Philosophy Now Forum

"The cup is on the table" and it is so because of Cartesian coordinates, is nothing of any significance.

Like talking to my two young-adult sons.

'The cup is on the table' is not true because of Cartesian coordinates. It is true because it corresponds to states of affairs.

creativesoul wrote:it is not my model, merely the one I am currently using. It is influenced by Kant, Witt, and Davidson, among others. Are you saying that the cup can be both, on the table and not on the table simultaneously? If so, what would that look like, or rather - how could that be?

i am just wondering if the cup can be riverdancing under the table and playing tennis at the table simultaneously, in some other model?

More like a structural ongoing revisitation.

sounds fun. keep that model if you like. it sure does make me laugh. i like! me happy.

Hell, I dunno... What if?

exciting is it. like ordering in a restaurant? do you want english food?! lets see what our cook will make you..

.





......................




.......................................................Inverted coffee cup lamps.





.............................................................On the table yet under the table!




.

Satyr wrote:But there is no exit in this world, as no more frontiers exist, nor are any accessible.

but in conservative christians world theres always heaven and hell to go? what about your world, cant you find exit in it? is there a pattern of dogmatic models?

Sometimes, but rarely, one comes up with an angle that I had not come across, forcing me to question my model and to adjust it or reevaluate it.

in some models, there seems to be some kind of "everything can be explained"-pattern. good old rhetorical way? or was it scholastical? mind-farting sounds also fun. like "some body farted in an crowded elevator, therefore i am not." Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. Veni, Vidi, Video

Mark Question wrote:but in conservative christians world theres always heaven and hell to go?

what nuances a particular projection acquires is based on the sophistication of the mind involved. Simple minds create simplistic understanding, with childish ideas like heaven/hell.

Mark Question wrote:what about your world, cant you find exit in it?

There is no "my world".
My perspective is of the world. All that remains to be seen is if it is a superior understanding/interpretation of it.

What lies "outside" existence? Non-existence?
What is outside reality? Unreality?

There is no escape, only coping.
One adapts or one perishes.

Mark Question wrote:is there a pattern of dogmatic models?

There are patterns wherever a mind can finds them.
Understanding is about finding patterns.

Mark Question wrote:in some models, there seems to be some kind of "everything can be explained"-pattern. good old rhetorical way?

Yes...this is the fallacy of excluding one's self from what is perceived.
All around you imperfection, yet perfection is what you dream of.
All around you ignorance, to varying degrees always, yet omniscience is implied...as if the mind can exit reality and from some lofty perch, "outside" see the entirety and declare it known.

As you might imagine, what comes across with a smile and a positive air, can be proposing the most negative, self-hating, life-negating crap out there.
In a world where everything is turned on tis head and weakens becomes strength, the nihilist is the "progressive" positive thinker....what else can paradise be, right?

And look at the douche-bag defender of weakness against bullies, and the humble ones that cheer him on...are they not the bullies, offering the most arrogant positions around?

Before this thread completely devolves, the OP asks... what is stopping us from seeing the truth? I personally think that that question is misplaced, and cannot be answered without having a good grasp on the role that truth plays in - dare I say - all thought/belief. Truth is a long-standing philosophical subject matter that has been going on for centuries. This post is meant to elaborate on the centrality of truth and identify it's irrevocable importance.

The primary premiss is that at conception one is void of thought/belief. Axioms include 'I believe X' means I take X to be true, and that it is impossible to intentionally make a mistake. The conclusion I've arrived at is that the presupposition of 'loose' truth/reality correspondence is a necessary property of all thought/belief. As such it is relevent to knowledge, but insufficient for the T in JTB(which I'm a proponent of). Let's look at how that can be arrived at, by analyzing the elemental constituents(irrevocable universal common denominators) which, when combined, constitute all thought/belief. They are as follows...

