For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Let's assume that your argument exists. If it exists, it depends on you. If it is dependent on you, it is subjective. If it is subjective, it is impossible to make it objective. If it is impossible to make it objective, it is impossible to establish that it exists. In short: assuming that your argument exists implies the consequence that it does not exist.
I am NOT sure how from the 'viewpoint', 'the white house looks white to me', that 'viewpoint' can 'observe a dot'. So, would you like to EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, absolutely EACH and EVERY 'viewpoints' can 'observe a dot'? And, would you like to also EXPLAIN what 'observe a dot' even means or refers to, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:30 pm1. All viewpoints can observe a dot.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:18 amWhat is the "Yes" word here in relation to, EXACTLY, and what do the rest of your words relate to, EXACTLY, also?According to this so-called "logic of yours" what you SAY and CLAIM here is REFUTABLE, and thus NOT IRREFUTABLY True, Right, NOR Correct. So, in other words, IS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
HOWEVER, if you were to start spending sometime CLARIFYING with me what I am ACTUALLY MEANING in what I am SAYING, instead of jumping to or making ASSUMPTIONS about what 'it' is that I am MEANING, then you WILL GAIN some UNDERSTANDING, and SEE and FIND that I am NOT SAYING what you ASSUME I am here.
Just because statements are 'relative', which they HAVE TO BE, this in NO WAY means that absolutely ALL statements ARE refutable.
If I am the one CLAIMING 'all is relative', which you just CLAIMED above I AM, then WHY would you CLAIM this if it was NOT TRUE?
1. There is time.Eodnhoj7
According to your own logic the argument you present depends upon you thus is subjective.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:58 amLet's assume that your argument exists. If it exists, it depends on you. If it is dependent on you, it is subjective. If it is subjective, it is impossible to make it objective. If it is impossible to make it objective, it is impossible to establish that it exists. In short: assuming that your argument exists implies the consequence that it does not exist.
1. Everything from a distance is a dot. Not all things are close therefore somethings occur at a distance. We observe (a) dot(s).Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:20 amI am NOT sure how from the 'viewpoint', 'the white house looks white to me', that 'viewpoint' can 'observe a dot'. So, would you like to EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, absolutely EACH and EVERY 'viewpoints' can 'observe a dot'? And, would you like to also EXPLAIN what 'observe a dot' even means or refers to, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:30 pm1. All viewpoints can observe a dot.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:18 am
What is the "Yes" word here in relation to, EXACTLY, and what do the rest of your words relate to, EXACTLY, also?
According to this so-called "logic of yours" what you SAY and CLAIM here is REFUTABLE, and thus NOT IRREFUTABLY True, Right, NOR Correct. So, in other words, IS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
HOWEVER, if you were to start spending sometime CLARIFYING with me what I am ACTUALLY MEANING in what I am SAYING, instead of jumping to or making ASSUMPTIONS about what 'it' is that I am MEANING, then you WILL GAIN some UNDERSTANDING, and SEE and FIND that I am NOT SAYING what you ASSUME I am here.Just because statements are 'relative', which they HAVE TO BE, this in NO WAY means that absolutely ALL statements ARE refutable.
Statements are 'false' ONLY if they CAN BE, and ARE, REFUTED.
So, if you would like to endeavour to REFUTE ANY of my statements, then please go on ahead and try to do so.
Would you also even like to try to SHOW from what 'context' my statements are, supposedly, 'refutable'?
If I am the one CLAIMING 'all is relative', which you just CLAIMED above I AM, then WHY would you CLAIM this if it was NOT TRUE?
It’s not my own logic: I wrote “Let's assume that your argument exists”: I started by assuming your own logic. It is your own logic that has the consequence of denying itself.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:35 pmAccording to your own logic the argument you present depends upon you thus is subjective.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:58 amLet's assume that your argument exists. If it exists, it depends on you. If it is dependent on you, it is subjective. If it is subjective, it is impossible to make it objective. If it is impossible to make it objective, it is impossible to establish that it exists. In short: assuming that your argument exists implies the consequence that it does not exist.
1. "is" necessitates an existence.Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:34 pm1. There is time.Eodnhoj7
Time is a relative, and you cannot predicate existence of an element of a thing.
2. Time is continuous.
yes, relative
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
Really, now a relative is not a relative, or a relative has a relative which is absolute? Wait, when you think the microwave is broken, do not short the door switch and test it as a hat. Where did you learn that there is such a thing such as continuous time, or a relative relative. Did anyone teach you a noun plus a verb equals a noun, as a noun is a correlative, i.e. container?
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
since a relative is not different from itself, there is a standard, a thing made with the relative which is not different from itself and this, an ostensive pointer pointing to which part of this gibberish?
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
Since a relative is absolute, there is a thing which is an absolute?
