of Fallacies.

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy cannot be reduced to general principles without these general principles being responsible for themselves under a circularity.

This avoidance of circularity is a detriment to philosophy as it is an underlying core to its assertions.

The avoidance of this circularity is the avoidance of the nature of philosophy as being strict assertions.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

A proposition is stated and assumed as having a truth value, when in all actuality this truth value is grounded in the "as isness" where truth comes from existence alone.

All assertions are true as existing, the "principle" as a mode of stating something exists is a statement of something existing in a certain manner with the principle derived from existence as existence.

Any general principle presented through philosophical discourse necessitates the principle being an assertion, nothing more or less.

The assertion exists precisely because the assertion exists, thus being exists because being exists.

This assertion is the localization of one phenomenon out of many, with there being an absence of principle in determining which assertion precedes another.

The beginning assertion exists as a projection of the observer, thus what decides which assertion is not only chosen but precedes another assertion is the dialectic.

This dialectic is grounded in a cycling between perspectives, thus adding a deeper degree of circularity to the phenomenon.

The prime role of determining principles is the dialectic and this is a principle.

This principle is grounded in a circularity.

The principle mode of dialectic is the application of fallacies.

These fallacies can be applied to the fallacies thus not only negating the fallacy, but necessitating the fallacy as strictly a negative limit as that which the argument is not.

Truth value exists in the assertion alone, as the assertion is underlined by the fact it exists therefor the fallacies are irrelevant except as a means of defining the grades of truth within an assertion.

All assertions exist a truth values regardless of the fallacies applied.

This truth value is grounded in the principle of circularity which determines all assertions as existing because they exist, there is not based statement which can be made within philosophy.

[RyanDeBENNETT]

Philosophy cannot be reduced to general principles without these general principles being responsible for themselves under a circularity.

This avoidance of circularity is a detriment to philosophy as it is an underlying core to its assertions.

The avoidance of this circularity is the avoidance of the nature of philosophy as being strict assertions.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

A proposition is stated and assumed as having a truth value, when in all actuality this truth value is grounded in the "as isness" where truth comes from existence alone.

All assertions are true as existing, the "principle" as a mode of stating something exists is a statement of something existing in a certain manner with the principle derived from existence as existence.

Any general principle presented through philosophical discourse necessitates the principle being an assertion, nothing more or less.

The assertion exists precisely because the assertion exists, thus being exists because being exists.

This assertion is the localization of one phenomenon out of many, with there being an absence of principle in determining which assertion precedes another.

The beginning assertion exists as a projection of the observer, thus what decides which assertion is not only chosen but precedes another assertion is the dialectic.

This dialectic is grounded in a cycling between perspectives, thus adding a deeper degree of circularity to the phenomenon.

The prime role of determining principles is the dialectic and this is a principle.

This principle is grounded in a circularity.

The principle mode of dialectic is the application of fallacies.

These fallacies can be applied to the fallacies thus not only negating the fallacy, but necessitating the fallacy as strictly a negative limit as that which the argument is not.

Truth value exists in the assertion alone, as the assertion is underlined by the fact it exists therefor the fallacies are irrelevant except as a means of defining the grades of truth within an assertion.

All assertions exist a truth values regardless of the fallacies applied.

This truth value is grounded in the principle of circularity which determines all assertions as existing because they exist, there is not based statement which can be made within philosophy.

Indeed. A delectable 'assertion fable' Eod, thank you.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

Post 'all Knowledge assertion' recognition, one recognizes/understands 'Knowledge assertion' as no-more-or-less then 'rooting for' for ones local football team. Note this is hardly an apathetic statement (which it often is interpreted as), verily quite the opposite. We live in a penitentiary of Knowledge that 'Overstands us' (new word...has utility...read on...). That in which we understand, we recognize and are thus free to choose ('assert') at will. That in which we Overstand, we do not recognize and it is thus free to choose ('assert on') us; that-is, it agents us - and what's oh so compelling - clandestinely!

A Squirrel remains 'essence of Squirrel', because it does not understand nut. Nut Overstands squirrel...