1. Perception(physical detection)
2. Identification/distinction(spatiotemporal)
3. Correlation(mental cognition)

1-3 are necessary and sufficient for thought/belief formation. Truth cannot stand alone, rather it is instantiated via thought/belief formation. However, it does not follow that truth is a creation of the mind, nor that it is a property of language, only that it is the property of thought/belief that relates/connects it to reality, at first completely unbeknownst to the 'virgin' believer/thinker. As such, because thought/belief are necessary elements of common language, truth is a necessary element of everything humanly thought/believed/known whether through language(knowing that) or not(knowing how).

There is no truth(of any kind) without reality(the universe and/or it's contents). This connection of thought/belief to reality is initially unbeknownst to the thinker/believer, necessarily so. Our apprehension and/or recognition of truth/reality correspondence requires a complex belief-system. The autonomous employment of it does not. Complex belief is accrued from and/or built upon the truth presupposition of the simple. This can be known because prior to common language acquisition, in order to satisfy 1-3, a subject cannot possibly doubt the existence of that which is being thought/believed. That holds good because doubting requires ground(pre-existing belief) which does not yet exist. Nor can the subject have what it takes to be able to apprehend the inherent fallibility within his/her own thought/belief, because that requires having come to the realization/acceptance that s/he is or has been mistaken.

These considerations are extant and necessary components within all thought/belief... without exception. The initial employment of truth/reality correspondence is incorruptible. It is the same in every case, in every language, and as such constitutes the very basis of every belief-system. That holds good because we know that doubt itself is doubting the truth of. Doubting compares. One cannot perform comparitive analysis(knowingly or unknowingly) without first establishing a baseline(Witt's hinge propositions/bedrock belief) from which to compare. That baseline necessitates the presupposition of truth/reality correspondence within it. The act of questioning/doubting requires pre-existing thought/belief as that baseline. One cannot doubt the linguistic foundation of their belief-system(Witt's hinge propositions or bedrock beliefs) because that becomes an integral part of the baseline. One cannot possibly doubt that that is a tree, or that this is a hand. We necessarily trust that our natural language teachers are truth fore-bearing, for we could not learn common language otherwise.

Now, it is not so much that I would be brazen or naive enough to say that "This is absolutely, for certain, the way things really are" or whatever, but rather - out of necessity alone - we presuppose that there is a way that things are. Humans possess innate potential that births curiosity about the things which appear to us(are given). We are innately rational(Kantian sense). We think about that which appears, and our language attempts to set it out, understand it, and communicate our thought/belief to others. Written language creates more and more complex distinctions/definitions which leads to more and more complex thought/belief about the world and/or ourselves that is simply not possible through thought/belief verbal language alone. Our capacity is limited. Understanding solely depends upon the kind of belief that we're talking about, specifically - the content. That is one aspect not being taken into proper consideration. Not everything we think, believe, and/or know is subject to the mind(thought/belief). Truth is one such thing(capitalized for grammatical purposes only).

Another grossly neglected and thus far confused facet of consideration regards our fallibility. Acknowledging fallibility constitutes a being bit of knowledge. Knowledge must be true, because we cannot know a falsehood. Consequently, it(fallibility) demands the acceptance that we could be wrong about some things. It does not follow that we've been or could be wrong about all things. Fallibility is a fickle 'creature', especially in it's subjective influence and/or affects, which is another topic in it's own right, but seems to be playing a role here - for sure. It's role is important here in order to fully grasp the role that truth plays in our everyday lives. It is only after we can no longer deny that we have been wrong about something or another - that we have believed a falsehood - that we can even begin to grasp our own inherent fallibility. It takes being wrong, and being able to accept that we may be, in order to come to understand what truth is and the fundamental role that it plays. The interesting part is that that apprehension of being mistaken is not - cannot be - initially caused by what we already believed to be so, rather it is necessarily caused by that which was not previously believed. It necessitates 'other than' or independent of our current belief. That may be a 'private' event(through studies), or it may directly require another point of view, but it is always externally influenced in some manner or another.

In order to assent to another's expressed belief, assuming it conflicts with our own, it takes finding a mutually held belief about the way things are, then establishing the 'loose' truth/reality correspondence within thought/belief. By developing that mutual belief in that kind of way(Davidson's right kind of way???), we can establish a basis by which the relationship between thought/belief and truth/reality can be demonstrated so that we can set out the parameters by which we hold things to be true in order for the linguist/listener to show the speaker/believer their error and thereby initiate the 'error event'.

