PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Iwannaplato]

What 'that' means is that 'that one' is not open to anything else being possible.

Oh, well then you incorrect.

Whenever absolutely anyone uses words like 'you did take', then they have, literally, closed "themself" off, completely, to anything else being 'the case'.

You're incorrect. The word 'did' in that sentence was meant to acknowledge that while Flannel Jesus and I did not take any stand at all in this thread about realism vs. anti-realism, your post did.

I certainly could be convinced otherwise. You are incorrect. It was not an absolute claim.

[Iwannaplato]

If I answered, 'Yes', or, 'No', here, then either way you would not know what I was meaning, nor referring to, exactly, right?

You gave me more information in the previous post. But, in any case, that isn't an answer to my question. Do you consider it an absolute claim on your part?

What do you mean with your use of the 'absolute' word, here?

I asked you if you considered it an absolute claim. Presumably you know what you mean by that word and can give an answer.

[Iwannaplato]

I did,.previously, as well as also since then, again.

You have asserted it a number of times, but you have not justified it and certainly have not proved it. [I have repeatedly, when questioned by Age in the past, said that I do not consider my assertions infallible nor do I close off the possibility they are incorrect. This time he did not even bother to ask, after he misinterpreted what 'did take' necessary meant. I have some sympathy for his misinterpretation, because the word 'did' as an extra verb can indicate one did disagreeing with someone else's assertion. Though even then that doesn't make the assertion absolute or considered completely certain by the writer. But here the did was added in relation what I had written myself earlier in that post.]

Great. So, we agree that what "veritas aequitas" identifies here as some thing may not be 'that thing' at all right?

Of course. VA was wrong about all our posts, including yours, in a number of ways.

OK, I understand that at this point you do not disagree with what I asserted about what you wrote being realist.

Great.

One can see yet another example of how one person, Age, makes incorrect assumptions about other people's claims, makes mountains out of molehills and conflates making claims with justification and proof.

I can only hope he learned something and his positions are not absolute where they should not be.

Age: always a pleasure to interact with you. You are almost as fascinating as Iambiguous. Take care. I'll wait to see if VA actually weighs in and focus on his OP and responses as the topic of the thread. Thanks for sharing with me what was mostly, but not entirely, a tangent in this thread.

[Age]

What 'that' means is that 'that one' is not open to anything else being possible.

Oh, well then you incorrect.

Well you obviously do not, yet, know the power of beliefs, nor of the power of the words that you actually use.

And, if you would like to put this to the test, then, by all means, let us have a Truly open and honest discussion here.

Whenever absolutely anyone uses words like 'you did take', then they have, literally, closed "themself" off, completely, to anything else being 'the case'.

You're incorrect.

So, are you, now, trying to say and claim that when you said some thing like, 'Age did take a specific realist stance on the issue', you are not actually meaning that I did take a specific realist stance on the issue', at all, as, to you anyway, I might not have taken a specific realist stance on the issue at all?

If no, then what are you, now, trying to say and claim here?

The word 'did' in that sentence was meant to acknowledge that while Flannel Jesus and I did not take any stand at all in this thread about realism vs. anti-realism, your post did.

Okay. But, now, what you, actually, mean is that I might not have 'taken' that stand, at all, correct?

I certainly could be convinced otherwise. You are incorrect. It was not an absolute claim.

So, why did you not speak and write in a way here that showed that you were open?

Why did you speak and write in a way here that showed that you were closed?

And, you, still, cannot see and recognise this, then I am not sure what else 8 could do for you here, now.

[Age]

You gave me more information in the previous post. But, in any case, that isn't an answer to my question. Do you consider it an absolute claim on your part?

What do you mean with your use of the 'absolute' word, here?

I asked you if you considered it an absolute claim. Presumably you know what you mean by that word and can give an answer.

And, I have asked you lots and lots of clarifying questions. one could presume that you know what you what you mean, by the words you use, I, however, am, still, waiting for you to clarify many,many questions

Like here, once again, for another example

[Age]

I did,.previously, as well as also since then, again.

You have asserted it a number of times, but you have not justified it and certainly have not proved it. [I have repeatedly, when questioned by Age in the past, said that I do not consider my assertions infallible nor do I close off the possibility they are incorrect. This time he did not even bother to ask, after he misinterpreted what 'did take' necessary meant.

So, when "iwannaplato" use the term and phrase l, cyou did take', then it, actually, means is that cyou might not have taken'.

I have some sympathy for his misinterpretation, because the word 'did' as an extra verb can indicate one did disagreeing with someone else's assertion. Though even then that doesn't make the assertion absolute or considered completely certain by the writer. But here the did was added in relation what I had written myself earlier in that post.]

