Philosophy Now Forum

Indeed.
So now tell it to the ones that deny it.

In fact, it is what differentiates life from non-life. Will.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 8:36 pm Indeed.
So now tell it to the ones that deny it.

In fact, it is what differentiates life from non-life. Will.

Nonsense.

Many living systems want to live until they finally stop breathing, Many other living systems don't want to live but find it impossible to stop living

Thick as molasses.

Wow!!
I'm left astounded.

Women should never engage in philosophy.

Nietzsche wrote:Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a
religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the
strong weak – she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong...
Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the “powerful,” the “strong,”
the men.

Nietzsche wrote:When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 9:16 pm Thick as molasses.

Wow!!
I'm left astounded.

Women should never engage in philosophy.

Nietzsche wrote:Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a
religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the
strong weak – she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong...
Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the “powerful,” the “strong,”
the men.

Nietzsche wrote:When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.

Ad Hominem

When the lens is cracked...the light it reflects has a shadow running through it.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 9:22 pm When the lens is cracked...the light it reflects has a shadow running through it.

Ad Hominem. How cracked I am is irrelevant to your ability(if such there be) to analyse the shadow which you claim exists.

But it's so obvious, dear.
How can I ignore it when it falls upon me like a dark cloud?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 9:32 pm But it's so obvious, dear.
How can I ignore it when it falls upon me like a dark cloud?

By fainting and floundering?

philosophy stack exchange
Fatalism vs Determinism vs Free-Will

Per SEP “philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.” I’m extending this notion to physical events in general; that is, whatever could happen is equivalent to whatever does happen. I’m not sure how that’s me making something up." PW246

Then the part where particular hard determinists acknowledge that their own conclusions are in turn but another inherent, necessary manifestation/component of the only possible reality.

As opposed, in my view, to those here I call the "free will determinists". They call themselves determinists, but only up to the part where they still insist that their own arguments are superior to all others. Some even while acknowledging that they insist on only that which they were never able not to insist on.

Fatalism can be more abstract, derivative of bivalence about future propositions. Perhaps one might speak of fatalism as "top-down" determinism, whereas determinism as usual is "bottom-up." Either way, the issue for libertarian free will is the issue of alternative possibilities, where these possibilities are not ethereal but grounded in specific agents making specific choices at specific times. Since strict determination from within or without seems to rule out such alternatives, either variety is in roughly equal tension with libertarian free will. user40843

Bivalence is everywhere in the either/or world. That's why it's called the either/or world. In other words, the objective facts about the world around us that are true for everyone.

As for top-down or bottom-up determinism, you tell me. But only given a particular set of behaviors on your part in a particular set of circumstances.

Fatalists [as I understand them "here and now"] would seem to suggest instead that the is/ought world is as well just another intrinsic manifestation of the either/or world. There's the illusion of responsibility [moral or otherwise] but that too is just another integrant, essential manifestation of the illusion itself.

As for the tensions embedded in discussions between libertarians and determinists, what if that too is fated to unfold only as it ever could have in the only possible world?

Oh Mary....but the world "around us" is true for everyone, dear.
You can't live in your own subjective reality, sweetie.
I wish you could...I wish I could.
But we both cannot.

It's one world....
Is this my way or the highway, babbycakes?
No.
You can judge, and CHOOSE, as you wish...you are free....
But the consequences, dear, will be all yours.

Note to Other
Now look what this harpies made me do.
Look at what she's reduced me to.

Click.

Just for the record, some here [and others there] have accused me of being obsessed with Satyr. It's actually just the opposite.

I first encountered him years ago at ILP. By then though the "war" between ILP and KT had resulted in him being banned. Why? Because he simply cannot, will not tolerate anyone who refuses to agree with everything that he says. He is the personification of the didactic/pedantic bully.

I became a "user" at KT. I would effectively challenge his arrogant, autocratic dogmas until one day I came upon this:


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

He tossed me into the "dungeon". Where over and over and over again I continued to make a fool out of him.

Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.