Then, we have this odd notion that because we are limited(by language) in our access to the way things are, that truth is unattainable. It simply does not follow. Just because we do not perceive everything as it is and/or just because language is a representative abstraction of reality, it does not follow that we cannot perceive anything as it is, nor does it follow that we cannot make true claims about. Our thought/belief is the access to the way things are, however limited it may be, and our language aims to set that out. I am of the considered opinion that anyone who attempts to deny truth by arguing about the way things are, including those who claim that we cannot know about the way things are(for whatever reason), is making a truth claim about the way things are. We cannot even charitably grant that we have no access to the way things are, for doing that removes the basis from which to make the claim. We are necessarily a part of the way things are. If we have no access to the way things are, then we cannot reasonably say that we do not have access to the way things are, because as a claim about the way things are, it is completely unjustifiable. It is self-refuting at best, nonsense at worst.

With that in mind, those of us who have come to know that we could be mistaken about some things, assert our beliefs, and subsequently offer our best justification when questioned(which again, is a matter of how well we understand our own thought/belief not stepping outside of it). Sometimes it turns out to be inadequately justified or even altogether false. Other times, we find no room for reasonable doubt. The interesting thing is that a false belief cannot be accepted as false, unless it is somehow obvious to s/he who holds the false belief. We cannot know that we've held false belief, unless we come to know why/how it is/was false. If our belief-system grounds our claims, then according to the content at that time, the system itself cannot provide the means to falsify itself. For if it could, we would never be able to be mistaken to begin with(we would have omniscience). Therefore, the aforementioned "error event" necessitates our acknowledging that which is not already a part of our belief-system. It takes something outside of personal warrant, independent of the belief-system, something novel, something new. Another human suffices.

And there are often, althought not here, the claims against truth regarding prior held 'knowledge'. Specifically, whether or not it makes any sense to say that we can know a falsehood because past held knowledge has been falsified. To claim that one can know a falsehood by virtue of past 'knowledge' being false, is to admit that it was once incorrectly believed to be true, but is now known to be false. It is to admit mistake. It is to say that we now know it was/is false. It was always the case that it was false, unbeknownst to us. Thus, truth cannot be established beyond justification, and justification is a matter of understanding how it is that one has come to assent to any given belief, or set thereof. However, the acknowledgement of mistaken 'knowledge' is necessarily independent of that justification. The truth of a claim is not determined by belief nor justificiation. Rather, truth is necessarily presupposed in thought/belief, later argued for with justification, and proven wrong by that which is neither.

Can you drink from them Bill? So not "cup" I guess.

But nice find, I take it back, pictures can be good.

Satyr wrote:...
And look at the douche-bag defender of weakness against bullies, and the humble ones that cheer him on...are they not the bullies, offering the most arrogant positions around?

You talking about me again wanker?

I don't teach "weakness against bullies" I teach the weak to stand-up to bullies, win or lose, as they soon fuck-off. I also teach that the 'bully' is oft the bullied and many don't like to be as such and can change if offered the chance.

I'm surprised tho'? As I'd have thought your turdish metaphysic would have the bully as expressing his 'nature' given genetic superiority agin his inferiors?

.


I never thought I would say this when I first started posting on these boards but I would like to state now, I really appreciate, EVERYONE who participated upon the development of this thread; Arising_uk, creativesoul, Mark Question, John, Chaz Wyman, duszek, Typist, Wootah, Pluto, spike, HexHammer, tbieter, Dunce, and Kayla.

It has been a wild and interesting ride!


At times the road was bumpy but in the end I think we are all closer together and this thread brought out the best in all of us.

This thread was active for almost two-and-a-half months!



One of the most powerful forces that emerged for me in this thread was the discovery of Satyr.

Tremendous ability to write.

Exceptional breadth of philosophy.


He has a style, a mode of operation that initially seems harsh.


