Philosophy undermines truth

[Wizard22]

If you're looking for agreement, then philosophy might be the wrong arena for it.

[Skepdick]

If you're looking for agreement, then philosophy might be the wrong arena for it.

I know

Which is why I am vehemently anti-philosophy. Disagreement is lame, formulaic and epistemically lazy.

Still. When in Rome...fuck the Romans.

[Skepdick]

I reject that English on the grounds that it is bollocks.

I reject your rejection on the exact same grounds.

Oh yeah? Well I reject your rejection of my rejection.

One of us is far more familiar with infinite recursion than the other... And it ain't you.

Anyway, what is the rest of the other half of ""I don't think therefore ...""?", and why are you such an arsewipe that you demand anyone be committed to it? What are ya? Some kinda

fucking language Nazi.

Whatever gave you the idea that I am demanding anything? I am pointing out THAT P → Q is NOT a commitment.

(P → Q) → (¬P → Q v ¬Q)

IF think THEN am ELSE (am OR am not)

The commitment comes in completing the sentence: IF think THEN am ELSE... ?

[Will Bouwman]

Whatever gave you the idea that I am demanding anything? I am pointing out THAT neither you nor Descartes are NOT committed to anything.

I presume you mean neither of us ARE committed to anything.

(P → Q) → (¬P → Q v ¬Q)

In English that means one of two things:

1. IF think THEN am ELSE am
OR
2. IF think THEN am ELSE I am not.

Call that English?

Which one do you think Descartes meant?

Assuming the above, I don't think he meant either.

[Will Bouwman]

Oh yeah? Well I reject your rejection of my rejection.

One of us is far more familiar with infinite recursion than the other... And it ain't you.

One of us is far more familiar with levity than the other...And it ain't you.

Anyway, what is the rest of the other half of ""I don't think therefore ...""?", and why are you such an arsewipe that you demand anyone be committed to it? What are ya? Some kinda

fucking language Nazi.

Whatever gave you the idea that I am demanding anything? I am pointing out THAT P → Q is NOT a commitment.

(P → Q) → (¬P → Q v ¬Q)

IF think THEN am ELSE (am OR am not)

The commitment comes in completing the sentence: IF think THEN am ELSE... ?

So now we are committed? Make your mind up!

[Skepdick]

Whatever gave you the idea that I am demanding anything? I am pointing out THAT neither you nor Descartes are NOT committed to anything.

I presume you mean neither of us ARE committed to anything.

That very much depends on the logic you default to.

1. IF think THEN am ELSE am
OR
2. IF think THEN am ELSE I am not.

Call that English?
[/quote]
Close enough.

I think therefore I am.
I don't think therefore I either am; or I am not.

Assuming the above, I don't think he meant either.

Oh. He must have. He must have met either one, but not both.

[Skepdick]

One of us is far more familiar with levity than the other...And it ain't you.

Are you sure about that? I have nothing but mockery and disrespect for philosophers. How much more levity do you want from me?

So now we are committed? Make your mind up!

I've made up my mind and I am certain that you haven't made up your mind. Nor do you intend to.

[Will Bouwman]

Whatever gave you the idea that I am demanding anything? I am pointing out THAT neither you nor Descartes are NOT committed to anything.

I presume you mean neither of us ARE committed to anything.

That very much depends on the logic you default to.


I think therefore I am.
I don't think therefore I either am; or I am not.

Assuming the above, I don't think he meant either.

Oh. He must have. He must have met either one, but not both.

That very much depends on the logic you default to.

[Skepdick]

That very much depends on the logic you default to.

I default to a logic which resolves the ambiguities of choice.

Here's a choice: ¬P → Q v ¬Q

Resolve it.

IF think THEN am ELSE... ?

[Will Bouwman]

One of us is far more familiar with levity than the other...And it ain't you.

Are you sure about that? I have nothing but mockery and disrespect for philosophers. How much more levity do you want from me?

Quite sure, for two reasons. Firstly, whatever mockery and disrespect you have for philosophers it is so banal that it lacks any levity. Secondly, your mockery and disrespect for philosophers pales compared to my mockery and disrespect for you.

[Skepdick]

One of us is far more familiar with levity than the other...And it ain't you.

Are you sure about that? I have nothing but mockery and disrespect for philosophers. How much more levity do you want from me?