Look, "iwannaplato" you did what you did. So, there is nothing more to talk about here.

Great. So, we agree that what "veritas aequitas" identifies here as some thing may not be 'that thing' at all right?

Of course. VA was wrong about all our posts, including yours, in a number of ways.

Are you absolutely sure about 'all' of our posts?

Could "veritas aequitas", to you, never have been right about 'any' of our posts?

To me, you, really, do not take that much observation in regards to the way you speak and write, here.

OK, I understand that at this point you do not disagree with what I asserted about what you wrote being realist.

Great.

One can see yet another example of how one person, Age, makes incorrect assumptions about other people's claims, makes mountains out of molehills and conflates making claims with justification and proof.

Do you have the courage, for at least just once, to back up and support your, absolute, claims, like this one here, and just list 'the examples' of what you believe are 'the assumptions', which I, to you, have supposedly, incorrectly made, here?

If you do not, then what is 'it', exactly, that you are so afraid and scared of here?

I can only hope he learned something and his positions are not absolute where they should not be.

Hopefully, one day, this one will see and recognise what has actually been happening and occur here, quite frequently I will add.

Age: always a pleasure to interact with you. You are almost as fascinating as Iambiguous. Take care. I'll wait to see if VA actually weighs in and focus on his OP and responses as the topic of the thread. Thanks for sharing with me what was mostly, but not entirely, a tangent in this thread.

Once again, you have attempted to twist and distort things around, as though it is your job and role, in Life, to teach.

For one who proclaims to be an "english teacher" you are not very good at recognizing, comprehending, and following here.

But, it was a common occurrence, back when, this was being written, that those who processes to being 'the best', or better, often ending up proving that they were not, at all.

"iwannaplato" has, obviously, make another absolute statement and claim here, and it cannot stand that it, still, cannot see nor recognise when it does this, nor stand that it continually keeps doing this.

[Atla]

Oh, well then you incorrect.

Well you obviously do not, yet, know the power of beliefs, nor of the power of the words that you actually use.

And, if you would like to put this to the test, then, by all means, let us have a Truly open and honest discussion here.

I hope to see a demonstration now that magical incantations do in fact work. Anything less and I'll be sorely disappointed.

[Age]

Oh, well then you incorrect.

Well you obviously do not, yet, know the power of beliefs, nor of the power of the words that you actually use.

And, if you would like to put this to the test, then, by all means, let us have a Truly open and honest discussion here.

I hope to see a demonstration now that magical incantations do in fact work. Anything less and I'll be sorely disappointed.

Thanks to "atla" here it has provide a prime example of the power of the word one uses. This one has used the words 'magical incantations' here. So, to this one, there is no possibility, whatsoever, that I could never have been meaning nor referring to 'magical incarnations', at all.

So, once again, thanks to "atla", it ends up just reinforcing and proving my points and claims more, and more, here.

This one has just shown its beliefs here, which has proved, in turn, that while it keeps holding onto this belief, then it will not be open to finding out and seeing what I was actually meaning, and referring to, exactly.

Ironically "atla" has just demonstrated irrefutable proof of the power and control over you people the words you say and use actually has.

[Atla]

Well you obviously do not, yet, know the power of beliefs, nor of the power of the words that you actually use.

And, if you would like to put this to the test, then, by all means, let us have a Truly open and honest discussion here.

I hope to see a demonstration now that magical incantations do in fact work. Anything less and I'll be sorely disappointed.

Thanks to "atla" here it has provide a prime example of the power of the word one uses. This one has used the words 'magical incantations' here. So, to this one, there is no possibility, whatsoever, that I could never have been meaning nor referring to 'magical incarnations', at all.

So, once again, thanks to "atla", it ends up just reinforcing and proving my points and claims more, and more, here.

This one has just shown its beliefs here, which has proved, in turn, that while it keeps holding onto this belief, then it will not be open to finding out and seeing what I was actually meaning, and referring to, exactly.

Ironically "atla" has just demonstrated irrefutable proof of the power and control over you people the words you say and use actually has.

You are wrong beyond understanding. Puzzling isn't it? Afaik not even severe autism can explain it by itself.

[Impenitent]

if a thing-in-itself is aware that it is a thing-in-itself then perhaps it is...

absolutely labelling the apparently external is another exercise in hubris...

-Imp

[Age]

I hope to see a demonstration now that magical incantations do in fact work. Anything less and I'll be sorely disappointed.

