Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:15 pm
I dont have to....you just dont understand. Lol!!!!

But I do. You just really don't understand the things I listed, and I also explained why you don't understand. And why you think that I'm in a circular reasoning even though you are. Read back if you want, or educate yourself elsewhere.

No you don't...you don't understand quite much actually.

And of course the reasoning is circular (but also progressive), I follow the premises I argue.

So besides trolling the thread, to get some cheap revenge on the world for the football team gang banging your girlfriend in highschool, do you have any other responses?

Or do you just hide behind wiki pages to prove some point even you are not aware of?

You see, those are ad hominums...try copying the above and applying it. Copy and paste that in your journal under your porn links.

See...I just through in another ad hominum using recursion theory, an ad hominum within ad hominum...bet they didn't teach that in math class.

See kids logic can be fun, like Atla's mom with the math teacher on prom night...oops just did it again.

I am so meta my my ad-hominums have ad-hominums.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:15 pm
I dont have to....you just dont understand. Lol!!!!

But I do. You just really don't understand the things I listed, and I also explained why you don't understand. And why you think that I'm in a circular reasoning even though you are. Read back if you want, or educate yourself elsewhere.

No you don't...you don't understand quite much actually.

And of course the reasoning is circular (but also progressive), I follow the premises I argue.

So besides trolling the thread, to get some cheap revenge on the world for the football team gang banging your girlfriend in highschool, do you have any other responses?

Or do you just hide behind wiki pages to prove some point even you are not aware of?

You see, those are ad hominums...try copying the above and applying it. Copy and paste that in your journal under your porn links.

See...I just threw in another ad hominum using recursion theory, an ad hominum within ad hominum...bet they didn't teach that in math class.

See kids logic can be fun, like Atla's mom with the math teacher on prom night...oops just did it again.

I am so meta my my ad-hominums have ad-hominums.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:25 pm
But I do. You just really don't understand the things I listed, and I also explained why you don't understand. And why you think that I'm in a circular reasoning even though you are. Read back if you want, or educate yourself elsewhere.

No you don't...you don't understand quite much actually.

And of course the reasoning is circular (but also progressive), I follow the premises I argue.

So besides trolling the thread, to get some cheap revenge on the world for the football team gang banging your girlfriend in highschool, do you have any other responses?

Or do you just hide behind wiki pages to prove some point even you are not aware of?

You see, those are ad hominums...try copying the above and applying it. Copy and paste that in your journal under your porn links.

See...I just threw in another ad hominum using recursion theory, an ad hominum within ad hominum...bet they didn't teach that in math class.

See kids logic can be fun, like Atla's mom with the math teacher on prom night...oops just did it again.

I am so meta my my ad-hominums have ad-hominums.

You just don't get it, your premises are not even wrong.

How can a premise be wrong of when it is justified by a tautology? It is like saying "1" is wrong but "1" equivocated to just about anything?

You cannot even use the "it's not even wrong" argument correctly! ROFL!!!!

Not only can't you make sense in philosophy, you can't even make sense of the world you live in. Your thinking is that damaged.

It exists...what more is there to make sense of considering we sense existence?

Even Wittgenstein observed this...

ROFL!!!


That's why a dozen people even on this not very bright forum pointed out that everything you say is nonsense.
Well that doesn't make much sense now does it? Of they are not very bright (your words) then not much makes sense to them now does it? I won't make sense. Neither will x person, or y person...or whoever.

ROFL!!!!

That is a bandwagon fallacy as well, as you are appealing to, again according to you, the "not bright" masses.

ROFL!!!! This is priceless...it really is....

Or why they perma banned you from applying to academia. All your topics are more or less trolling word salads, except you don't even do it purpose.

They permabanned me because I was a seminarian who witnessed the scandals of the church and I was applying to a Catholic College...it was more than just "the paper".

I even had several retired professor's read it and all they could say was "it's technical but quite the opposite of being banned over."

ROFL...you don't even know half the story! But you believe you do! ROFL!!!!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:10 am
No you don't...you don't understand quite much actually.

And of course the reasoning is circular (but also progressive), I follow the premises I argue.

So besides trolling the thread, to get some cheap revenge on the world for the football team gang banging your girlfriend in highschool, do you have any other responses?

Or do you just hide behind wiki pages to prove some point even you are not aware of?

