Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:07 pm

1. Fourth post down.

2. I all is one then I am the one as I am connected to the one. Given one only exists in contrast to the many the one and being one is contradictory.

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

'I' am NOT connected to the so-called 'one'. 'I' AM thee One.

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm 2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:28 pm

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

'I' am NOT connected to the so-called 'one'. 'I' AM thee One.

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm 2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm 2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:03 pm This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:06 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:58 am

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.


But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.



LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

I am NOT arguing/fighting for ANY thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:06 pm

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

I am NOT arguing/fighting for ANY thing.

Yet you disagree with me, which is ie "you" considering you are "thee one".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:28 pm 1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:16 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:28 pm In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:34 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:16 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:28 pm In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:34 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:34 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:16 pm

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:34 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:34 am

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:34 pm

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:46 pm

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:54 pm

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Neither of your premises are remotely "acceptable".

So there is not paradox here.

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Both BS

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:56 pm

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Neither of your premises are remotely "acceptable".

So there is not paradox here.

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Both BS

1. "Everything" applies as a thing considering it is a singular expression.
2. "Something" applies to all things considering it references a multiplicity.