So, how obsessed with me is he? You tell me:

"She speaks for millions, in her head, directing her comments towards unseen audiences, in the form of ‘notes’ and patronizing rhetorical questions directed towards invisible receivers.
Text after text, repeating an encoded message to an imagined audience.
She’s a Borg Queen. First among equals – one of many drones.
She has adopted the feminine tactic of linguistic sparring, never positing any arguments, any reasoning, but only insinuating in her condescending tone, undermining the psychology of her interlocutors, she hopes. It’s all subjective, so her hopes are as good as truths. If she thinks so, it is so; it is so for her and her collective, who share her psychosis, her desire to disappear in a collective – cease to be individuals.
She calls her inability to rationalize her positions her ‘fracturing & fragmentation,’ knowing that the adversary is too superior to deal with on his level. She knows that she is incapable of abandoning her emotional crutches, so she demands that they prove them to her, placing herself at the center of all dialogues, bringing them down to her level – the final arbiter. She’s made herself the standard, the one who will decide right from wrong, whilst pretending she has no preferences and no ethics. But she does, and it shows.
Every dialogue she converts to a discussion about her, and how others must prove themselves to her, as if she were a ‘philosopher queen,’ and yet, if she is personally attacked or critiqued, she turns to her patronizing accusation “stooge,” – demeaning, patronizing – and if the insults become too hurtful, “huffing & puffing,” – dismissive – and if the critiques cut too close to the bone, she resorts to the infantile ” look what I’ve reduced him to,” always directing her commentary to the unseen collective in her hive mind. She wins, no matter what. If she does not reduce you to a drone, she reduces you to a manimal.
She must make herself the final arbiter, and yet nobody can critique her, nor speculate about her motives. They must, only prove themselves to her. Her subjectivity will determine if the arguments are good or bad. Her subjectivity will determine who is the stooge and who is the “clever” one, focusing no the speaker not the spoken.
If you cannot convincingly explain your positions to her, then your theories are too “abstract,” “up in the skyhooks,” meaning they are incomprehensible to her, therefore they are nonsense; if you cannot convince her, then nothing you say is true. Her and her collective, will be the ones who decide, “compelled” by fate to be the final judges – chosen, by unknown agencies.
Her intelligence is now the standard, and yet she admits that she’s confused and subjective, so her confused subjectivity is the final standard. Her emotions, her interests, her feelings, her comprehensions… she says it straight out. It’s not how Heidegger meant “Dasein” it’s how she understood it, ‘here and now.’
All must be brought down to her level of confused subjectivity. And if you turn away and ignore her, she will follow you around, taunting, patronizing, implying, commenting, until you pay attention to her, as if she mattered, as if her subjectivity had to be overcome, seduced, convinced, otherwise everything being stated is of no significance.
And others fall for it… are pulled into her ‘up in the sky’ orifices, not realizing that her subjectivity can never be swayed, because it has a secret agenda… and is not ‘fractured & fragmented,’ at all. She’s a Marxist, a collectivist, but she will never admit it.
Her pretence is meant to wear you down, and pull you into her gaping orifice, her ‘hole.’
She’s the Borg Queen… of the Borg collective. “Resistance is futile,” she believes… because she will ware you down until you surrender. Taunting, patronizing, undermining, condescending… until you turn on her in frustration, “huffing and puffing,” to be “reduced,” by her formidable feminine tactics, to an emotional wreck, primed for capitulation. Then, she will declare victory, and move on, until she returns, again, and again, to toy with you. She’s succeeding, she believes, and her subjective belief is all that matters.
She’s made objectivity a slur, associating it with Ayn Rand’s “objectivism” and its defence of capitalist ideals, implying that objectivity, as an intellectual approach, is brutal, confronting her comforting subjective shelters, associating it with triggering events and injustices, like the holocaust, or with abortions denied to women who have made a terrible mistake, or have been victimized, and want to ‘correct’ it with a quick and easy operation, just to repeat it in the future.
All errors can be collectivized, so that everyone is made equal – I am a drone, my brother’s keeper. Their pains are my own. Their mistakes, are my own.
Philosophy is about becoming objective, but not for her. Objectivity is now authoritarian, totalitarian, another term for ‘evil’ – might is right.