You see, those are ad hominums...try copying the above and applying it. Copy and paste that in your journal under your porn links.

See...I just threw in another ad hominum using recursion theory, an ad hominum within ad hominum...bet they didn't teach that in math class.

See kids logic can be fun, like Atla's mom with the math teacher on prom night...oops just did it again.

I am so meta my my ad-hominums have ad-hominums.

You just don't get it, your premises are not even wrong.

How can a premise be wrong of when it is justified by a tautology? It is like saying "1" is wrong but "1" equivocated to just about anything?

You cannot even use the "it's not even wrong" argument correctly! ROFL!!!!

Not only can't you make sense in philosophy, you can't even make sense of the world you live in. Your thinking is that damaged.

It exists...what more is there to make sense of considering we sense existence?

Even Wittgenstein observed this...

ROFL!!!


That's why a dozen people even on this not very bright forum pointed out that everything you say is nonsense.
Well that doesn't make much sense now does it? Of they are not very bright (your words) then not much makes sense to them now does it? I won't make sense. Neither will x person, or y person...or whoever.

ROFL!!!!

That is a bandwagon fallacy as well, as you are appealing to, again according to you, the "not bright" masses.

ROFL!!!! This is priceless...it really is....

Or why they perma banned you from applying to academia. All your topics are more or less trolling word salads, except you don't even do it purpose.

They permabanned me because I was a seminarian who witnessed the scandals of the church and I was applying to a Catholic College...it was more than just "the paper".

I even had several retired professor's read it and all they could say was "it's technical but quite the opposite of being banned over."

ROFL...you don't even know half the story! But you believe you do! ROFL!!!!

And according to you, you "know everything"...ROFL!!!

I can tell you tried more, and that is what counts, but I am still disappointed you did not study Freud like I recommended and tried psychoanaylzing me.

YOU CANNOT EVEN DO THAT...ROFL!!!!

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:51 am
You just don't get it, your premises are not even wrong.

How can a premise be wrong of when it is justified by a tautology? It is like saying "1" is wrong but "1" equivocated to just about anything?

You cannot even use the "it's not even wrong" argument correctly! ROFL!!!!

Not only can't you make sense in philosophy, you can't even make sense of the world you live in. Your thinking is that damaged.

It exists...what more is there to make sense of considering we sense existence?

Even Wittgenstein observed this...

ROFL!!!


That's why a dozen people even on this not very bright forum pointed out that everything you say is nonsense.
Well that doesn't make much sense now does it? Of they are not very bright (your words) then not much makes sense to them now does it? I won't make sense. Neither will x person, or y person...or whoever.

ROFL!!!!

That is a bandwagon fallacy as well, as you are appealing to, again according to you, the "not bright" masses.

ROFL!!!! This is priceless...it really is....

Or why they perma banned you from applying to academia. All your topics are more or less trolling word salads, except you don't even do it purpose.

They permabanned me because I was a seminarian who witnessed the scandals of the church and I was applying to a Catholic College...it was more than just "the paper".

I even had several retired professor's read it and all they could say was "it's technical but quite the opposite of being banned over."

ROFL...you don't even know half the story! But you believe you do! ROFL!!!!

And according to you, you "know everything"...ROFL!!!

I can tell you tried more, and that is what counts, but I am still disappointed you did not study Freud like I recommended and tried psychoanaylzing me.

YOU CANNOT EVEN DO THAT...ROFL!!!!

Because if you don't understact the abstract-concrete distinction, everything you think or say will be not even wrong. Word salad, nonsense.
You mean like the little chart on the wiki pages that says "x" is only empirical?ROFL!!!! "X" representing car or house or mailbox is built from an abstraction.

You won't even answer this question after making a relativistic claim: Is context physical or abstract?

Even einstein said our reality is determined by our perceptions, the way we see it. And this way is abstractions as they are images in mind.


You fail to meet the criteria needed to participate in philosophical discussions in the first place.
What criteria? ROFL!!!!

You just throw ad-hominums because you are pissed at creation...it isn't even about me entirely.


And you think it's because of witnessing scandals.

I think it is just more than that. I had one reference call the committee to see what was up. They started literally yelling at him....literally to a stranger. The reference, who worked in academia, told me they they where afraid of me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:36 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:30 am

And according to you, you "know everything"...ROFL!!!

I can tell you tried more, and that is what counts, but I am still disappointed you did not study Freud like I recommended and tried psychoanaylzing me.