Knowing (learning, contemplation, philosophy, pondering) is the apex virtue and through knowing, one will inevitably amass knowledge. Through knowing (learning, contemplation, philosophy, pondering), one will inevitably reach the 'Knowledge exaltation point horizon', pointedly the recognition that all Knowledge is an 'assertion'. One can then recognizes that, all Knowledge that one understands, one is free to choose and all knowledge that Overstands one chooses/'asserts on' one. One remains virtues to remain steadfast on the path of knowing with destination Omniscience, to eliminate all one's Overstandings. On the path of knowing, Overstood Knowledge inevitably 'asserts' itself on one and agents one off the path until the moment of recognition, of Knowledge understanding, and one consequently returns to the middle way, home to the path of knowing.

"Knowledge anointment, humans gain in essence - via Overstandings - and consequently lose free will. Knowing anointment humans flee essence - via Understandings - and gain in free will"

My interest lies in the agency, the precedes of said 'assertion'? It case-in-point 'Overstands' me...i'm here

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy cannot be reduced to general principles without these general principles being responsible for themselves under a circularity.

This avoidance of circularity is a detriment to philosophy as it is an underlying core to its assertions.

The avoidance of this circularity is the avoidance of the nature of philosophy as being strict assertions.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

A proposition is stated and assumed as having a truth value, when in all actuality this truth value is grounded in the "as isness" where truth comes from existence alone.

All assertions are true as existing, the "principle" as a mode of stating something exists is a statement of something existing in a certain manner with the principle derived from existence as existence.

Any general principle presented through philosophical discourse necessitates the principle being an assertion, nothing more or less.

The assertion exists precisely because the assertion exists, thus being exists because being exists.

This assertion is the localization of one phenomenon out of many, with there being an absence of principle in determining which assertion precedes another.

The beginning assertion exists as a projection of the observer, thus what decides which assertion is not only chosen but precedes another assertion is the dialectic.

This dialectic is grounded in a cycling between perspectives, thus adding a deeper degree of circularity to the phenomenon.

The prime role of determining principles is the dialectic and this is a principle.

This principle is grounded in a circularity.

The principle mode of dialectic is the application of fallacies.

These fallacies can be applied to the fallacies thus not only negating the fallacy, but necessitating the fallacy as strictly a negative limit as that which the argument is not.

Truth value exists in the assertion alone, as the assertion is underlined by the fact it exists therefor the fallacies are irrelevant except as a means of defining the grades of truth within an assertion.

All assertions exist a truth values regardless of the fallacies applied.

This truth value is grounded in the principle of circularity which determines all assertions as existing because they exist, there is not based statement which can be made within philosophy.

Indeed. A delectable 'assertion fable' Eod, thank you.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

Post 'all Knowledge assertion' recognition, one recognizes/understands 'Knowledge assertion' as no-more-or-less then 'rooting for' for ones local football team. Note this is hardly an apathetic statement (which it often is interpreted as), verily quite the opposite. We live in a penitentiary of Knowledge that 'Overstands us' (new word...has utility...read on...). That in which we understand, we recognize and are thus free to choose ('assert') at will. That in which we Overstand, we do not recognize and it is thus free to choose ('assert on') us; that-is, it agents us - and what's oh so compelling - clandestinely!

A Squirrel remains 'essence of Squirrel', because it does not understand nut. Nut Overstands squirrel...

Knowing (learning, contemplation, philosophy, pondering) is the apex virtue and through knowing, one will inevitably amass knowledge. Through knowing (learning, contemplation, philosophy, pondering), one will inevitably reach the 'Knowledge exaltation point horizon', pointedly the recognition that all Knowledge is an 'assertion'. One can then recognizes that, all Knowledge that one understands, one is free to choose and all knowledge that Overstands one chooses/'asserts on' one. One remains virtues to remain steadfast on the path of knowing with destination Omniscience, to eliminate all one's Overstandings. On the path of knowing, Overstood Knowledge inevitably 'asserts' itself on one and agents one off the path until the moment of recognition, of Knowledge understanding, and one consequently returns to the middle way, home to the path of knowing.

"Knowledge anointment, humans gain in essence - via Overstandings - and consequently lose free will. Knowing anointment humans flee essence - via Understandings - and gain in free will"

My interest lies in the agency, the precedes of said 'assertion'? It case-in-point 'Overstands' me...i'm here

No real disagreement for what I understand.