She’s not really a “philosopher,” even if she throws the term around, like all the other crap she throws around; she’s an ideologue, masking as some two-bit internet “intellectual,” with a secret agenda. Objectivity is her nemesis, and that’s why she’s demonized it. All must become subjective, where emotions and self-interests, stupidity and ignorance, hedonism and ego dominate. There, she hopes, she can assimilate her victims, into the collective, her collective.
She calls it “compromising,” and it is how she will eliminate wars and conflicts. All will become automatons in the collective – drones, with no free-will.
That’s the issue. That’s what prevents her collective from becoming cosmic. Free-will and ‘self.’
She claims to be amoral, but her methods always employ indirect shaming, using ethical triggers, trying to convert by reducing others into submissive automatons, following her collectivized ethical standards – this is why the holocaust, and Nazis, and mass shootings, and abortions, are continuously brought up as “contexts,” for her faked amorality to unload its moralizing tactics. It’s those damn objectivists, and their unemotional criteria, see?
It’s those objective males, and their reasoning, that stands in the way of universal assimilation.
If she were truly amoral, the Nazis, and their victims, denying abortions to women, victims of paternalism, would not be such an emotional issue, to her.
Under what principle would a true amoralist claim that such actions were wrong?
She denies morality to conceal her own moralizing practices, subverting by casting doubt into the minds of those who do not want to wrong people – those with morals and principles, otherwise why would the predicament of some theoretical Mary, and her unwanted pregnancy, matter? On what grounds would Mary deserve to be helped, in a world with no “ethical authority”? Everything has to be made into a “social construct” to justify her collective’s planned social engineering? In a ‘no god world’ where ethics are invented, out of nothing, men can step in and create their own, right?
Right is Might is inverted to Might is Right…and the only ‘ethical might’ is the one practiced by a collective. Her objectives are certainty not rational, because then she would argue them. But she can’t and will not, for this will expose her and her quality of mind and her agenda. Every time she tried, in the past, when she was still an “objectivist,” herself, she failed to defeat those with better counterarguments – she failed when trying to impose her subjectivity on real objective minds. She had no arguments worth stating. So, she stopped arguing, using reasoning, and started undermining, using emotions… as she was taught. She emasculated herself, adopting feminine strategies. Tactics that do not require reasoning, or evidence, or objective standards, or logic, nor definitions of words. Entirely feminine; psychological tactics. Tactics on how to defeat masculine reasoning… those evil objectivists, who are not to be called ‘evil,’ because this would expose her foundational ethics – the same ones that verbally manipulated her into joining Abrahamism, and then Marxism, and now postmodernism. Now she will assimilate others, as she has been assimilated; the ideology “compels” her, to indoctrinate as she was; to manipulate, as she was.
Mary’s sexual mistakes are not hers alone, they are the entire collectives mistake, or they ought to be so, in an “is/ought” world, with “no god.” A world with no absolute authority, she believes, subjectively.
Her amorality conceals a deep moral foundation… based on her Abrahamic upbringing. It has been absorbed into her updated collectivism. She’s progressed from spiritual towards ideological collectivism, rejecting all biology-based categories. Ironically? Predictably.
There are good & evil collectives, and any collective identifier, based on biology, is ‘evil,’ but must be called “objective,” because it is, and objectivity is, by her own subjective definitions of Dasein, ‘evil,’ or ‘’wrong,’ or ‘immoral.’ But she will never say so. She will simply imply, and patronize, and ridicule… until you get it, see? Like she did.
The all-inclusive ideological collective is now her god. It is intentional, willful, so no individuated Will, ought to, be tolerated in the Borg collective. The Borg Queen speaks on its behalf. It’s not her, she is “compelled,” as all are, she believes in her subjective mind.
No arguments required. It is so, because she believes so, and she is part of a collective.
There is no free-will so nobody has a choice; they are all compelled, and she just happened to be compelled by the “good side.” She’s been chosen, by fate, luck, chance, cosmic, or comic, forces, to be on the right side of history. She’s been directed, chosen to do this work. It’s not her choice. She has no choice. She one of the fortunate ones.
