Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:13 amOkay, thank 'you' for letting 'us' KNOW how 'you' are READING, and JUDGING, 'me'.

You're welcome.

Have you been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? I notice you tend to say 'us' instead of 'I' pretty often, as-if you represent others? Thing is, I haven't seen any evidence of anybody on this forum siding with you as an 'us' group. Who else do you represent beside yourself?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:13 amOkay, thank 'you' for letting 'us' KNOW how 'you' are READING, and JUDGING, 'me'.

You're welcome.

Have you been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? I notice you tend to say 'us' instead of 'I' pretty often, as-if you represent others? Thing is, I haven't seen any evidence of anybody on this forum siding with you as an 'us' group. Who else do you represent beside yourself?

Have you been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? I notice quite a few respondents here tend to see you as a moron, stupid, and/or an idiot. Thing is, the more you interact with them the more evidence you are providing for "others" to side with them, in their group consensus. Have you got ANY one on "your side" here?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:22 amHave you been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? I notice quite a few respondents here tend to see you as a moron, stupid, and/or an idiot. Thing is, the more you interact with them the more evidence you are providing for "others" to side with them, in their group consensus. Have you got ANY one on "your side" here?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

I asked you first.

And I don't care what my inferiors think of me. If they want my respect, then they must at least become Equal, which they have a long way to go first.

Constantine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:36 pm I was told in a thread that shall not be named that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" position was recently attacked and disproven.

I've done a fair amount of digging around in his collected works and have lots of research done on the question of consciousness. The individual for whatever reason won't give me the source. If this source rings in someone's mind, please tell me.

And no, I'm not a Cartesian. I'm just interested. Hard to extract info out of some people.

He should have said there is a change therefore there is a mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 3:26 pm

Constantine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 7:36 pm I was told in a thread that shall not be named that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" position was recently attacked and disproven.

I've done a fair amount of digging around in his collected works and have lots of research done on the question of consciousness. The individual for whatever reason won't give me the source. If this source rings in someone's mind, please tell me.

And no, I'm not a Cartesian. I'm just interested. Hard to extract info out of some people.

He should have said there is a change therefore there is a mind.

I, for one, am very grateful that that's not what he said.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:18 pm I, for one, am very grateful that that's not what he said.

I wish he'd said 'I am grateful, therefore I exist.'

Or better yet: something seems to be going on..

But imagine if Descartes didn't exist, what a storm in a tea cup!

He should have said, if I am Descartes, then I must defarte.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:22 pm He should have said, if I am Descartes, then I must defarte.

I stink therefore I am.
It's actually a very good proof to someone else, in person. They either have to pretend they smell nothing and remain stoic or acknowledge his effects.
Practical philosophy should focus on issues like this. How to convince on a practical level not a rhetorical level.

I'd love to see VA give a practical demonstration of objective moral facts and antirealism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:22 pm He should have said, if I am Descartes, then I must defarte.

I stink therefore I am.

This is really the perfect way to tie it off. There's nothing left to add

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:04 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:22 amHave you been diagnosed with any mental illnesses? I notice quite a few respondents here tend to see you as a moron, stupid, and/or an idiot. Thing is, the more you interact with them the more evidence you are providing for "others" to side with them, in their group consensus. Have you got ANY one on "your side" here?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

I asked you first.

YES you DID. However, I have ALSO ASKED you MANY QUESTIONS FIRST, but which you have NOT YET ANSWERED.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:04 pm And I don't care what my inferiors think of me.

And here we HAVE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that this one here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' is, LAUGHINGLY, "superior" TO "others".

Which, by the way, could be CLEARLY SEEN throughout just about ALL of 'its' WRITINGS here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:04 pm If they want my respect, then they must at least become Equal, which they have a long way to go first.

LOL 'This' here was REALLY what some people ACTUALLY BELIEVED and HOW they THOUGHT ABOUT "themselves", back in those VERY 'OLDEN DAYS' when this was being written.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:22 pm He should have said, if I am Descartes, then I must defarte.

I stink therefore I am.
It's actually a very good proof to someone else, in person.

WHY?

That just 'proves' that there is a physical body, which can produce 'smell'. There is NO PROOF there of an 'I', ANYWHERE.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:30 pm They either have to pretend they smell nothing and remain stoic or acknowledge his effects.
Practical philosophy should focus on issues like this. How to convince on a practical level not a rhetorical level.

'Science' deals with the 'practical' or more correctly the 'empirical'. This is partly why so-called 'philosophical discussions' take place, that is; to deal with 'the untouchable', 'the invisible', or 'the non empirical things'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:30 pm I'd love to see VA give a practical demonstration of objective moral facts and antirealism.

'These things', obviously, can only be 'demonstrated' or 'proved' through 'logical reasoning'. Or, in other words, through 'words' alone. Although some BELIEVE that 'this' is NOT possible, correct?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:16 amYES you DID. However, I have ALSO ASKED you MANY QUESTIONS FIRST, but which you have NOT YET ANSWERED.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:04 pm And I don't care what my inferiors think of me.

And here we HAVE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF that this one here ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' is, LAUGHINGLY, "superior" TO "others".

Which, by the way, could be CLEARLY SEEN throughout just about ALL of 'its' WRITINGS here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:04 pm If they want my respect, then they must at least become Equal, which they have a long way to go first.

LOL 'This' here was REALLY what some people ACTUALLY BELIEVED and HOW they THOUGHT ABOUT "themselves", back in those VERY 'OLDEN DAYS' when this was being written.

Correct, when you start acting normal and respectful, then I will respond in kind. Your braggadocious autism is grating to any and everybody around here.

Cogito = "I am a thinking-thing" by the way.

Descartes did not literally reference "I" or state "I think therefore I am".

The Latin statement is different:

Cogito = (I cognate, am a being of cognition, with consciousness)
Ergo = Therefore
Sum = (My cognition is integrated into the sum totality of existence)


...silly illiterate Anglican Protestants...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:31 am Cogito = "I am a thinking-thing" by the way.

Descartes did not literally reference "I" or state "I think therefore I am".

The Latin statement is different:

Cogito = (I cognate, am a being of cognition, with consciousness)
Ergo = Therefore
Sum = (My cognition is integrated into the sum totality of existence)


...silly illiterate Anglican Protestants...

Oh [bows low] thank you great Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? teacher.
As the wiser than D and earlier Saint A would say 'ergo sum si fallor'.
You have given us the key. He didn't mean 'I' because of Latin grammar,
even though he first wrote it in French!!!!!

je pense, donc je suis

Just to mislead people.

Is your smugness convincing in other forums?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:56 am Oh [bows low] thank you great Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? teacher.
As the wiser than D and earlier Saint A would say 'ergo sum si fallor'.
You have given us the key. He didn't mean 'I' because of Latin grammar,
even though he first wrote it in French!!!!!

je pense, donc je suis

Just to mislead people.

Is your smugness convincing in other forums?

Oh you are too gracious...

So French is not based on Latin these days... I must have missed the news?