Philosophy Now Forum

I can't wait to hear he's living in his mum's basement.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:31 pm •I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

1) Assumption: the universe has an owner. 2) Philosophy as making assertions.

•Ownership is certainty of access and control and legitimate/ethical, legal, and actual ownership must be understood separately.

1) (of many) Assumption: Advocate has certainty of control. 2) Philosophy as making assertions. 3

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher. (..who is most likely to do the best things with it if their ownership was actual.)

1) Philosophy as making assertions. 2) The implication is that Advocate's ownership is not actual. Therefore he is not the legitimate owner of the universe.

•The best philosopher is whoever has the best philosophy.

1) Philosophy as making assertions.

•A philosophy is a coherent set of answers/solutions to a set of philosophical questions/problems.

1) Philosophy as making assertions.

•A philosophy must be internally coherent to be rational and externally coherent to be useful.

1) Philosophy as making assertions.

•There are three distinctive areas of philosophy, each with its own tools and aims; Truth Wisdom is the most universal answers to the most universally important questions, Practical Wisdom is custom answers to individual problems, and Academic Philosophy <spit> is about social acceptance as proven by credentials earned primarily through compliance - neither meaningful answers or solutions are required. My scope is Truth Wisdom.

So, not practical wisdom.

•Within this scope, i can meet the following criteria;
a) cohesive, coherent, conclusive
b) expressible in ordinary language
c) compatible with scientific consensus
d) no gaps, special pleading, appeal to authority, or woo

1) Philosophy as making assertions based on self-evaluation.

•My philosophy can easily meet all of those criteria, which none other can, and is therefore the best philosophy, making me the best philosopher therefore the legitimate owner of the universe.

1) Philosophy as making assertions. 2) This claim + $3.35 with get you a short Cappuccino at some Starbucks. You'll also get the Cappuccino without the claim.

But if this was purely tongue in cheeck (which I doubt given the snark aimed at academic philosophers), then it works as really funny rather than tragic.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 4:56 amSo, the land that you say you possess, really is owned by the legitimate owner, and not by 'you' at all "Henry quirk".

I paid the asking price for my little plot.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 4:56 amSo, the land that you say you possess, really is owned by the legitimate owner, and not by 'you' at all "Henry quirk".

I paid the asking price for my little plot.

The conqueror of the no true Scotsman problem is now on hand to challenge you in a battle to the death of logic. Prepare to have your 4 acres of swamp confiscated by he that hath rendered all of metaphysicis into a single spreadsheet, for he alone could perform such mighty deed.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 4:56 amSo, the land that you say you possess, really is owned by the legitimate owner, and not by 'you' at all "Henry quirk".

I paid the asking price for my little plot.

LOL you STILL do NOT get 'it'.

That 'little plot' that you handed money over FOR WAS STOLEN FROM the legitimate owner. Exactly like a STOLEN car can be SOLD, FOR money, FROM the one who is 'now' possessing the car.

But keep TELLING "yourself" what 'you' have been and are here "henry quirk".

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:39 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 4:56 amSo, the land that you say you possess, really is owned by the legitimate owner, and not by 'you' at all "Henry quirk".

I paid the asking price for my little plot.

The conqueror of the no true Scotsman problem is now on hand to challenge you in a battle to the death of logic. Prepare to have your 4 acres of swamp confiscated by he that hath rendered all of metaphysicis into a single spreadsheet, for he alone could perform such mighty deed.

If ANY one has ANY issue with the way I write and speak here, then I suggest bringing EACH and EVERY issue up EXACTLY how 'you' see 'it, CLEARLY and CONCISELY I will add. ALLUDING to 'some' 'this' or 'that 'thing' will NEVER help one here to be understood NOR verified Correct.

By the way, what does the 'metaphysics' word even mean, to you?

PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:18 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:39 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:05 am

I paid the asking price for my little plot.

The conqueror of the no true Scotsman problem is now on hand to challenge you in a battle to the death of logic. Prepare to have your 4 acres of swamp confiscated by he that hath rendered all of metaphysicis into a single spreadsheet, for he alone could perform such mighty deed.

If ANY one has ANY issue with the way I write and speak here, then I suggest bringing EACH and EVERY issue up EXACTLY how 'you' see 'it, CLEARLY and CONCISELY I will add. ALLUDING to 'some' 'this' or 'that 'thing' will NEVER help one here to be understood NOR verified Correct.

By the way, what does the 'metaphysics' word even mean, to you?

PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here.

I can see how you were so infatuated with yourself as to suppose I was referencing you. But Advocate is the OP of this foolishly boastful thread, and he is the one who claimed victory over the No True Scotsman problem which sadly is something that still eludes you. Also it was he who condensed all of metaphysics into a spreadsheet, while to be honest I doubt you have ever authored any spreadsheets at all.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:08 pmThat 'little plot' that you handed money over FOR WAS STOLEN FROM the legitimate owner.

You know this how?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:18 pmPROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here.

Then do it: you haven't yet.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:59 pm But what if humanity has like 20-30 years left, so the "best philosophies" aren't focused on something as trivial as humanity, but on potential possibilities that go beyond it?

We can't access that scope yet. We have existential rot to deal with first.