Is that the tool that he used on us to bring out more from within us?





Earlier I stated that I thought that this particular thread brought out the best in us.


Could we have ever achieved that if we were to sit around patting ourselves on the back?


Did the member satyr use a style to ruffle our feathers and consequently dust-up some associations that we as a whole would have never been able to achieve on our own?



Did he show to us that perhaps What is stopping us from seeing the truth? is our own, normally comfortable attitude toward each other and ourselves?




Among other things, I think satyr is a tremendous actor...perhaps we will never know the truth. His truth.





.

I think you're being a little naive - in a good sort of way - Bill. If you think that such aggression is necessary to bring out the 'best' in people, then you've fell into a mental trap which supports such aggressive behavior. Such a thing produces the logical consequence of our calling such aggression 'good'. I call it unnecessary. There can be conflicting views without such aggression. While there is something to be said about standing up for what you believe in, it does not necessarily require aggressively attacking others in order to do so. Holding others with respect requires allowing another to have and hold their own belief. It requires empathy. Empathy requires common ground. It does not require submitting to such abuse, whether it be physical, mental, or verbal.

We need only to keep in mind that it is not through our actions that we are born with or without certain abilities/talents, and if we cannot take credit for those, then we certainly cannot fault another for not having them.

My perspective is of the world. All that remains to be seen is if it is a superior understanding/interpretation of it.

I think that the only place that that remains to be seen, is in a mind which does not understand what it would take for your claims to be true; IOW in one that does not understand it. It seems to me that the perspective you've put forth smells like modern day sophism. It is a specious and fallacious line of argumentation, that finds it's only solidarity in the exhibition of an adult engaged in elementary schoolyard-like behavior that is being grounded(to use the term loosely) in an appeal to 'nature' that is completely unfounded to begin with. Your refusal to justify the claims you make reduces them to pure subjective opinion. Call me a bully, if you so choose, or any of the other 150/200 times you've resorted to calling me some derogatory label. I've set out to understand thought/belief itself, and unfortunately - it seems for you - that includes yours, and I'm rather unapologetic about it. Wipe the blood off, put a baind-aid on it, and get to work... will ya?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.I never thought I would say this when I first started posting on these boards but I would like to state now, I really appreciate, EVERYONE who participated upon the development of this thread; Arising_uk, creativesoul, Mark Question, John, Chaz Wyman, duszek, Typist, Wootah, Pluto, spike, HexHammer, tbieter, Dunce, and Kayla.
It has been a wild and interesting ride!
At times the road was bumpy but in the end I think we are all closer together and this thread brought out the best in all of us.
This thread was active for almost two-and-a-half months!
One of the most powerful forces that emerged for me in this thread was the discovery of Satyr.
Tremendous ability to write.
Exceptional breadth of philosophy.
He has a style, a mode of operation that initially seems harsh.
Is that the tool that he used on us to bring out more from within us?
Earlier I stated that I thought that this particular thread brought out the best in us.
Could we have ever achieved that if we were to sit around patting ourselves on the back?

Did the member satyr use a style to ruffle our feathers and consequently dust-up some associations that we as a whole would have never been able to achieve on our own?
Did he show to us that perhaps What is stopping us from seeing the truth? is our own, normally comfortable attitude toward each other and ourselves?
Among other things, I think satyr is a tremendous actor...perhaps we will never know the truth. His truth.
.

Indeed....
And you ain't seen nothing yet.

I think that when a douche-bag settles for a childish "the cup is on the table" to end his intellectual musings, it is like the christian who says "God created everything" or the imbecile who simply states unequivocally "I exist, because I exist" or when a weakling uses his height or childish schoolyard attacks on Greek women and their beauty to compensate for his emasculated mind.
By using the exaggeration of a few male characteristics without even realizing that to be masculine is an attitude, a way of engaging the world, she exposes herself.
In the process of trying to prove herself a man she does the opposite, as I expected she would and had already many many months ago.
Gossip, sexual innuendos, like the ones women use to cut down a man who has hurt them, and the usual banter about physicality and preschool taunts.