YOU CANNOT EVEN DO THAT...ROFL!!!!

Because if you don't understact the abstract-concrete distinction, everything you think or say will be not even wrong. Word salad, nonsense.
You mean like the little chart on the wiki pages that says "x" is only empirical?ROFL!!!! "X" representing car or house or mailbox is built from an abstraction.

You won't even answer this question after making a relativistic claim: Is context physical or abstract?

Even einstein said our reality is determined by our perceptions, the way we see it. And this way is abstractions as they are images in mind.


You fail to meet the criteria needed to participate in philosophical discussions in the first place.
What criteria? ROFL!!!!

You just throw ad-hominums because you are pissed at creation...it isn't even about me entirely.


And you think it's because of witnessing scandals.

I think it is just more than that. I had one reference call the committee to see what was up. They started literally yelling at him....literally to a stranger. The reference, who worked in academia, told me they they where afraid of me.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:36 am
Because if you don't understact the abstract-concrete distinction, everything you think or say will be not even wrong. Word salad, nonsense.
You mean like the little chart on the wiki pages that says "x" is only empirical?ROFL!!!! "X" representing car or house or mailbox is built from an abstraction.

You won't even answer this question after making a relativistic claim: Is context physical or abstract?

Even einstein said our reality is determined by our perceptions, the way we see it. And this way is abstractions as they are images in mind.


You fail to meet the criteria needed to participate in philosophical discussions in the first place.
What criteria? ROFL!!!!

You just throw ad-hominums because you are pissed at creation...it isn't even about me entirely.


And you think it's because of witnessing scandals.

I think it is just more than that. I had one reference call the committee to see what was up. They started literally yelling at him....literally to a stranger. The reference, who worked in academia, told me they they where afraid of me.

Yes it's quite possible that they were afraid of you. You can't really reason with genuinely psychotic people, and they can become agressive, vengeful.

Sane people are aggressive and vengeful as well...not much of an argument on your part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

And here's the related fallacy that makes up like half of your philosophy.
ROFL...my philosophy states the fallacies negate themselves as they are applied to eachother! I literally have a whole thread in the math/logic section stating not only are fallacies "fallacious" but they are made up! ROFL!

Any idiot can observe the fallacies cannot only be applied to eachother, but if one is logical and fair to apply the fallacies to themselves.

My philosophical stance negates fallacies but allows for them to exist as negative definitions.

Your primitive logic...does not.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:00 am

ROFL...my philosophy states the fallacies negate themselves as they are applied to eachother! I literally have a whole thread in the math/logic section stating not only are fallacies "fallacious" but they are made up! ROFL!

Any idiot can observe the fallacies cannot only be applied to eachother, but if one is logical and fair to apply the fallacies to themselves.

My philosophical stance negates fallacies but allows for them to exist as negative definitions.

Your primitive logic...does not.

Please keep responding and burying yourself in a hole, this is priceless.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:00 am ROFL...my philosophy states the fallacies negate themselves as they are applied to eachother! I literally have a whole thread in the math/logic section stating not only are fallacies "fallacious" but they are made up! ROFL!

Any idiot can observe the fallacies cannot only be applied to eachother, but if one is logical and fair to apply the fallacies to themselves.

My philosophical stance negates fallacies but allows for them to exist as negative definitions.

Your primitive logic...does not.

Please keep responding and burying yourself in a hole, this is priceless.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:02 am Please keep responding and burying yourself in a hole, this is priceless.

See? the idea of other fallacies negating the reification fallacy is nonsense, word salad at its best.

The reification fallacy is ambiguous (reification) in describing what ambiguity is without making assumptions or going down a slippery slope in an appeal to continuous authorities that cycle through eachother like a bandwagon.

Drops mic....

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:05 am

See? the idea of other fallacies negating the reification fallacy is nonsense, word salad at its best.

The reification fallacy is ambiguous (reification) in describing what ambiguity is without making assumptions or going down a slippery slope in an appeal to continuous authorities that cycle through eachother like a bandwagon.

Drops mic....

The abstract vs concrete distinction is never 100% clear cut,

Than it is an abstraction in itself and a contradiction ensues.


and it's highly context dependent,

Thus meaning context is both physical and abstract and as such the distinction becomes blurred.


and it's somewhat circular etc. etc.
That is not only a contradiction in standard logic, but also using an abstraction to describe a distinction, thus making "distinction" abstract. You are thus equating physical distinctions to abstractions.

but totally necessary nevertheless for distinguishing concepts with physical referents from concepts without physical referents.