I mean in 20-30 years we may blow up the planet and no one can stop that. So maybe dealing with existential rot is a waste of time, maybe dealing with humanity at all is a waste of time. Maybe not what the best philosopher of all time should be focused on, but on something else instead.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:18 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:39 am

The conqueror of the no true Scotsman problem is now on hand to challenge you in a battle to the death of logic. Prepare to have your 4 acres of swamp confiscated by he that hath rendered all of metaphysicis into a single spreadsheet, for he alone could perform such mighty deed.

If ANY one has ANY issue with the way I write and speak here, then I suggest bringing EACH and EVERY issue up EXACTLY how 'you' see 'it, CLEARLY and CONCISELY I will add. ALLUDING to 'some' 'this' or 'that 'thing' will NEVER help one here to be understood NOR verified Correct.

By the way, what does the 'metaphysics' word even mean, to you?

PROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here.

I can see how you were so infatuated with yourself as to suppose I was referencing you. But Advocate is the OP of this foolishly boastful thread, and he is the one who claimed victory over the No True Scotsman problem which sadly is something that still eludes you. Also it was he who condensed all of metaphysics into a spreadsheet, while to be honest I doubt you have ever authored any spreadsheets at all.

Okay

Once again more PROOF of why it is Wrong to ASSUME and PRESUME things without gaining full CLARITY FIRST.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:32 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:08 pmThat 'little plot' that you handed money over FOR WAS STOLEN FROM the legitimate owner.

You know this how?

Because NO legitimate and rightful so-called 'owner' of parcels of earth would hand them over voluntarily to "another" who would 'sell' them for money nor to who would pass them on to those who would 'sell' them, for money.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 1:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:18 pmPROVING that "Henry quirk" is only 'possessing', what is NOT legitimately owned by 'it', is about one of the most simplest and easiest 'things' to do here.

Then do it: you haven't yet.

OF COURSE I have NOT done 'it' YET, and this is just because NO one has ever asked me to do 'it', YET. Nor has ANY one even sought to begin a discussion with me about 'it'.

Earth, nor parts of 'it', like the Universe, and parts of 'It', can not be justly 'owned' by;

1. 'things' that are only 'around' for a very tiny and Truly insignificant period of 'time'.

2. 'things' that have stolen or removed, in part or in full, land to less than fully informed beings, or creatures.

3. 'things' who make up laws and rules, claiming that they have, 'now', suddenly become lawful 'owners' of said land.

4. 'things' who claim to 'own' what actually created them.

To PROVE, irrefutably, that NO 'thing' can 'legitimately', that is; JUSTIFY, 'owning' earth, nor parts of earth, is to show and present the actual Fact that there is not ONE human being who has been able to JUSTIFY the claim that 'one, or more, of them' ACTUALLY 'owns' said land.

Now, if absolutely ANY one of 'you', human beings, think or believe that 'you' or "another one" of 'you' could JUSTIFY 'owning' ANY part of earth, itself, then please go ahead and PROVE SO.

We will AWAIT 'your claim'.

Also, if absolutely ANY one of 'you', human beings, would like to delve FURTHER INTO what I said and wrote above here, then let us please DO SO.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 3:02 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 2:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:59 pm But what if humanity has like 20-30 years left, so the "best philosophies" aren't focused on something as trivial as humanity, but on potential possibilities that go beyond it?

We can't access that scope yet. We have existential rot to deal with first.

I mean in 20-30 years we may blow up the planet and no one can stop that.

Saying and claiming 'this' here would be like saying and claiming, 'I mean in 20-30 years we may create a Truly peaceful and loving world for every one, and NO one could stop that'.

you speak as though 'you', people, have absolutely NO power NOR control over what actually happens.

Which is Truly LAUGHABLE considering the Fact that you are, literally, talking ABOUT and in REGARDS TO what 'you', people, ACTUALLY DO.

Do 'you', "atla", REALLY BELIEVE that 'you', people, can NOT 'stop', thus CONTROL, what 'you', adult people, actually DO?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 3:02 pm So maybe dealing with existential rot is a waste of time, maybe dealing with humanity at all is a waste of time. Maybe not what the best philosopher of all time should be focused on, but on something else instead.

Like 'what', exactly, do 'you', "atla", propose?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 10:41 pmBecause NO legitimate and rightful so-called 'owner' of parcels of earth would hand them over voluntarily to "another" who would 'sell' them for money nor to who would pass them on to those who would 'sell' them, for money.

That's nonsensical. Here, in S. Louisiana, the earliest inhabitants were nomads (about 20,000 years back). Between 6 and ten thousand years back the area was settled by the Tunican and Caddoan. About 2,000 years back, farming (and hence land ownership) began.

Now accordin' to you, one of the first peoples, who took possession of a tract and worked the soil, either wasn't a legit owner (makin' you commie scum), or, if he were a legit owner, would never, ever, sell his tract to one of his fellows. And that guy would never, ever, sell, in part or whole, his tract to another, and so on.

That's silly...and stupid.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:01 pmEarth, nor parts of 'it', like the Universe, and parts of 'It', can not be justly 'owned' by (persons).

So: I don't own my house, my land, my car, my clothes, my books, my garden, my shotgun, or, apparently, myself.

Commie scum it is.