Thanks to "atla" here it has provide a prime example of the power of the word one uses. This one has used the words 'magical incantations' here. So, to this one, there is no possibility, whatsoever, that I could never have been meaning nor referring to 'magical incarnations', at all.

So, once again, thanks to "atla", it ends up just reinforcing and proving my points and claims more, and more, here.

This one has just shown its beliefs here, which has proved, in turn, that while it keeps holding onto this belief, then it will not be open to finding out and seeing what I was actually meaning, and referring to, exactly.

Ironically "atla" has just demonstrated irrefutable proof of the power and control over you people the words you say and use actually has.

You are wrong beyond understanding.

I am, supposedly, wrong about 'what', now, exactly?

Puzzling isn't it?

Have you ever noticed how many times you make assumptions about others, without ever obtaining any actual clarification nor proof, and then go on to believe that your own made up assumptions are the actual truth here?

Afaik not even severe autism can explain it by itself.

you could not even inform the readers here what the 'it' is in reference to, exactly. Well not without be contradictory or inconsistent.

As you will once again prove me True here.

[Atla]

Thanks to "atla" here it has provide a prime example of the power of the word one uses. This one has used the words 'magical incantations' here. So, to this one, there is no possibility, whatsoever, that I could never have been meaning nor referring to 'magical incarnations', at all.

So, once again, thanks to "atla", it ends up just reinforcing and proving my points and claims more, and more, here.

This one has just shown its beliefs here, which has proved, in turn, that while it keeps holding onto this belief, then it will not be open to finding out and seeing what I was actually meaning, and referring to, exactly.

Ironically "atla" has just demonstrated irrefutable proof of the power and control over you people the words you say and use actually has.

You are wrong beyond understanding.

I am, supposedly, wrong about 'what', now, exactly?

Puzzling isn't it?

Have you ever noticed how many times you make assumptions about others, without ever obtaining any actual clarification nor proof, and then go on to believe that your own made up assumptions are the actual truth here?

Afaik not even severe autism can explain it by itself.

you could not even inform the readers here what the 'it' is in reference to, exactly. Well not without be contradictory or inconsistent.

As you will once again prove me True here.

The readers know what I'm talking about. I'd say over 99% of adults can tell what I'm talking about. But it has always been impossible for you. Puzzling!

[Age]

You are wrong beyond understanding.

I am, supposedly, wrong about 'what', now, exactly?

Puzzling isn't it?

Have you ever noticed how many times you make assumptions about others, without ever obtaining any actual clarification nor proof, and then go on to believe that your own made up assumptions are the actual truth here?

Afaik not even severe autism can explain it by itself.

you could not even inform the readers here what the 'it' is in reference to, exactly. Well not without be contradictory or inconsistent.

As you will once again prove me True here.

The readers know what I'm talking about. I'd say over 99% of adults can tell what I'm talking about. But it has always been impossible for you. Puzzling!

Let 'us' see if absolutely any reader here has the courage to come and tell 'us' what they think or believe you are talking about here.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that you could then just claim that 'that' was what you were talking about.

Either way you not doing this"yourself", and just waiting for others to do it for you, means that you are, once more, proving my claim True here, for me.

[Atla]

I am, supposedly, wrong about 'what', now, exactly?


Have you ever noticed how many times you make assumptions about others, without ever obtaining any actual clarification nor proof, and then go on to believe that your own made up assumptions are the actual truth here?


you could not even inform the readers here what the 'it' is in reference to, exactly. Well not without be contradictory or inconsistent.

As you will once again prove me True here.

The readers know what I'm talking about. I'd say over 99% of adults can tell what I'm talking about. But it has always been impossible for you. Puzzling!

Let 'us' see if absolutely any reader here has the courage to come and tell 'us' what they think or believe you are talking about here.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that you could then just claim that 'that' was what you were talking about.

Either way you not doing this"yourself", and just waiting for others to do it for you, means that you are, once more, proving my claim True here, for me.

Your claim has always been wrong, but you are not capable of understanding that either.

[Age]

The readers know what I'm talking about. I'd say over 99% of adults can tell what I'm talking about. But it has always been impossible for you. Puzzling!

Let 'us' see if absolutely any reader here has the courage to come and tell 'us' what they think or believe you are talking about here.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that you could then just claim that 'that' was what you were talking about.

Either way you not doing this"yourself", and just waiting for others to do it for you, means that you are, once more, proving my claim True here, for me.

Your claim has always been wrong, but you are not capable of understanding that either.

Thank you for, once more, providing actually living proof that has backed up and supported my claim here, perfectly, again.