Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:23 am You say nothing is self evident, in previous conversations, so how can abstract have any self-evident meaning?

That's not what I said. For example it's pretty agreed upon what people mean by a tree, even you know roughly what a tree is. The meaning of the abstract is somewhat less agreed upon, and then there are some people (like you or Skepdick) who get it completely wrong. Maybe you just can't process the abstract, dunno, don't really care.

So if all of the above are not identical in any way, ie there is no similarity at all, than there is only one branch, one bark, one piece of foliage, one root etc in the world....this is considering if one tree is completely different than the other tree then the other tree is not a tree as there are no similarities for there to be another tree....at all.

I said that they aren't identical, not that there is no similarity at all.
ffs

Forms are repeated distinctions...get over it. The distinction of 'tree' repeats. Each word you use to troll with has a repeatable distinction to it.

Those are cognitive distinctions, not distinctions inherent in the external world.

...you really are a desperate troll....I am half tempted to just put you in the 'ignore' category with Age because you are completely useless. You get one more try and if this is the best you can do you can just mindlessly troll me, like Age, and I will not respond.

But I'm not desperate in the slightest. I genuinely think you're a fool who uses his 150 IQ at like 100 level. Please go ahead and put me on ignore.

1. No in previous conversations we had a discussion where nothing is self evident to you...so how can you argue abstractions are this or that? Stating the obvious, the code used to create this forum is abstractions so there is a blurred line between the empirical and abstract, they overlap.

2. Good then if there are similarities then there are repeating distinctions...hence recursion within experience.

3. The external world is processed through the mind...

4. You are wrong my IQ is at a 90ish level in conversations with you because I have to break things down for your intellectual impairment. Of course I am a fool, I put up with trolls like you. This is my last response to you...you are a waste of time like Age. Have free range from this point to troll my threads unheded.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 6:00 am 1. No in previous conversations we had a discussion where nothing is self evident to you...so how can you argue abstractions are this or that?

No we didn't, because you were using your own meaning of self-evidence, not what people actually mean by it.

Stating the obvious, the code used to create this forum is abstractions so there is a blurred line between the empirical and abstract, they overlap.

Obvious huh. No, the code itself is made of electrical signals and such. Have you ever met a 100 IQ practicioner who understood how computers work? Me neither.

Abstract thoughts themselves consist of brain matter, electrical signals and such.

Unless that's what you meant by blurred line.

2. Good then if there are similarities then there are repeating distinctions...hence recursion within experience.

That's not recursion, just the repetition of cognitive distinctions.

3. The external world is processed through the mind...

No it's not. A representation of the external world is created in the mind. Unless that's what you meant.

4. You are wrong my IQ is at a 90ish level in conversations with you because I have to break things down for your intellectual impairment. This is my last response to you...you are a waste of time like Age. Have free range from this point to troll unheded.

Hey stop whining, this time you explicitly asked me to mock your inability to make use of your intelligence.

(Now granted, even if you could fully utlize your 150 IQ, you would still not get far enough in philosophy, but at least you wouldn't spend years of your life spinning within your own confusion.)

Veritas Aequitas

Nobody is gaining up on you, philosophy is to reckon. Learn logic, then you will look philosophical. If you had used logic, you might enjoy confidence. If the truth had been shown, you might have helped.

Ganging,is what I meant to post.

Contemplate on the subject, you will have an idea. Betting, that you will, find a foundation. Descartes’ is a great, giant of philosophy, you will have to rationalize.

puto wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:15 am Contemplate on the subject, you will have an idea. Betting, that you will, find a foundation. Descartes’ is a great, giant of philosophy, you will have to rationalize.

Descartes could be argued as not fundamental enough, feeling a sense of self while having an empty mind is another approach. One can exist without thought.

Occurence is universal, thoughts and feelings both occur. We know reality as the occurence of experience.

Its justification that we are interested in.

puto wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:55 am Its justification that we are interested in.

And that just occurs. For example there are two different situations. One is explained. The other is not. In the explanation of the one the explanation just occurs to the individual out of nowhere. To the other person no explanation occurs. There are no rule as to what is or is not justified other than the justification occurring.

Even justifying occurence is an occurence thus showing one relationship of an occurence, the justification, to another, the justified occurence, as an occurence.

To doubt occurence is an occurence as doubt is an occurence. To feel occurence is an occurence. To act on an occurence is an occurence.

Experience just occurs.

the foundation of everything is occurrence...

s**t happens...

-Imp

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm

puto wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:55 am Its justification that we are interested in.

And that just occurs. For example there are two different situations. One is explained. The other is not. In the explanation of the one the explanation just occurs to the individual out of nowhere. To the other person no explanation occurs. There are no rule as to what is or is not justified other than the justification occurring.

Even justifying occurence is an occurence thus showing one relationship of an occurence, the justification, to another, the justified occurence, as an occurence.

To doubt occurence is an occurence as doubt is an occurence. To feel occurence is an occurence. To act on an occurence is an occurence.

PRESUMING or BELIEVING that things 'just occur', 'out of nowhere' is WHY 'this one' could NOT SEE what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:37 pm Experience just occurs.

One could also SAY, and CLAIM, 'The foundation of Everything is Existence, Itself'.

And then JUST SAY, 'experience just exists', ALSO.

Have a judgment that is an operation of the mind.

Epistemology is possible. Meditations argument from ignorance is a philosophical response. Think about the nature of justification from the sceptical investigation.

Eodnhodj wrote:

"Experience just occurs."

But experience does not pertain to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not subjects of experience.

Indeed the defining attribute of a subject of experience is that the subject of experience knows (from privileged access to specific feelings )what he experiences. Memories may be false, and Descartes' hypothetical demon may deceive, but the subject and only the subject, is subject to experiences.

(NB subject is not coterminous with self. )

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 12:56 pm Eodnhodj wrote:

"Experience just occurs."

But experience does not pertain to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not subjects of experience.

Great observation and good point.

Existence, however, pertains to absolutely ALL and Everything.

Therefore, the foundation of Everything could well be Existence, instead.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 12:56 pm Eodnhodj wrote:

"Experience just occurs."

But experience does not pertain to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not subjects of experience.

Indeed the defining attribute of a subject of experience is that the subject of experience knows (from privileged access to specific feelings )what he experiences. Memories may be false, and Descartes' hypothetical demon may deceive, but the subject and only the subject, is subject to experiences.

(NB subject is not coterminous with self. )

That is your experience and it is contradictory as your experience occurs because of objects. Your experience of the objects makes them an extension of you.