You see, for this princess, the only way to understand what I am is to put me in a caricature. I am a nationalist, a racist skin-head, a loser bitter because she can't get laid. Everything is reduced down to a level she can relate to, exposing herself with such brilliance.
What did I say about a mind simplifying, generalizing, the other? But no two simplifications/generalizations are created equal, now are they?
The value of her diploma is exemplified in the abstractions she uses to make sense of me.

To evaluate a mind you need not read it, like the douche-bag claims to avoid being exposed via his "thinking", you must simply evaluate the sophistication of his abstractions; you must study actions.
Is not the quality of the princess's mind not reflected in her tactics of using nationalism and sexual innuendo and attacks against my personal life, with that quaint girlish methodology of hers?
Do I need an institutional authority to tell me what she's all about?
With the level of edumucation these days, they'll give those pieces of paper to chimps. It's a business. All they need is asses on the seats and feet on the employment/unemployment lines.

Of course engaging in any serious conversation with a child or a retard can be frustrating and I do not recommend it.
I do so, when and if I do, because I am a Satyr with all that this means.
Once I used to call myself Wanderer. It was back when I still considered the turds frequenting these forums as way above the average and thought that some meaningful stuff would come of all this socializing.

Boy was I wrong.
Once I realized that it was not the case I changed my persona.
These places are not about philosophy, besides some rudimentary recitation of another's views, most often a famous other, they are places the masses gather to reaffirm their common ideals, disagreeing only on the details while the main principles are held to be self-evident. Like Christian biblical studies where the book is never questioned but the debate is over who interprets the holy scripture the best.

I am a Satyr, and if you combine it with the avatar I usually use, you just might get a hint about the caricature I play on-line, and why I play it.
What were satyr's in Greek mythology but, more importantly, what does the Thomas Harris character of Hannibal Lecter represent?

If there have been any lessons learned it is that philosophy is about exploring what this existence means, outside our simple conceptions and useful abstractions of it.
Philosophy uses the perceived to extrapolate the rest. It requires imagination and artistry.
Whomever is content with "The cup is on the table" does not belong in anything titled "philosophy". He already knows the truth and it is contained within the simplicities of his perspective.
He cares not about what "cup" means, or what the concept of "on" signifies. He is satisfied with the simplistic "the cup is on the table" which even a child can see, no?

If so, then "I think therefore I am" is overkill for such a douche-bag...and he is satisfied with the even simpler "I am because I am".
Move on, old fart....play golf, get a hobby...give up your intellectual cravings. Age does not equal wisdom, no more than empathy equals sympathy.

Never-mind if the cup dissipates into a haze of quantum foam when you delve into its depths, where in fact one can wonder if there is a cup at all, or if it dissipates into a vibrating symphony of proverbial strings (talk about science using poetics); never-mind that the concept of "on" only makes sense within the contexts of a planet, rotating, and it denotes a relationship where no contact is ever made - call it a celibate relationship...where no touching is possible, because if there were a nuclear holocaust would ensue; finally never-mind that the particular relationship between the process the mind simplifies as a thing called "cup" interacting with the process simplified into the thing called "table" is one contained within the parameters of human experience, that it is contained within the temporal and spatial possibility an ephemeral human life with the weak sensual organs it is using, can make sense of; never-mind that the term "is" in this case implies a position that does not make sense outside the human mind, using its own fabrications of Cartesian coordinates to pretend that it is being precise.

I linked the princess a while back to an interesting BBC documentary about the length of a string...her response:
"The string is as long as I cut it"....this is the type of mind I am dealing with.
The "cup is on the table", the "string is as long as I cut it"...end of story....let us pray.

This, dear friends, is bullying. This is totalitarianism in a nutshell. This is the mindset the fanatics who crashed into those building suffered from.
This is stupidity real time, no quantification necessary, real time proof. It is this same mindset that can burn women because they are witches or who can hang a man because he doubts their simplistic bullshit.
THIS is what stupidity looks like.