Quite sure, for two reasons. Firstly, whatever mockery and disrespect you have for philosophers it is so banal that it lacks any levity. Secondly, your mockery and disrespect for philosophers pales compared to my mockery and disrespect for you.

But that's impossible.

You are mocking me.
I am mocking you mocking me.
Heck, I'll even mock myself mocking you mocking me!

By induction my levity necessarily exceeds yours.

So if I have 0 levity then you must have -1.

Well, yeah, first rule of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong.

Sprinkle my own corolary: Even if it turns out that I am wrong - everyone else is wronger.

I guess I forgot to add... Philosophy is bullshit.

[Will Bouwman]

You are mocking me.
I am mocking you mocking me.
Heck, I'll even mock myself mocking you mocking me!

By induction my levity necessarily exceeds yours.

So if I have 0 levity then you must have -1.

I know you're trying, but face it, yer just not funny.

Well, yeah, first rule of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong.

It is philosophy's gift to mankind.

[Skepdick]

You are mocking me.
I am mocking you mocking me.
Heck, I'll even mock myself mocking you mocking me!

By induction my levity necessarily exceeds yours.

So if I have 0 levity then you must have -1.

I know you're trying, but face it, yer just not funny.

I know! And I am still funnier than you.

It's logically necessary. Given philosophy's gift to mankind.

Well, yeah, first rule of philosophy: Everyone else is wrong.

It is philosophy's gift to mankind.

The gift that keeps on giving. Or taking. As it may be the case.

[Age]

Just like the Fact that 'you REFUSE to define words here for us to LOOK AT and SEE' is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT difficult AT ALL to understand AS WELL.

But if I haven't defined my words how could you possibly know whether my words are true or false?

Fucking idiot

IF you had taken my WHOLE reply COMPLETE, then you could have SEEN what I was ACTUALLY POINTING IUT and SAYING.

Taking ONLY ' a snippet', and replying to 'that' ONLY, like you have here, SHOWS and REVEALS just how LIMITED you REALLY ARE, and/or DECIEVING you REALLY ARE trying to be.

[Skepdick]

IF you had taken my WHOLE reply COMPLETE, then you could have SEEN what I was ACTUALLY POINTING IUT and SAYING.

Taking ONLY ' a snippet', and replying to 'that' ONLY, like you have here, SHOWS and REVEALS just how LIMITED you REALLY ARE, and/or DECIEVING you REALLY ARE trying to be.

My bad...

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

But the premise, which 'you' CLAIM here about 'you refusing to practice philosophy' is NOT difficult to understand AT ALL. Obviously 'you' can CLAIM absolutely ANY 'thing' in written words, but which are ACTUALLY NOT True AT ALL', is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT AT ALL difficult to understand, EITHER.

Just like the Fact that 'you REFUSE to define words here for us to LOOK AT and SEE' is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT difficult AT ALL to understand AS WELL.

So, when 'you' CLAIM that 'you' REJECT 'philosophy' and REFUSE to practice 'philosophy' absolutely NO one KNOWS what 'you' are actually referring to, EXACTLY, because 'you', literally, do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS that 'you' are talking ABOUT and CLAIMING here.

Furthermore, when 'you' make 'that CLAIM, all we can REALLY gon and go off is our OWN personal INTERPRETATION OF, and personal DEFINITION FOR, the 'philosophy' word. Which, from my perspective, 'you', "skepdick", CERTAINLY DO NOT practice 'philosophy' AT ALL.

SO, take this as a GREAT LESSON in regards to words MEAN DIFFERENT 'things' to DIFFERENT, and/or ALL, people. which ultimately MEANS that 'you' REJECTING and REFUSING to 'practice philosophy', to me, IS VERY OBVIOUS as well as SHOWING just how VERY STUPID one can REALLY BE here

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

LOL

'you' made the original CLAIM here, which 'you' could NEVER back up, support, NOR prove true BECAUSE 'you' would, FIRST, HAVE TO define the 'philosophy'word, and by your OWN admission 'you' are NOT even CAPABLE of doing just 'this'.

By the way, I COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY AGREE WITH 'you' that 'you' REJECT and REFUSE TO have ANY 'love-of-wisdom', and of BECOMING ANY MORE WISER here.

Fucking idiot