And "referent" becomes a hinge term that is both abstract and physical.

Apparently you can't deal with the minimum necessary ambiguity?

That ambiguity makes your answer a probabilistic implication which necessitates that 99.9 percent of the time the distinction occurs the .1 percent necessitates a distinction not occuring.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:09 pmThan it is an abstraction in itself and a contradiction ensues.

Thus meaning context is both physical and abstract and as such the distinction becomes blurred.

That is not only a contradiction in standard logic, but also using an abstraction to describe a distinction, thus making "distinction" abstract. You are thus equating physical distinctions to abstractions.

And "referent" becomes a hinge term that is both abstract and physical.

That ambiguity makes your answer a probabilistic implication which necessitates that 99.9 percent of the time the distinction occurs the .1 percent necessitates a distinction not occuring.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:09 pmThan it is an abstraction in itself and a contradiction ensues.

No it's not, in one sense it's concrete, in another sense it's an abstraction. You still keep contradicting yourself.

In one sense it is concrete in another sense it's an abstraction, then sense is both abstract and concrete and your distinction is arbitrary.

Thus meaning context is both physical and abstract and as such the distinction becomes blurred.

Context is usually abstract but it's context dependent.

Usually necessitates tribalism thus context by default is physical as well.

That is not only a contradiction in standard logic, but also using an abstraction to describe a distinction, thus making "distinction" abstract. You are thus equating physical distinctions to abstractions.

Contradictions only come up when we keep mixing the abstract with the concrete, which is like half of your philosophy.

No, contradiction is a tension in terms that are irreconcilable...synthesis is the joining of terms through a medial term. Your issue, why there is contradiction on your part, is due to the fact you always have a medial term you never reconcile.

This medial term, however you define it is both an abstraction and a physical anamoly.

And "referent" becomes a hinge term that is both abstract and physical.

That's why we need the abstract-concrete ditsinction.
And is distinction abstract or concrete? We see it empirically within the elements.
However we see it abstractly with terms.

That ambiguity makes your answer a probabilistic implication which necessitates that 99.9 percent of the time the distinction occurs the .1 percent necessitates a distinction not occuring.

I find it remarkable that all these years you had everything backwards and you still do.
No, probablism necessitates an eventually antithesis manifesting. So if 99% of the time a plane is not going to crash, 1 of the time it will.


The whole point of the abstract-concrete distinction is that after the ambiguity of deciding what we treat as abstract and what we treat as concrete, we no longer fall into ambiguities.
That is ambiguous as we don't know how to distinguish the physical and abstract in ambiguity.

Second it is a fallacy as with any precision in one term comes a paradoxical lack of clarity in another, so term definition results in an absence of clarity by default every time.




That's what you don't avoid so your philosophy is based on cognitive illusions.

Cognitive illusions are not proven without using some rational framework that is in itself not subject to a possible cognitive illusion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:44 pm...

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:55 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:44 pm...

Okay I'll start form square 1 because all you write is word salad.

There are words typically with physical referents. Like proton. Concrete.
False, we dont even know what a proton is physically due to measurement problems in physics. Some say it's a particle others a wave

There are words typically without physical referents. Like freedom. Abstract.
False, we observe many phenomenon in natural world acting with unrestricted movement (caged vs wild animals) physically.

Randomly mixing the two categories - BAD. Reification fallacies etc.
The fallacies are subject to eachother.

Not mixing them randomly - GOOD.
Your hinge of the argument is randomness, but can you define it without being subject to the same nature?



And we have words which are typically in the grey area, where they can be put in either category depending on context.
Thus they are both abstract and physical, and this "context" falls in the same category.


We agree on how to categorize them, and then we can talk philosophy.

Peoples views of the world, there inherent perspectives, form both ourselves and the world around us. You cannot say physicality and abstraction are seperate in light of technological progress, industrialization, and computing.

Philosophy 101.

Can your brain understand the above?
I press a symbol on a key pad, this symbol changes the electrical flow of the device where the flow reflects the abstraction it is linked too....

Can your brain understand this? The computer, is "a" proof (not "the" proof), abstractions and physicality meet.