Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:31 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:30 pm Then why are you arguing it would be the same issue?

I was giving you rope to hand yourself with.

You mean you weren't being sincere?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:32 pm You mean you weren't being sincere?

I have been sincere from the get go.

You have no idea whether you and your interlocutor are talking about "the same issue". You have no way to verify OR falsify it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:33 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:32 pm You mean you weren't being sincere?

I have been sincere from the get go.

You have no idea whether you and your interlocutor are talking about "the same issue". You have no way to verify OR falsify it.

So then you were sincere when you said it was the same issue, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:34 pm So then you were sincere when you said it was the same issue, right?

To me it's the same issue. But I never claimed to be speaking on anybody else's behalf.

You keep using "we". So justify the sameness.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:34 pm So then you were sincere when you said it was the same issue, right?

To me it's the same issue. But I never claimed to be speaking on anybody else's behalf.

You keep using "we". So justify the sameness.

Sure, that's fine: to me it's the same issue when I said that above.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:36 pm Sure, that's fine: to me it's the same issue when I said that above.

OK. Justify your claim.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:39 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:36 pm Sure, that's fine: to me it's the same issue when I said that above.

OK. Justify your claim.

Just the same as your justification, insofar as it needs one for whatever reason you think it would.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:40 pm Just the same as your justification, insofar as it needs one for whatever reason you think it would.

I didn't offer justification, because I didn't equate my understanding to anybody elses'

You did.

I only equated sameness in so far as I am using the same words. But I may be using them differently.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:43 pm I didn't equate my understanding to anybody elses'

That's not what I'm doing either.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:46 pm That's not what I'm doing either.

Then how do you know you are talking about the "same" issue as every other philosopher?

How have you synchronised your "understanding" if you can't even tell me where an "ought" is?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:55 am
No, humans did not exist prior to anything else.

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

You did not ask,
did anything [reality] existed prior to humans?
The answer is also a NO.

Point is reality emerged spontaneously with the emergence of human and continue to do so in the present.

To say otherwise is limited by Wittgenstein's that one has to shut-up literally,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:25 am Point is reality emerged spontaneously with the emergence of human and continue to do so in the present.

Either you are psychotic, or by 'reality' you mean the human mind, or the appearances (within the human mind). The apparent is pretty much the opposite of what reality means.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:25 am
Point is reality emerged spontaneously with the emergence of human and continue to do so in the present.

To say otherwise is limited by Wittgenstein's that one has to shut-up literally,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

The bolded words are a correct pointing to what is attempting to be understood.

What words are ponting to cannot be spoken about - but can be listened to, can be heard. The clarity is found only within the hearing, within the listening. No word need ever to be spoken by the listener or the reader to see the clarity of reality.

Words are only sign posts pointing to what cannot be spoken ...

Mistaking the words for the clarity of seeing is like mistaking the menu for the food.


.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:48 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:46 pm That's not what I'm doing either.

Then how do you know you are talking about the "same" issue as every other philosopher?

I'm referring to the observable aspects of communication (which do not include understandings).

if you can't even tell me where an "ought" is?

You never asked that. Oughts are (dynamic) brain states (at least it's limited to that barring good reasons to believe that other materials/structures/processes are functioning as minds).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:25 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:55 am
No, humans did not exist prior to anything else.

Well then we didn't co-create reality. It had to exist already in order for us to exist.

You did not ask,
did anything [reality] existed prior to humans?
The answer is also a NO.

Point is reality emerged spontaneously with the emergence of human and continue to do so in the present.

To say otherwise is limited by Wittgenstein's that one has to shut-up literally,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

So do you not buy that we were produced via a process of gradual evolutionary changes?