Where is this point in space/time this douche-bag uses to signify a here or a there? Is it infinitely divisible, and if so then which here is the here he means?

Are these simplifications practical?
Of course, otherwise they would not have evolved. They are successful and so they have managed to be good enough to be used to survive. They've been naturally selected as superior methods of conceptualizing space/time, but they are not the end of the road.
Has evolution stopped? Are the constructs man uses to build buildings and bridges creating structures that last forever, or do they require upkeep and constant adjustments, because math is a simplification like any other language is?
What arrogance to even consider the possibility that man, in his present state, is the end of the road, the pinnacle of evolution...that man knows anything for certain.
What a totalitarian mindset to even propose an absolute truth. This same "humble" douche-bag would have us believe he is open minded, when he already knows the TRUTH!!!

Then he uses "radical skepticism" to evoke the fascist dilemma...if you deny our certainty you must be about anarchy!

But is the utility of these abstractions enough, is their advantage enough, or does philosophy desire to know more?

Otherwise, who cares if the earth rotates around the sun, when the sun heating the planet suffices and it can be used?
The douche-bag thinks it is enough to simply stay on the "the cup is on the table"...and when his stupidity is put to the test and it begins unraveling he scrambles with idiocies about THE Truth versus Truth. Then adopting some of what he was made aware of he begins talking about "state of affairs", making the absurd statement that he both agrees and disagrees with me....in other words he is all things to all people, if his stupidity is never made public.

Never quantifying a thing...despite being the stringent thinker that he is, demanding only quantifiable concepts to deal with, he now expects to be taken seriously?
He goes so far as to request a synopsis to the essay I linked him to. He can't be bothered, you see, he already knows that "the cup is on the table". He can pick it up, sit on the chair, drink from it...and this is it.
Why ask for more?
Does he ask Kant for quantification of thing-in-itself? Does he ask him for a Nietzsche for Nitwitsbooklet?

I gave him pages of justifications, and the grounding of my perspective, but he refuses to consider them...he needs a run-down...he demands quantification: ounces, pounds, centimeters, kilos...human standards.
But this is about his penis, you see. He cannot consider them because his withering dick gets in the way. he came to engage me so that he could chop my balls off.

He could care less if the cup is a dynamic process, participating in a reality which is nothing but dynamic and active. It looks solid, he can touch it, whatever touching means, and he can use the cup...end of story.
This is a thinker? What is this douche-bag doing here?

This from a "mature" man?
I waved my dick and look what came out to play.
The douche-bag is a hypocrite of the worse kind...he actually believes in his own lies.
THAT is what a douche-bag is. Shall I quantify "douche-bag"? Only if he defines the standard...let us begin with the number one.

I, for one, respect him too much and I take him at his words, so I will not respond to anything he says directly unless he lives up to his own standard and quantifies everything he posts.
I'll have to make do with raping the British princess every chance I get. I find her present distress an invigorating change from her earlier flippancy. Albeit she agrees with me she comes heeding the swinging of my dick, along with the douche-bag.
Imagine that.
Maybe her protruding arse is an invitation. Did she not come because she saw my dick waving? She says so, so I take her word on it.

The rest of the emasculated freaks ran for the woods when their comfortable "self-evident" ideals were suddenly challenged.
"Did you say 'wilderness'?...that's is, I'm out of here"
"What was that? Natural selection?...well I'm done...you aren't worth my response."

See, that kind of cowardice I can respect.
They refuse to even consider the possibility that race and sex might not be superficial designations, despite the fact that "the cup is on the table". When it comes to penises and pussies and race, then it is never what it appears to be...it is all superficial or much too mysterious and mystical to even explore.
They would rather munch on the grass the herd is used to regurgitating and when they are done chewing on it they produce mountains of fertilizer to grow the next generation of sheeple.

It suffices that there are no races and sex is only physically relevant...enough said. The cup is on the table...why ask for more?
"Look, damn it!! Can you not see it? It is there!!!"