If not god, then who or what is compelling us all? She cannot say, without exposing her ethics and motives. All drones must be made to feel equal to all others, for the collective to remain stable; no personal identify will be tolerated; no personal beliefs. No hierarchies. No divisive categories. No divisive collectives. Her collective is universal. All will inevitably submit and be assimilated. There is no choice. Resistance is FUTILE!
She just laughs, knowing that all who resist will succumb, will be assimilated.
Natural selection must, ought to, be replaced by social selection, governed by Borg principles and collectivized ethics. All must, ought, to identify with the all-encompassing universal collective, i.e., ‘self’ must be denounced and rejected. But she cannot explain and convince, using reason and rational arguments, so she must use psychological means to subvert all concepts that resist, demanding that others prove them to her… since she is the final subjective arbiter, and if you fail to convince her subjectivity – as you inevitably will – then ‘self’ is disproven, she believes… she has been compelled to believe. It’s not her fault.
She didn’t even have to rationalize her disproof. She simply chipped away at the imperfections in all theories about ‘self,’ all definitions, leaving the nothing, the absence… where anxiety takes over, and individuals seek comfort in collectives. She learned these techniques from others. Her collectivized brethren. From the hive… the Borg collective mind, replacing the god of Abraham.
She denies self, so as to imply that she’s channelling a cosmic agency, when it is collectivism, she is trying to channel. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ there is no choice, leaving the option of being collectively wrong as the only option. Let’s be collectively wrong, erasing all social and natural disparities – let’s reduce it all down to a level where uniformity is possible.
It’s inevitable… The cosmos will become ‘healed’ of its multiplicities and its conflicts. It will become uniformly perfect. Tikkun Olam.
She’s a Marxist, or a cultural Marxists, or a postmodern, but she will never admit it.
She will pretend that she’s undecided, fractured & fragmented, battling with these complex issues, unable to decide who is correct, when she’s already decided – the collective mind decided it for her – using this pretence as a way of pulling others into her linguistic traps – given to her. Infantile, but effective, around certain types. Her radicalized selective skepticism ought to be universalized. Radical and very selective. Applied ‘here’ but not ‘there’; ‘now’ but not ‘after.’
Doubt only your senses; doubt only certain issues, having to do with human identity and the human condition. Always remain within the human. Never apply this strategy outside human systems.
Her goal is to undermine confidence, because she is unable to confront the ideologies directly. She can only chip away at their imperfections. Her methods do not even require a high IQ, or knowledge of the ideologies, themselves. Her ignorance and simplicity are an advantage. She can never be swayed by reason nor by anything complex. She is immune to the underlying implications.
She, routinely tries to turn others against each other, so that she can glean something from the exchange, otherwise she remains oblivious to everything other than her repetitive devices.
Nothing she is told has ever affected her. She is too thick, too indoctrinated to be affected.
The ideology has “compelled” her to think and do what she does. Making others debate, while she watches, also reinforces her role as the final arbiter. She will be the one who decides the winner, and the criteria will be subjective, i.e., emotional, self-serving, not objective.
Her words don’t even require definitions, because these would create objective foundations from where dialogue can proceed. Her objectives will be thwarted by such objective clarity. She needs it all to remain as subjective as possible – in other words, obscure, chaotic, uncertain, vague, emotionally driven, egotistical, self-serving, hedonistic. The pleasure principle must be paramount – she must reduce all to a manimal state, where pure subjectivity can reign.
By the time these victims of her bad faith become aware of her methods and motives they will have wasted away hours rummaging through her garbage for something valuable.
I doubt most of them will ever realize what she is and what she is doing. They will simply become increasingly frustrated and confused by her repeating tactics, as if nothing they said registers; her responses never altering. It does not matter what reasoning and evidence they present, she will ignore it, because her subjectivity is the final standard.
She is compelled to hammer away, not letting them alone, until they capitulate and assimilate.
They call it nagging, for her its an effective strategy. She will never abandon it.
She is unable to exit from the nihilistic continuity, connecting Christianity with Communism and now Wokism. This time it will work, she believes."