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
Thus, this thing, whose relative is time, is not in time, for what being executed by the illiterate squad.
7. There is no time for time.
But a whole lot of time to waste.
Have you ever read a book, and in those books ever read anybody who spewed out so much rubbish?
It is my experience that people who do not read much, especially works writing by the masters, cannot follow their example.
We learn by experience, that is why you read the best and all of you can.
Look ma, I cut all these words out and pasted them on this page here! Oh, George, not writing another ransom note are you? Look at all those people you hold hostage with you butll-shit bomb.
By the way, your title is an anthropomorphism, it is you who contradict showing no ability to use the word time.
And what is my logic? You are the one pointing to the nature of subjectivity being false.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:45 pmIt’s not my own logic: I wrote “Let's assume that your argument exists”: I started by assuming your own logic. It is your own logic that has the consequence of denying itself.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:35 pmAccording to your own logic the argument you present depends upon you thus is subjective.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:58 am
Let's assume that your argument exists. If it exists, it depends on you. If it is dependent on you, it is subjective. If it is subjective, it is impossible to make it objective. If it is impossible to make it objective, it is impossible to establish that it exists. In short: assuming that your argument exists implies the consequence that it does not exist.
Yes: right now you have described your logic and this is exactly my starting point: I start from what you have just written in this last message of yours. The difference between you and me is that you stop reasoning at a certain point. You establish that the assumption must exist and this is your conclusion. Then you just stop.And what is my logic? You are the one pointing to the nature of subjectivity being false.
If one can assume something then the act of assumption, ie being "imprinted", necessitates that which assumes exist. We can assume contradictions, and assume that which composes said contradiction, therefore the truth is all that can be assumed (it is true contradictions exist and that which compose said contradictions exist).
To build off of this point further:
I can assumed it is snowing outside. Whether or not it is snowing outside is irrelevant as the act of assuming necessitates being imprinted by a thought which does exist. Me assuming it is snowing outside imprints my actions and acts as a catalyst. This catalyst is real as there are effects triggered from it, it is a point of change thus a cause.
Following your logic your conclusions are subjective, as they are your conclusions, thus you negate yourself.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:05 pmYes: right now you have described your logic and this is exactly my starting point: I start from what you have just written in this last message of yours. The difference between you and me is that you stop reasoning at a certain point. You establish that the assumption must exist and this is your conclusion. Then you just stop.And what is my logic? You are the one pointing to the nature of subjectivity being false.
If one can assume something then the act of assumption, ie being "imprinted", necessitates that which assumes exist. We can assume contradictions, and assume that which composes said contradiction, therefore the truth is all that can be assumed (it is true contradictions exist and that which compose said contradictions exist).
To build off of this point further:
I can assumed it is snowing outside. Whether or not it is snowing outside is irrelevant as the act of assuming necessitates being imprinted by a thought which does exist. Me assuming it is snowing outside imprints my actions and acts as a catalyst. This catalyst is real as there are effects triggered from it, it is a point of change thus a cause.
I don’t stop. I bring your reasoning, your logic, forward, carrying on with further questions produced by your logic. The essential further question is: who makes the conclusion that the assumption must exist?
In other words, you ignore the involvement of the subject in your conclusions. You stop at the conclusions, without expanding the horizon to ascertain the presence of a subject. I don’t stop at conclusions: I carry on, so that I point out that conclusions do not exist from nothing: there is always a subject who has produced them. This makes all conclusions subjective and it is a result coming from having assumed your premises, your logic, your reasoning.
If this is what they are to you, then okay.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:40 pm1. Everything from a distance is a dot. Not all things are close therefore somethings occur at a distance. We observe (a) dot(s).Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:20 amI am NOT sure how from the 'viewpoint', 'the white house looks white to me', that 'viewpoint' can 'observe a dot'. So, would you like to EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY, absolutely EACH and EVERY 'viewpoints' can 'observe a dot'? And, would you like to also EXPLAIN what 'observe a dot' even means or refers to, EXACTLY?Just because statements are 'relative', which they HAVE TO BE, this in NO WAY means that absolutely ALL statements ARE refutable.
Statements are 'false' ONLY if they CAN BE, and ARE, REFUTED.
So, if you would like to endeavour to REFUTE ANY of my statements, then please go on ahead and try to do so.
Would you also even like to try to SHOW from what 'context' my statements are, supposedly, 'refutable'?
If I am the one CLAIMING 'all is relative', which you just CLAIMED above I AM, then WHY would you CLAIM this if it was NOT TRUE?
If you say and believe so, then it must be so, correct?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:40 pm 2. Everything being relative necessitates all of being relative to only itself. As relative to only itself it is nothing because comparison is necessary for being. The totality of being, ie "everything", is refutable as something becomes nothing thus is negated.