Evidently aggression is evil, how not typical. I wonder what natural selection is about?
What is selected and how?
Do the animals gather to vote on who deserves to reproduce this time?
Funny how the greatest technological leaps occurred during times of war. Funny how necessity is the mother of invention and comfort the mother of stagnation.
Funny that a pussy would consider challenge not productive...like when muscle builds it is, presumably, because it is at rest, comfortable, and not when it is stressed.

Funny how masculine aggression underlies everything from civilization to philosophy, as challenging nature herself is what the sciences are about.

Funny that an old fart and a douche-bag, raising emasculated sons to be douche-bags like he is, would be such a "nice guy"...yet he contradicts himself by coming to "put me in my place" and THAT is what the Satyr is all about.
Despite the feigned civility, aloofness, fake politeness, the air of cold reasoning... lies a typical, average, animal that can be known and manipulated to expose its nature, while it is busy wearing its masks.

How do you make someone show his real self, outside the insinuation of his clothes and his etiquette and his diplomas?
You get him angry. You take him out of his comfort zone. You stress his feeble mind with ideas that scare him.
Cooperation, indeed, there is nothing more comforting than having another by your side...like cows and sheep often do. There is some power in numbers, but when the wolf enters and the herd scatters, by exploiting a weak spot, the individuals become easy pickings.

And yes even wolves are social animals...degrees, imbeciles, discrimination...there lies the difference. No absolutes....degrees. strength is a degree of weakness....independence is a degree of dependence...

You turds should have put me on ignore, like your mates did. Then the cup would have been forever comfortably on the table, and all you would have required to be content was that you can fill it and then empty it's contents.

Satyr,

Perhaps I'm overestimating again. I gotta love the pop-psychology being used to construct a safe-haven. I'd pat you on the back, but your hands are in the way. Interesting coping mechanism. If you, for one, "respect" me too much and take me at my word, then you ought act like it. That'd be a good start. Successfully doing such a thing first requires understanding. I suggest that you try again, because you're still arguing with an imaginary opponent. Lose your presuppositions, entertain the notion that you - as do we all - have inherent perceptual/interpretational fallibility. Re-read what has been written. Quote my words, and make your objection(s) clear, concise, and coherent.

Regarding your 'reason' for not further engaging... Show me where I've demanded quantifiability. I'm talking metaphysics, metacognition, metalanguage, metaethics, etc. Quantifiability would be a plus, and is certainly not a requirement. You've mistaken your own interpretations of my objections with the objections themselves, which tells me that you trust your judgmental faculty too much at times. Your earlier ambiguous use of the term "degree", when you talked about 'degrees of awareness', is/was indicative of the obscurity throughout your ruminations. I'm asking you to justify your claims. Justification is public. There is no such thing as 'degrees of awareness'. That construct has it's meaning in your mind - which is ok, as long as you can come to meaningful, coherent terms about it. Such a thing(awareness) cannot be meaningfully talked about in terms of quantifiable increments(degrees), unless one quantifies awareness by attributing some kind of value to the increment. For if we do not know what constitutes a degree, then saying such a thing is empty. I simply asked you to do just that; to put your claim about degrees of awareness into more meaningful and coherent terms. What constitutes a degree of awareness? It is not unreasonable to ask another to define terms that they're using, especially when they constitute ground for that which follows. It is never a good sign when one refuses to satisfy that request. Much, if not most, of philosophy is paving the way. This is a philosophy forum. I'm here to do philosophy. That is but one part of how it's done.

If you do not wish to further engage in philosophical debate, but would rather continue to engage in rhetorical musings, dick-waving, and name-calling, then I suggest that you continue to ignore me, keep on imagining your own superiority while patting yourself on the back - whether that be as it is interpreted via your faculty of understanding and/or the mutual masturbation circle jerk between yourself and those who do not know any better. If I were to mimic your behavior, venture into human psychology, and analyze you based upon what has transpired here in addition to the article - well... nevermind...

Is it time to do philosophy yet?

Fer fuck's sake Satyr, don't flatter yourself - a wolf amongst sheep.

Indeed....
And you ain't seen nothing yet.

I second that. We ain't... seen much of nothing, nor can we.