There are so many preposterous claims about me here...and I suspect that he knows it. He just can't help himself though. He seethes when someone dares to challenge him. Most here know what I am talking about.

Then, as with AJ, he refuses to go anywhere near here:

Now, what is still of interest to me is how [Satyr] and others of his ilk here would enforce [politically, legally] their own dogmatic "natural" philosophy. In other words, if they encompassed that power here in America.

In other words, how far do Trump and Musk still have to go here in America before they reflect the racialist policies that AJ and his ilk subscribe to?

Then the part where I ask him to note what Hitler got right and what Hitler got wrong regarding his own views on race.

So, why "she" above when I'm a he?

Well, he often accuses me of "arguing like a woman."

Mary, Mary, Mary....We both know you are a delicate woman.
Why the lying?
Abortion is your social cause. Your methods feminine - annoy them until they become so frustrated they lash out, curse at you, or ignore you....then you say "Look what I've reduced him to."
That is so womanly, it screams estrogen.

Mary, you are about as amoral as you are masculine.
You want to change the world.... make it safe for women and children.
Your morality is common...conventional. Christian.
All must be included, loved, respected....comforted.
Your 'evil' are Nazis, Fascist, Hitlerites....and Objectivists...those vile Randean capitalists.
Who are these gods that have a choice and a free-will, when no mortal man, according to you, can be blamed for anything?

You are a delicate they-them....postmodernist....crypto-Marxist opportunist.
Your fractured fragmented schizophrenia, has developed double-standards, sweetie.
You must find integrity in your psychosis.
Why do you fight for he/him pronouns, when it does not matter? Your spirit trapped in the "wrong body."

Miss Land...with all due respect....why do you deceive yourself?

philosophy stack exchange
Fatalism vs Determinism vs Free-Will

One way to compare determinism and fatalism would be by tense:
According to determinism, all future events will be determined.
According to fatalism, all future events are already determined.

Of course, this would seem to assume that this part...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

...really doesn't have to be grappled with and pinned down -- scientifically? -- in order for any number of philosophers here to espouse conclusions which they claim need not go much beyond their own "world of words." Those who insist that things of this sort actually can be defined or deduced into existence.

On the other hand...

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.” Benjamin Brewster

This might look vaporous (and it mostly is), although questions about the existence, or nonexistence, of the past, the present, or the future, or distinctions between tensed and untensed temporal logic, etc. reveal a subtle wealth of mystery in this vein.

Whatever that means for all practical purposes? How does it work in your own life presuming some measure of free will.

As far as free will goes, if we are speaking of libertarian free will, then on some accounts it is still determinism that is more problematic (because determination by physical causation is more well-grounded than determination by logical necessity in general, perhaps), whereas from other angles fatalism might sound more troubling.

Cue the "free will fatalists"?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 1:08 pm
Your 'evil' are Nazis, Fascist, Hitlerites....and Objectivists...those vile Randean capitalists.

First of all, I don't construe anyone or anything as inherently or necessarily Evil. In fact Good and Evil are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein. In other words, historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences, experientially.

On the other hand, I'm not arguing instead that, objectively, they don't exist. Only that "here and now" I am not able to believe they do exist in a No God world.

Now, lets get back to how he seems to construe Nazis, Hitlerites and fascists as "evil"? What, for all practical purposes, does "evil" mean? And I'd still appreciate him noting the parts that in regards to race and ethnicity and sexual preferences, etc., the Nazis got right and wrong.

Well, click, of course.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 1:08 pmWho are these gods that have a choice and a free-will, when no mortal man, according to you, can be blamed for anything?

This is entirely typical of his ilk here [and certainly there].

In fact, I don't believe in any gods/Gods. I just don't insist that they do not exist.

And I have never argued that no mortal man [or woman] can be blamed for anything. I challenge him to link us to a post where I did.

I merely note that to the best of my current knowledge the hard guys and gals have not been able to provide us with the evidence to pin it all down unequivocally.

But that is moot for those "serious philosophers" among us who insist that up in the intellectual clouds they already have pinned it down unequivocally.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 12:34 am First of all, I don't construe anyone or anything as inherently or necessarily Evil. In fact Good and Evil are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein. In other words, historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences, experientially.

This, Mary, is where your prejudice shine.
Existence, Mary, is not a social nor a cultural construct.
Culture is like a lens....and existence is the light.
The lens does not create the light, dear.
The world is NOT a social construct.....even if you wish it were so....or that it OUGHT to be so.

