The Paradox of Understanding

[Age]

Age wrote: “There is NOTHING you SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM, here, that WILL PROVE your BELIEF that 'Nothing is ALL that exists'”



———————-


That’s another paradox.

MAYBE SO. BUT, are you at least ABLE TO PROVIDE 'us' WITH the definition that you are USING, here, for the word 'paradox'?

OBVIOUSLY, 'the one' known as "eodnhoj7" can not or will NOT.

The paradox of claiming there is nothing known as a you, that can say, write, claim, prove, believe that nothing is all that exists.

Well CONSIDERING that NO one HAS NOR IS CLAIMING 'this', then what you SAY and CLAIM, here, IS MOOT.

Or, is it you who is SAYING and CLAIMING 'this', here, "fairy"?

[Age]

What IS the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING 'this'?

——-


Because language is paradoxically both some thing and not a thing.

Are you AWARE of what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS and ACTUALLY IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

And, by the way, 'language' IS, like ALL of the OTHER 'things' ARE, LITERALLY, 'some thing', and NOT 'no thing' AT ALL.

[Fairy]

What IS the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING 'this'?

——-


Because language is paradoxically both some thing and not a thing.

Are you AWARE of what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS and ACTUALLY IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

And, by the way, 'language' IS, like ALL of the OTHER 'things' ARE, LITERALLY, 'some thing', and NOT 'no thing' AT ALL.

You are starting to bore me horribly.

[Atla]

People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

Let's see if you can explain why I'm a walking contradiction.

The I is fully consciously aware of it’s own nonexistence.

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

[Fairy]

Let's see if you can explain why I'm a walking contradiction.

The I is fully consciously aware of it’s own nonexistence.

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

[Atla]

The I is fully consciously aware of it’s own nonexistence.

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

[Fairy]

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

Of course.

[Eodnhoj7]

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

[Atla]

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

[Eodnhoj7]

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... nt=gws-wiz

[Atla]

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Yes and anyone with a brain discards the third option.

[Eodnhoj7]

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Yes and anyone with a brain discards the third option.

That is self-evident to you...but given the nature of of acceptance being a second option for truth I find you hypocritical as you seem to limit the occurrence of other peoples experiences and perceptions as untrue and yet the occurrence of your experiences and perceptions becomes a standard you accept. It appears you do not accept quite a bit and yet what you do not accept provides the synthetic tension that gives resolution to your own state of being in how you experience and perceive things. You seem to be in a state of contradiction over the vast occurrence of existence.

[Atla]

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Yes and anyone with a brain discards the third option.

That is self-evident to you...but given the nature of of acceptance being a second option for truth I find you hypocritical as you seem to limit the occurrence of other peoples experiences and perceptions as untrue and yet the occurrence of your experiences and perceptions becomes a standard you accept. It appears you do not accept quite a bit and yet what you do not accept provides the synthetic tension that gives resolution to your own state of being in how you experience and perceive things. You seem to be in a state of contradiction over the vast occurrence of existence.

Ok look, my worldview is a universal coherent system that is probability and Occam's razor based. There are no self-evident things to me. I don't just accept my experiences and reject other people's experiences either.

Is it possible that your Platonic abstract points and lines are as real as physical things, and they actively do all these things you think they do? Yes, anything is possible.

Do I think it's likely to be true? No. Do I think it's a rational, reasonable possibility? No.

What do I think? That you seem to conflate abstracta with concreta, like I said like 6 years ago. And that you might be missing the forest for the trees, you figure out the self-referentiality of X and then of Y and then of Z and so on and every time you make a big deal out of it, but all human cognition is more or less self-referential, so these aren't big discoveries to me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes and anyone with a brain discards the third option.

That is self-evident to you...but given the nature of of acceptance being a second option for truth I find you hypocritical as you seem to limit the occurrence of other peoples experiences and perceptions as untrue and yet the occurrence of your experiences and perceptions becomes a standard you accept. It appears you do not accept quite a bit and yet what you do not accept provides the synthetic tension that gives resolution to your own state of being in how you experience and perceive things. You seem to be in a state of contradiction over the vast occurrence of existence.

Ok look, my worldview is a universal coherent system that is probability and Occam's razor based. There are no self-evident things to me. I don't just accept my experiences and reject other people's experiences either.

Is it possible that your Platonic abstract points and lines are as real as physical things, and they actively do all these things you think they do? Yes, anything is possible.

Do I think it's likely to be true? No. Do I think it's a rational, reasonable possibility? No.

What do I think? That you seem to conflate abstracta with concreta, like I said like 6 years ago. And that you might be missing the forest for the trees, you figure out the self-referentiality of X and then of Y and then of Z and so on and every time you make a big deal out of it, but all human cognition is more or less self-referential, so these aren't big discoveries to me.

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

[Age]

What IS the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING 'this'?

——-


Because language is paradoxically both some thing and not a thing.

Are you AWARE of what the word 'paradox' ACTUALLY MEANS and ACTUALLY IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

And, by the way, 'language' IS, like ALL of the OTHER 'things' ARE, LITERALLY, 'some thing', and NOT 'no thing' AT ALL.

You are starting to bore me horribly.

AGAIN, WHEN I POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE and WHEN 'another's words' are False, Wrong, CONTRADICTORY, or INCONSISTENT, 'they', INEVITABLY, RESORT TO SOME SORT OF EXCUSE FOR either NOT ACKNOWLEDGING 'this' or JUST 'RUNNING AWAY', as some might say.

Now, you AND "eodnhoj7" KEEP talking ABOUT some 'things', while POINTING OUT that 'they' DO EXIST, but then you two GO ON and SAY and CLAIM that there is NOTHING EXISTING AT ALL.

I am, STILL, VERY CURIOUS as to WHY you two KEEP DOING 'this'?

AGAIN, what is the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING what IS OBVIOUSLY BLATANTLY CONTRADICTORY?