What accounts for the fact that some students are super-devoted and therefore wholesome and some are not?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I guess I'm saying you're kind of a hypocrite, lol.

No offense.

Are you trying to be funny?


You can say what you like, but you have failed to demonstrate any hypocrisy.

[Jaded Sage]

Yeah, kinda.

That's because my point is clear to anyone who reads the threads you and I frequent. You've already demonstrated it, and I'm too lazy to copy and paste.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying you are better than that.

Okay. I'm done with the petty stuff.

[marjoram_blues]

Yeah, kinda.

That's because my point is clear to anyone who reads the threads you and I frequent. You've already demonstrated it, and I'm too lazy to copy and paste.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying you are better than that.

Okay. I'm done with the petty stuff.

JS, you have dragged this thread to death. And lost credibility along the way. If you have a clear point, then it should be easy enough for you to make.
Relying on others who might happen to have read any of your other threads...which may or may not include a conversation with HC...well, that's not a very great example of 'wholesomeness' now, is it? You know you can do better than that.

[Jaded Sage]

No, being lazy is not wholesome, but I say it is wholesome not wasting my time on something not worth my time. He knows what I'm talking about, and if not, it is really a matter that should have been discussed privately in the first place. That mistake was a team effort.

[Jaded Sage]

I'm just gonna leave this here. Replace successful and unsuccessful with wholesome and unwholesome. That's what proper philosophy, which includes self-cultivation, leads to. There's also one that says successful people want others to succeed; unsuccessful people want others to fail (not enough room).

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

[marjoram_blues]

No, being lazy is not wholesome, but I say it is wholesome not wasting my time on something not worth my time. He knows what I'm talking about, and if not, it is really a matter that should have been discussed privately in the first place. That mistake was a team effort.

I wasn't only talking about the 'laziness', JS. I really couldn't care less about any spat or point you have with anyone here.

I repeat:

JS, you have dragged this thread to death. And lost credibility along the way. If you have a clear point, then it should be easy enough for you to make.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot, or will not, be clear. You deliberately muddy the discussion. Disgraceful.

[marjoram_blues]

I'm just gonna leave this here. Replace successful and unsuccessful with wholesome and unwholesome. That's what proper philosophy, which includes self-cultivation, leads to. There's also one that says successful people want others to succeed; unsuccessful people want others to fail (not enough room).

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

And now this...

You must be having a real good laugh, huh? I don't often ignore people on the PN forum...but you have just gone over the score.

[Jaded Sage]

Look at that very first picture.

[marjoram_blues]

Look at that very first picture.

Look in the mirror, JS, look in the mirror.
If you can bear it.
Perhaps clean it first.

Now I really will take leave of you. No more feedback from me. Bye.

[duszek]

The first premise "all philosophy is God" is not a sure one.
Jady expressed the lack of certainty by putting the premise in an if-clause:

If all philosophy is God, ...

The syllogisms collapse if one of the premises is not true.
A syllogism is a highly speculative one if one of the premises is mere speculation itself.

Just saw this now. I'm not expressing lack of certainty. In fact, I'm stating a conditional certainty.

If a certainty depends on a condition how certain is it ?

If the sun shines tomorrow (a condition) I will go for a walk.

How certain is this conditional certainty ? How certain is it that I will go for a walk ?

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, being lazy is not wholesome, but I say it is wholesome not wasting my time on something not worth my time. He knows what I'm talking about, and if not, it is really a matter that should have been discussed privately in the first place. That mistake was a team effort.

Here's the thing.
I answered you fully, and I knew exactly what you are talking about.
If you were dissatisfied with my answer then that would probably mean, we are using different assumptions about the underlying truths of the question.
That is EXACTLY where philosophy becomes interesting. Your failure to pursue that reason, you call laziness. What ever happened to your quest for self improvement?

Why would you think you need a certain "percentage' of persons for a definition to be true? If you can answer that question you might be able to free yourself from the Attic Fascist that you so love, and free your mind for more interesting philosophy.

[Jaded Sage]

Yeah, it's disgraceful to muddy the waters alright.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yeah, it's disgraceful to muddy the waters alright.

I've no idea what you are now trying to say.

[Jaded Sage]

The first premise "all philosophy is God" is not a sure one.
Jady expressed the lack of certainty by putting the premise in an if-clause:

If all philosophy is God, ...

The syllogisms collapse if one of the premises is not true.
A syllogism is a highly speculative one if one of the premises is mere speculation itself.

Just saw this now. I'm not expressing lack of certainty. In fact, I'm stating a conditional certainty.

If a certainty depends on a condition how certain is it ?

If the sun shines tomorrow (a condition) I will go for a walk.

How certain is this conditional certainty ? How certain is it that I will go for a walk ?

If the equation is true then it is 100% certain that you will go for a walk if the sun shines tomorrow.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Just saw this now. I'm not expressing lack of certainty. In fact, I'm stating a conditional certainty.

If a certainty depends on a condition how certain is it ?

If the sun shines tomorrow (a condition) I will go for a walk.

How certain is this conditional certainty ? How certain is it that I will go for a walk ?

If the equation is true then it is 100% certain that you will go for a walk if the sun shines tomorrow.

No it is not.
The "equation" suggests an intention, not a certainty, so it cannot be right.
If the sun explodes or he falls out of bed and breaks his legs then what he is saying is not the case.
Not only is the premise conditional, but the intention is also conditional on his capability to fulfill the intention.

Another way to look at it is that the statement is 100% correct in the sense that it only really is a test of his honesty. In that case it does not matter if the sun does rise, or having risen he is forced against his intention and cannot walk. The honesty of the statement is true or false regardless of the outcome.