For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No.
Well I'm just saying that I find it distracting. Others might enjoy seeing capital letters where they wouldn't normally expect to see them, I don't know.
The questions of philosophy don't really get answered, naieve bullshit about philosophy being some sort of search for wisdom obscures what is actually going on - namely that we are arguing about how to recognise a correct answer to certain questions, not even how to actually answer them. There's fuck all to learn about reality in itself or which toothpaste God recommends. You can learn about arguments and how they work or fail, and sometimes somebody will raise one you are not familiar with and you will have to endure the excruciating pain of thought.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:52 am In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?
Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?
To show;henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:16 pmWhat is that specific reasoning?
And I am just saying that I do not find it distracting at all. As I was saying, what is 'inappropriate' to one is not necessarily to another.
What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable, which makes that argument an actual Truth, which is irrefutable forever more. But as can be seen throughout this forum is that absolutely everyone of the 'arguments' put forward here, in 'trying to' argue or fight for some particular position is not sound and valid, and therefore really not worth even repeating ever again.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:32 pmThe questions of philosophy don't really get answered, naieve bullshit about philosophy being some sort of search for wisdom obscures what is actually going on - namely that we are arguing about how to recognise a correct answer to certain questions, not even how to actually answer them. There's fuck all to learn about reality in itself or which toothpaste God recommends. You can learn about arguments and how they work or fail, and sometimes somebody will raise one you are not familiar with and you will have to endure the excruciating pain of thought.Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:52 am In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?
Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?
But you can still get some value out of some fairly dire conversations if you aim for moderate goals. Vaginal Armpit for instance, did inspire me to re-read at least two books I hadn't thought about in years, and even to purchase one I have never read to see what that's about*. The fact that his own output is total garbage and can be safely ignored is partially counteracted by the question of how he thinks Kant or Wittgenstein supports him, sometimes.
If you try to maintain a little variety by looking to provide a new counter-arg every now and then, even if the other guy is just repeating the same mantra he's been broadcasting for years with little alteration, that is good excercise too. An argument with one glaring hole that you spotted in the first 10 seconds 5 years ago perobably has other and more interesting faults, you should collect them. There is no prize for collecting them all, but there isn't a prize for winning an argument on the internet either.
* I haven't actually read it yet, it looks a tiny bit boring now I have it to hand.
Well you wouldn't would you? You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.
Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.
That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.
I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.
Well we can all insist our arguments are irrefutable, can't we?
Do you include your own arguments in this assessment?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:24 pm But as can be seen throughout this forum is that absolutely everyone of the 'arguments' put forward here, in 'trying to' argue or fight for some particular position is not sound and valid, and therefore really not worth even repeating ever again.../...The 'holes' in every one of the so-called 'arguments' presented in this forum can be and are clearly seen and noticed.
Okay, I'll put you down as being in the "doggedly sticking to your guns no matter what" camp then.
So I took some liberties with your post. !a and 1b are rephrasings as are 2a and 2b. Or as you say the b versions are putting the a versions another way.
Now I realise what's going on.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:45 pmOf course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.
And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.
See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.
See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.
Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.
I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.
See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.
So I see.
I'm sorry, my mind wandered...can you repeat that?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:11 pmTo show;
Just how easily distracted people used to get.
How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.
That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.
That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.