Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:15 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:01 pm 1. Obtain a temporary e-mail address at https://www.guerrillamail.com
2. Edit your profile and update your e-mail address to the temporary one above.
3. Follow activation instructions in the message received at https://www.guerrillamail.com
4. Generate random password at https://passwordsgenerator.net/ (DO NOT write this down)
5. Edit your profile and update your password.
6. Logout

If it works this post should be final.

Uhhh...noone is forcing you here at gunpoint. You are just angry because...well you are convinced what you do is important and valuable and noone really cares.

The guy was probably just tired of all the insults and animosity on this forum. Can't say I blame him.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:15 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:01 pm 1. Obtain a temporary e-mail address at https://www.guerrillamail.com
2. Edit your profile and update your e-mail address to the temporary one above.
3. Follow activation instructions in the message received at https://www.guerrillamail.com
4. Generate random password at https://passwordsgenerator.net/ (DO NOT write this down)
5. Edit your profile and update your password.
6. Logout

If it works this post should be final.

Uhhh...noone is forcing you here at gunpoint. You are just angry because...well you are convinced what you do is important and valuable and noone really cares.

The guy was probably just tired of all the insults and animosity on this forum. Can't say I blame him.

You can ask him if you want, he's back under the new name Univalence and posting in this very thread. He's also quite capable of joining in the abuse like a top chap. You are the one who has veil his aggression beneath an inch thick layer of self pitying whine.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:15 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:01 pm 1. Obtain a temporary e-mail address at https://www.guerrillamail.com
2. Edit your profile and update your e-mail address to the temporary one above.
3. Follow activation instructions in the message received at https://www.guerrillamail.com
4. Generate random password at https://passwordsgenerator.net/ (DO NOT write this down)
5. Edit your profile and update your password.
6. Logout

If it works this post should be final.

Uhhh...noone is forcing you here at gunpoint. You are just angry because...well you are convinced what you do is important and valuable and noone really cares.

The guy was probably just tired of all the insults and animosity on this forum. Can't say I blame him.

And I don't go through the same? Or you? It is an intellectually hostile environment. Take it or leave it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:15 pm

Uhhh...noone is forcing you here at gunpoint. You are just angry because...well you are convinced what you do is important and valuable and noone really cares.

The guy was probably just tired of all the insults and animosity on this forum. Can't say I blame him.

It is an intellectually hostile environment.

That's the truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:08 pmIt is an intellectually hostile environment. Take it or leave it.

As a newish member I find this to be the case. It is also the most intellectually-challenged philosophy forum I've visited. I've not before come across quite so many people with a poor grasp of the issues being so dogmatic and combatitive in pushing their opinions. It only takes a few to ruin the whole discussion. I've abandoned the idea of having serious conversations here.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:42 pm It is also the most intellectually-challenged philosophy forum I've visited. I've not before come across quite so many people with a poor grasp of the issues being so dogmatic and combatitive in pushing their opinions. It only takes a few to ruin the whole discussion. I've abandoned the idea of having serious conversations here.

I think what you are coming to recognise is the systemic failure of philosophy (and philosophers) to reach consensus on anything.

The absence of selection criteria for 'intellectual'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'serious conversation'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'firm grasp' of the issues at hand.

It's philosophy, dude! Without exclusion criteria (e.g garbage disposal) anything goes, really.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:11 pm

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:42 pm It is also the most intellectually-challenged philosophy forum I've visited. I've not before come across quite so many people with a poor grasp of the issues being so dogmatic and combatitive in pushing their opinions. It only takes a few to ruin the whole discussion. I've abandoned the idea of having serious conversations here.

I think what you are coming to recognise is the systemic failure of philosophy (and philosophers) to reach consensus on anything.

The absence of selection criteria for 'intellectual'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'serious conversation'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'firm grasp' of the issues at hand.

It's philosophy, dude! Without exclusion criteria (e.g garbage disposal) anything goes, really.

And with continual exclusion we are left quite literally with a fragmented version of reality where any does go.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:11 pm

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:42 pm It is also the most intellectually-challenged philosophy forum I've visited. I've not before come across quite so many people with a poor grasp of the issues being so dogmatic and combatitive in pushing their opinions. It only takes a few to ruin the whole discussion. I've abandoned the idea of having serious conversations here.

I think what you are coming to recognise is the systemic failure of philosophy (and philosophers) to reach consensus on anything.

The absence of selection criteria for 'intellectual'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'serious conversation'.
The absence of selection criteria for 'firm grasp' of the issues at hand.

It's philosophy, dude! Without exclusion criteria (e.g garbage disposal) anything goes, really.

And this consensus is found in science or religion?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:38 pm And with continual exclusion we are left quite literally with a fragmented version of reality where any does go.

Not anything. That which survives selection, and which is fit for purpose goes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:17 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:38 pm And with continual exclusion we are left quite literally with a fragmented version of reality where any does go.

Not anything. That which survives selection, and which is fit for purpose goes.

Actually its existence necessitates a purpose in itself considering the existence of one phenomenon requires it to effectively set the grounds for the next phenomenon as all phenomenon are nothing in themselves because of their projective, or "evolutionary", capacity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:23 pm Actually its existence necessitates a purpose in itself considering the existence of one phenomenon requires it to effectively set the grounds for the next phenomenon as all phenomenon are nothing in themselves because of their projective, or "evolutionary", capacity.

It may necessitate purpose. It does not necessitate fitness for that purpose.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:23 pm Actually its existence necessitates a purpose in itself considering the existence of one phenomenon requires it to effectively set the grounds for the next phenomenon as all phenomenon are nothing in themselves because of their projective, or "evolutionary", capacity.

It may necessitate purpose. It does not necessitate fitness for that purpose.

False, as all phenomenon as existing having positive and negative qualities where they are always fit for one purpose but not for another. In these respects all phenomenon are meaningful considering a loop occurs where:

1. A is fit for B, but not C.
2. C is fit for D but requires B.
3. A is fit for C in the context of the whole progression but not the relative localized position in its specific time.

The question of fitness is defined by connection in these respects, where the connection in the above example is strictly a linear progression which sets the premise for evolution as the process of time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:32 pm False, as all phenomenon as existing having positive and negative qualities where they are always fit for one purpose but not for another. In these respects all phenomenon are meaningful considering a loop occurs where:

1. A is fit for B, but not C.
2. C is fit for D but requires B.
3. A is fit for C in the context of the whole progression but not the relative localized position in its specific time.

The question of fitness is defined by connection in these respects, where the connection in the above example is strictly a linear progression which sets the premise for evolution as the process of time.

What purpose is philosophy fit for?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:32 pm False, as all phenomenon as existing having positive and negative qualities where they are always fit for one purpose but not for another. In these respects all phenomenon are meaningful considering a loop occurs where:

1. A is fit for B, but not C.
2. C is fit for D but requires B.
3. A is fit for C in the context of the whole progression but not the relative localized position in its specific time.

The question of fitness is defined by connection in these respects, where the connection in the above example is strictly a linear progression which sets the premise for evolution as the process of time.

What purpose is philosophy fit for?

Discerning the true backbone to the nature of reality.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:23 pm Discerning the true backbone to the nature of reality.

Given two competing theories as to the 'nature of reality' how do you discern which one is more true?