For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Sad, but true. I really like how you described what the word 'reality' pertains to. Leo's 'philosophy' leaves no room for dialectics, either between persons or between inside and outside.A_Seagull wrote:
The real problem with philosophical discussions is that most 'philosophers' have very little idea what philosophy is all about; they do not understand its processes nor limitations.
This is not true, but the expression of such a thought is utterly sad.The Inglorious One wrote:Sad, but true. I really like how you described what the word 'reality' pertains to. Leo's 'philosophy' leaves no room for dialectics, either between persons or between inside and outside.A_Seagull wrote:
The real problem with philosophical discussions is that most 'philosophers' have very little idea what philosophy is all about; they do not understand its processes nor limitations.
By the way, any relation to J.L. Seagull?
I will. But I fear that she's stealing my thunder if we agree. I wanted to be the one to write the book on this!The Inglorious One wrote:Really, you should read Holophany.Scott Mayers wrote:I understood "transcendence" to imply act of going beyond a given dimension without specifying its existence or non-existence. To "transcend" the place or 'dimension' of nothingness defines a line; to "transcend" a line's dimension is the place or dimension of a plane; to "transcend" a plane is to space; to "transcend" a space is to find time; etc... .
As to any underlying unique unique truth:
Assume that "No unique truth exists". Therefore multiple such truths exist necessarily. Let 'X' stand for "the set of all multiple truths". Then one unique truth, namely, 'X', as defined exists. If 'X' is not allowed because one such multiple truth can include 'X' as one of the truths within it, then the 'process' of infinite regress can be defined as 'Y'. It breaks no rule to even be contradictory as this too is a truth within 'X'. Thus, "No unique truths exists" is proven simultaneously true OR(logically inclusive) false. Let this last statement/sentence represent a unique truth. Then "No unique truth exists" is not so unique after all.
Therefore, at least one unique truth MUST exist.The author uses different words to essentially say the same thing.
I guess that we all discover similar things independently. If Einstein didn't come along, someone else would have proposed the theory in some similar way using different words.So you would say that it is pseudoscientists who define the methods and limits of pseudoscience?Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is not true, but the expression of such a thought is utterly sad.The Inglorious One wrote:Sad, but true. I really like how you described what the word 'reality' pertains to. Leo's 'philosophy' leaves no room for dialectics, either between persons or between inside and outside.A_Seagull wrote:
The real problem with philosophical discussions is that most 'philosophers' have very little idea what philosophy is all about; they do not understand its processes nor limitations.
By the way, any relation to J.L. Seagull?
Definitively it is "philosophers'" understanding of the methods and limits of philosophy which define the methods and limits of philosophy. It is an abuse of language to say otherwise.
Most people who think themselves philosophers are nothing of the sort. The problem is one of arrogance and stupidity.
Or perhaps you just don't understand the question?HexHammer wrote:Too often a very retarded person will appear and ask utterly stupid questions, "what is reality" is one of those utterly stupid questions.
This shows that he has no sense of relevance.
Doesn't trust own senses.
Need others to explain very basic stuff, that should be selfexplanatory in the first place.
Uses others as an external brain.
This is one of the reasons why buisnesses avoid philosophy.
Give me one good reason for dismissing this comment as ridiculous. Define A and B in the case where you believe this equation to be meaningful.davidelkins wrote:Pertaining to Reality, A = A + B. Show me one thing where this is not the case.
DE
davidelkins wrote:Pertaining to Reality, A = A + B. Show me one thing where this is not the case.
DE
After I die, does reality persist? I know it does for me after someone else does, but for my very special case?henry quirk wrote:What is Reality?
The sum total of what exists.
What exists?
Every- and any-thing that persists after you stop paying attention to (stop believing in) it.
This is a very basic question of philosophy, Hex. That you find it stupid doesn't reflect well on you. Fine, perhaps you're sick of contemplating it, but you being exasperated does not make it less relevant.HexHammer wrote:Too often a very retarded person will appear and ask utterly stupid questions, "what is reality" is one of those utterly stupid questions.
This shows that he has no sense of relevance.
Doesn't trust own senses.
Need others to explain very basic stuff, that should be selfexplanatory in the first place.
Uses others as an external brain.
This is one of the reasons why buisnesses avoid philosophy.
As far as pseudoscience has a method: Obviously yes. Geography is what geographers do ad infinitem...A_Seagull wrote:So you would say that it is pseudoscientists who define the methods and limits of pseudoscience?Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is not true, but the expression of such a thought is utterly sad.The Inglorious One wrote: Sad, but true. I really like how you described what the word 'reality' pertains to. Leo's 'philosophy' leaves no room for dialectics, either between persons or between inside and outside.
By the way, any relation to J.L. Seagull?
Definitively it is "philosophers'" understanding of the methods and limits of philosophy which define the methods and limits of philosophy. It is an abuse of language to say otherwise.
Most people who think themselves philosophers are nothing of the sort. The problem is one of arrogance and stupidity.
You have never displayed any kind of common sense, but maybe I'm wrong, do tell me where this topic has any relevance other than entertain less bright cozy chatters.Dalek Prime wrote:This is a very basic question of philosophy, Hex. That you find it stupid doesn't reflect well on you. Fine, perhaps you're sick of contemplating it, but you being exasperated does not make it less relevant.HexHammer wrote:Too often a very retarded person will appear and ask utterly stupid questions, "what is reality" is one of those utterly stupid questions.
This shows that he has no sense of relevance.
Doesn't trust own senses.
Need others to explain very basic stuff, that should be selfexplanatory in the first place.
Uses others as an external brain.
This is one of the reasons why buisnesses avoid philosophy.
And I don't give a shit what 'business' thinks is appropriate to talk about. Their scope is limited to profit. What does not profit business does not get considered by business.
Oh, but I do, but you are not bright enough to see OP running a fool's errand in answering an irrelevant demand.A_Seagull wrote:Or perhaps you just don't understand the question?HexHammer wrote:Too often a very retarded person will appear and ask utterly stupid questions, "what is reality" is one of those utterly stupid questions.
This shows that he has no sense of relevance.
Doesn't trust own senses.
Need others to explain very basic stuff, that should be selfexplanatory in the first place.
Uses others as an external brain.
This is one of the reasons why buisnesses avoid philosophy.