Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:27 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:27 pm Looks like you are still talking to yourself

It's cute that you think you and I are the same person.

Actually no, unlike you I don't spend most of my time talking to myself

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:29 pm Actually no, unlike you I don't spend most of my time talking to myself

Unlike me, you can't seem to tell when others are speaking to you...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:29 pm Actually no, unlike you I don't spend most of my time talking to myself

Unlike me, you can't seem to tell when others are speaking to you...

I can, that's how I know that you're not

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:33 pm I can, that's how I know that you're not

"So...you can't", said the person talking to you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:33 pm I can, that's how I know that you're not

"So...you can't", said the person talking to you.

Still not talking to me. You know when people talk to each other, they actually address the other one with relevant stuff, that isn't a random word-salad they produced mostly for themselves.

You probably haven't partaken in many actual conversations with actual people before, so I'm just trying to help

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:41 pm Still not talking to me. You know when people talk to each other, they actually address the other one with relevant stuff, that isn't a random word-salad they produced mostly for themselves.

You probably haven't partaken in many actual conversations with actual people before, so I'm just trying to help

So, you know when people talk to each other, they usually meet each other half way?

I mean. If you've partake in as many conversations as you claim, you would know this.

Unless, of course, you are unable to meet me half way - in which case, I'll happily meet you at your level and explain it to you.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:06 am 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

No.
Oranges are not the only fruit.
And not all fruit is orange.

This is irrelevant to the above.

"IS is all there is" (P1), is false, since you have forgotten that "is not" is also part of everything. Isnotness is a keen part of oughts.
Ought is usually not, but an aspiration to be. A thing dreamt of. A thing imagined. A thing if only.

You are lost in the above case.

You misrepresented my P1, it is;
P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
The critical word is reality and being_ness, i.e. everything that exists as real.

"Is-not" is merely linguistic as an indication of negation.
"Is-not" is not related to ontology.
'IS' and 'is' are referenced to ontology, i.e. existence, reality [all-there-is].

Where within reality, if X is not Y, then "Y is".
E.g. if that perceived thing-X is not a snake, then then it could be a rope or at the least some thing which is "is".

The exception where "is-not" do not correspond to something "is" is if the thing is-not real.
E.g. God is-not, i.e. do not exists, because God is impossible to be real.

Ought is usually not, but an aspiration to be. A thing dreamt of. A thing imagined. A thing if only.

You got to be joking,
That all human ought [must, should, imperatively need to] to breathe is not a thing dreamt of or imagined.
This 'ought' to breathe is "programmed" in all humans thus including you.

What we have within a moral framework are moral facts of 'ought-to' and 'ought-not-to'.
The moral fact of 'ought-not to kill another human' is "programmed" and existing in you are present, that is why you don't go out and kill other humans.

eg
There ought to be more reason out there in the world. Sadly there is only so much reason in the world and you seem to have a lack of it! If only you were blessed with more reason, you'd not have started this thread.

I am sure a philosophical competent person will raise threads with philosophical quality.

The fact is you are philosophical ignorant, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted.

You should open more threads for members to expose your ignorance thus to increase your philosophical database but given your age and state, it is unlikely your atrophied brain can take in new knowledge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:16 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:06 am 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

No.
Oranges are not the only fruit.
And not all fruit is orange.

This is irrelevant to the above.

"IS is all there is" (P1), is false, since you have forgotten that "is not" is also part of everything. Isnotness is a keen part of oughts.
Ought is usually not, but an aspiration to be. A thing dreamt of. A thing imagined. A thing if only.

You are lost in the above case.

You misrepresented my P1, it is;
P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
The critical word is reality and being_ness, i.e. everything that exists as real.

You are just not very bright.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:41 pm Still not talking to me. You know when people talk to each other, they actually address the other one with relevant stuff, that isn't a random word-salad they produced mostly for themselves.

You probably haven't partaken in many actual conversations with actual people before, so I'm just trying to help

So, you know when people talk to each other, they usually meet each other half way?

I mean. If you've partake in as many conversations as you claim, you would know this.

Unless, of course, you are unable to meet me half way - in which case, I'll happily meet you at your level and explain it to you.

In order to meet people halfway, you would have to first be able to produce something other than word salads

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:52 pm In order to meet people halfway, you would have to first be able to produce something other than word salads

That's what I said.

I'll just have to meet you 9/10ths of the way. Or 99/100ths.

I'll explain the "world salad" like you are 5 years old.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:56 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:52 pm In order to meet people halfway, you would have to first be able to produce something other than word salads

That's what I said.

I'll just have to meet you 9/10ths of the way. Or 99/100ths.

I'll explain the "world salad" like you are 5 years old.

You can't explain word salads using more word salads

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:16 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:22 pm

No.
Oranges are not the only fruit.
And not all fruit is orange.

This is irrelevant to the above.

"IS is all there is" (P1), is false, since you have forgotten that "is not" is also part of everything. Isnotness is a keen part of oughts.
Ought is usually not, but an aspiration to be. A thing dreamt of. A thing imagined. A thing if only.

You are lost in the above case.

You misrepresented my P1, it is;
P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
The critical word is reality and being_ness, i.e. everything that exists as real.

You are just not very bright.

As usual your typical one-liner without justifications.
That is more precise in reflecting your own 'not-very-bright' and intellectual capacity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:06 am 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

One of your shittest arguments yet. Admittedly I am only bothering to look at about one in ten of your threads because as noted many times before, they are all just the same pile of mistaken warmed over trash which you repeat on an endless loop of non-learning.

P2 only makes sense if you are asserting that oughtness is an actual property of actual objects, which is absurd.
Otherwise you are insisting that all-there-is includes all ideas, including the fantastical ones (unicorns, phlogiston, and both flat and donut shaped Earths), as well as the logical impossibilities (married batchelors). Most importantly though, it allows for mutually contradictory "is" things, such as the round Earth, and the donut Earth and the flat Earth all at once, rendering your argument, predictably by now to all sane men, completely fucking worthless.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:16 am
This is irrelevant to the above.


You are lost in the above case.

You misrepresented my P1, it is;
P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
The critical word is reality and being_ness, i.e. everything that exists as real.

You are just not very bright.

As usual your typical one-liner without justifications.
That is more precise in reflecting your own 'not-very-bright' and intellectual capacity.

You are too dull to see that I already trashed you absurd "proof".
Neither oughts nor ises exist as "real" things, they are just ideas to help us describe the world around us. They are words that help us forge relationship of ideas.
There is no necessary real connection between "all" and these words, since the universe is quite happy to abide without us and our petty concerns.
There is a good reason we make a distinction between ought and is, and that is because we use those ideas for DIFFERENT things. Ought is not "IS".

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:22 pm You can't explain word salads using more word salads

That's why I said I'll explain it to you as if you are 5 years old.

I understand the big words (word salas) goes over your head.