Gary's Corner

[Immanuel Can]

Human beings have always been capable of philosophy and logic without ever emulating anybody in particular.

Maybe. But if so, Aristotle explained, for the first time...

Like any human being, he spoke from his perspective and ideas.

No, he analyzed what logic is, and how it has to be formed. Only somebody who doesn't understand logic would think it was just "his perspective an ideas." It was no more that than mathematics or science is. It was analysis of the basic structure of rational thought.

[Lacewing]

Maybe. But if so, Aristotle explained, for the first time...

Like any human being, he spoke from his perspective and ideas.

No, he analyzed what logic is, and how it has to be formed. Only somebody who doesn't understand logic would think it was just "his perspective an ideas." It was no more that than mathematics or science is. It was analysis of the basic structure of rational thought.

GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so! The desperation of such zealots demands it!

[Walker]

I said:

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

It's one well-known view of philosophy. Fools are the ones who think they know everything. They are closed-off from broader awareness.

Does the broad awareness account for ... something?
You and the wise man reference "everything", and you mention "nothing".

You forgot to account for something.

How the hell did that go unnoticed through the view of the wide angle lens?

[Walker]

Like any human being, he spoke from his perspective and ideas.

No, he analyzed what logic is, and how it has to be formed. Only somebody who doesn't understand logic would think it was just "his perspective an ideas." It was no more that than mathematics or science is. It was analysis of the basic structure of rational thought.

GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so! The desperation of such zealots demands it!

Shades of Hasan Piker singing, recently linked in this very forum.

[Walker]

(continued)

What with all the talk about everything and nothing, I suppose reality (something) often gets sacrificed to the big picture.

[Immanuel Can]

Like any human being, he spoke from his perspective and ideas.

No, he analyzed what logic is, and how it has to be formed. Only somebody who doesn't understand logic would think it was just "his perspective an ideas." It was no more that than mathematics or science is. It was analysis of the basic structure of rational thought.

GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth!

Well, I suppose that if you'd read Aristotle, or knew what logic was, you'd realize how obviously fallacious that response is. It's another thing called the "ad hominem fallacy," where the speaker attempts to escape a point by tarring the speaker instead of responding to the facts.

I recommend an introductory philosophy course. You'll find it most illuminating, I would say.

[Lacewing]

GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so! The desperation of such zealots demands it!

Well, I suppose that if you'd read Aristotle, or knew what logic was, you'd realize how obviously fallacious that response is.

What is fallacious about repeating your position on everything that you write? Don't try to drag Aristotle and your high horse named "Logic" into this -- your nonsense has nothing to do with either one of them.

[Immanuel Can]

GLORY BE to all that Immanuel Can follows and worships! It is the only truth! It is all there is! It must be so! The desperation of such zealots demands it!

Well, I suppose that if you'd read Aristotle, or knew what logic was, you'd realize how obviously fallacious that response is.

What is fallacious...

Yes, I know you don't know what a "fallacy" is. That's why you keep making them. But good news...you can find out. There's this wonderful tool called "Google" which will make it all possible for you.

[Lacewing]

...

Why do you always need to imagine an 'authority' that backs you up?

[Immanuel Can]

...

Why do you always need to imagine an 'authority' that backs you up?

I didn't say I did. That was your imagination at work, again. You seem to think slander and misrepresentation are suitable discussion tactics, though I can't imagine why.

I can only recommend a course in logic. To be perfectly frank, you need one. That much is very apparent.

[Lacewing]

Why do you always need to imagine an 'authority' that backs you up?

I didn't say I did.

You may not admit to it, but you do it all the time. You claim that particular 'sources' back you up or prove what you're saying is true.

How can a limited set of ideas validate you?

Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?
If yes, then my description of your glory fits.
If no, then are you wrong or are there many truths?

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you always need to imagine an 'authority' that backs you up?

I didn't say I did.

You may not admit to it...

Oh dear...you are silly.

Maybe you should find out who "Aristotle" was, and what he contributed to our understanding of logic. Start there.

[Lacewing]

You claim that particular 'sources' back you up or prove what you're saying is true. How can a limited set of ideas validate you?

Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?
If yes, then my description of your glory fits.
If no, then are you wrong or are there many truths?

Oh dear...you are silly. Maybe you should find out who "Aristotle" was...

Oh dear...
I knew you couldn't answer.
And there you go again... leaning on some 'source' instead of speaking honestly for yourself. You shriek 'fallacy!', but you cannot demonstrate that it is.

You do your preferred reading, and I'll do mine.

[Immanuel Can]

You claim that particular 'sources' back you up or prove what you're saying is true. How can a limited set of ideas validate you?

Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?
If yes, then my description of your glory fits.
If no, then are you wrong or are there many truths?

Oh dear...you are silly. Maybe you should find out who "Aristotle" was...

Oh dear...
I knew you couldn't answer.

There wasn't anything to answer. Just a bunch of misunderstanding, from somebody with no information.

[Lacewing]

There wasn't anything to answer. Just a bunch of misunderstanding, from somebody with no information.

That's your excuse for not answering simple questions, such as:

Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth?

This could be put to anyone... so how is it a misunderstanding?

I'll even answer for myself first: No, I do not believe that what I think and say are the only truth, nor are they the truth at all sometimes. It's part of being human. At the same time, I have personally experienced that different perspectives can be simultaneously true.

So, what's your honest answer? Do you believe that what you think and say are the only truth? Just say it. This is helpful for understanding.

Hey, you too, Walker... what's your answer?