On the other hand, I'm not arguing instead that, objectively, they don't exist. Only that "here and now" I am not able to believe they do exist in a No God world.

What doesn't exist, Mary?
Value-judgements, like 'good'?

Value-judgments, dear, are relative to the individual's objectives....which, in your case, are what?
Collectivism, right?
A Collective Utopia of peace, justice, incusivity and prosperity.

Now, lets get back to how he seems to construe Nazis, Hitlerites and fascists as "evil"? What, for all practical purposes, does "evil" mean? And I'd still appreciate him noting the parts that in regards to race and ethnicity and sexual preferences, etc., the Nazis got right and wrong.

See above, Mary.

Race is real. Nothing good nor evil about it.
Like species and subspecies.
Like dog breeds.
When I recognize that there's a species and subspecies of canines, I am nit proposing anything.
I am stating a fact.

Your emotions are taking over, Mary. Your ethics.
What do you imagine ought to be done about this fact?
Ignored?
Pretend it does not exist?

Sexual preferences are relative to the objective of sex.
Why did sex evolve, Mary?
What is its primary objective?
Many species practice it....why Mary?
A lifestyle choice?
A fetish?
A preference?
Bring it down to earth,. Mary.
Why was sexual reproduction, using two specialized roles, naturally selected?

For one man, what he does, relative to his objective, is good, for another it is 'bad.'
This doesn't mean that all objectives are equal, Mary.
What determines the objective's attainability, for one, and its truth?
The consequences, Mary.
Every objective, even of unattainable, like your delusion fo a world with no inequalities....and eternal pace.
The consequences relative to the expectations.
Every objective, every ideal, produces a type of psychology, a kind of man.....or woman, in your case.

Well, click, of course.

And this is how your psychosis expresses itself, Mary.
You are one fucked-up bitch.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 1:08 pmWho are these gods that have a choice and a free-will, when no mortal man, according to you, can be blamed for anything?

This is entirely typical of his ilk here [and certainly there].

In fact, I don't believe in any gods/Gods. I just don't insist that they do not exist.[/quote]But you do, Mary....you've only renamed the exact same cocnept.
You call it absolute order.
You do believe in god, Mary....you believe in a totalitarian, authoritarian, existence, where you are nothing more than an automaton.

And I have never argued that no mortal man [or woman] can be blamed for anything. I challenge him to link us to a post where I did.

Mary, Mary...you keep bringing up these Nazis, and Objectivists...dear.
You blame them.
you accuse them.
You believe they are evil.
and you are a lying biatch, aren't you, Mary?

Your entire psychotic schtic is you undermining the "forces of evil,' to bring about your preferred Utopia, which you do not call paradise.

I merely note that to the best of my current knowledge the hard guys and gals have not been able to provide us with the evidence to pin it all down unequivocally.

Yes, Mary....and they never will....because you will not accept anything other than absolute evidence, will you mary.
You will never consider an argument on merit, because you have a very low IQ....and your fall back position is to believe in the absurdities you do, without argument, without reasoning...and accuse anyone that contradicts or threatens you of trying to impose their opinion on you, dear.
You are a passive-aggressive mess, aren't ya Mary?

But that is moot for those "serious philosophers" among us who insist that up in the intellectual clouds they already have pinned it down unequivocally.

I've told you before, Mary.....you are no "philosopher"...you are a postmodern opportunist that was taught a method to undermine anything that challenges your delusions.

Mary...nothing I say is "up in the clouds"....moron.
Are you dense?
Everything is falsifiable, perceptible....but you feel so insecure because you cannot fully udnerstand what is above your IQ level.....
That's what you then ACCUSE of being "up in the clouds."

you've made your own deficiencies into a defensive posture....and then annoy the world to death, just to say...."look what I reduced him to..."
You are a passive-aggressive bitch, Mary. A very dumb one....low, low IQ.

You post texts and then offer the most ridiculous commentary.....and here you re......years of wasted time.
What have you accomplished Mary...other than annoy everyone and then bore them to tears.

But don't let me stop you from posting the cut and paste replies....
*click

Stop following me around.
It's embarrassing...what with the world say?

Note to Others