Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:16 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:13 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:07 am
The amount of salt you use on something that does not exist does not change its taste.

Hate to burst your bubble there’s nothing in those imaged photos either, you may as well be reading a blank whiteboard.

You just like spouting your illiterate bull shit. so once more fuck off.

Well you can take the shit of the man, but you can’t take the man of the shit, that’s for sure.

thrower.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:21 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:16 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:13 am

Hate to burst your bubble there’s nothing in those imaged photos either, you may as well be reading a blank whiteboard.

You just like spouting your illiterate bull shit. so once more fuck off.

Well you can take the shit of the man, but you can’t take the man of the shit, that’s for sure.

thrower.

I know the illiterate doggy wants attention. I am a cat lover, a dog lover, but not a lover of idiots. so fuck off.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:19 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:15 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:12 am

Do you know what the word reason means? You are very undiscerning in your thinking.

Yes, I think I have a fairly good grasp of English.

I know you think so. That cannot be disputed. You like flattering yourself as most people do. But, philosophy is about using words in accordance with the truth of things. If you do not what the truth of things, you want to be flattered, but that is not my department.

Yes we all know imitating is the sincerest form of flattery. Parrot man. And tell us, are you a man dreaming your a parrot, or a parrot dreaming your a man ?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:24 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:21 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:16 am

You just like spouting your illiterate bull shit. so once more fuck off.

Well you can take the shit of the man, but you can’t take the man of the shit, that’s for sure.

thrower.

I know the illiterate doggy wants attention. I am a cat lover, a dog lover, but not a lover of idiots. so fuck off.

It’s ok, I’m holding up the mirror for you. I’ve been doing it for a long time my gibbon arms are starting to droop from the effects of gravity.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:19 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:15 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:12 am

Do you know what the word reason means? You are very undiscerning in your thinking.

Yes, I think I have a fairly good grasp of English.

I know you think so. That cannot be disputed. You like flattering yourself as most people do. But, philosophy is about using words in accordance with the truth of things. If you do not what the truth of things, you want to be flattered, but that is not my department.

Well, the truth is that AI can provide pretty good descriptions of images. It appears to be you who won't accept it.

As for English, I think I'll let others judge which of us uses it better.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:25 am Doggy barking and trying to ride a leg, fuck off doggy.

Or are you a dog dreaming you’re a man, make your mind up.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:28 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:19 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:15 am

Yes, I think I have a fairly good grasp of English.

I know you think so. That cannot be disputed. You like flattering yourself as most people do. But, philosophy is about using words in accordance with the truth of things. If you do not what the truth of things, you want to be flattered, but that is not my department.

Well, the truth is that AI can provide pretty good descriptions of images. It appears to be you who won't accept it.

As for English, I think I'll let others judge which of us uses it better.

How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:32 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:28 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:19 am

I know you think so. That cannot be disputed. You like flattering yourself as most people do. But, philosophy is about using words in accordance with the truth of things. If you do not what the truth of things, you want to be flattered, but that is not my department.

Well, the truth is that AI can provide pretty good descriptions of images. It appears to be you who won't accept it.

As for English, I think I'll let others judge which of us uses it better.

How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

Sometimes I wonder, but two things, really. First of all, the philosophy of history, religion, and that sort of thing, and also the philosophy of perception. It's in my profile, if you can be bothered to read it.

As for schizophrenia, well, I'm in two minds about it...

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:32 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:28 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:19 am

I know you think so. That cannot be disputed. You like flattering yourself as most people do. But, philosophy is about using words in accordance with the truth of things. If you do not what the truth of things, you want to be flattered, but that is not my department.

Well, the truth is that AI can provide pretty good descriptions of images. It appears to be you who won't accept it.

As for English, I think I'll let others judge which of us uses it better.

How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

I think the people that come here are here for philosophical truth. It’s you that’s the problem. Most of us, at least some of us come to this forum with our philosophical truths, not to express ourselves as schizophrenic, sociopathic, illiterate idiots, that only you have personally ordained us as being. If what you’ve ordained some of us to be is your philosophical truth, then don’t be surprised if we act out these roles to perfection, just from the sheer embarrassment of making you out to be absolutely wrong in your assessments. I mean how could a man of your unsurpassed, outstanding calibre with such lofty expectations and astounding standards ever be wrong about the real reason others come to this forum.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:49 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:32 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:28 am

Well, the truth is that AI can provide pretty good descriptions of images. It appears to be you who won't accept it.

As for English, I think I'll let others judge which of us uses it better.

How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

Sometimes I wonder, but two things, really. First of all, the philosophy of history, religion, and that sort of thing, and also the philosophy of perception. It's in my profile, if you can be bothered to read it.

As for schizophrenia, well, I'm in two minds about it...

When people use the phrases the philosophy of this and the philosophy of that, they are illiterate. As Plato pointed out, all of the sciences are members of philosophy, not the other way around. All of science use the same principles of grammar.
The Bible is laid out the same way. There are four standards of binary recursion by which grammar is expressed.
You must be rich kid, I am still trying to earn one mind, two is definitely not in my future.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:55 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:49 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:32 am
How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

Sometimes I wonder, but two things, really. First of all, the philosophy of history, religion, and that sort of thing, and also the philosophy of perception. It's in my profile, if you can be bothered to read it.

As for schizophrenia, well, I'm in two minds about it...

When people use the phrases the philosophy of this and the philosophy of that, they are illiterate. As Plato pointed out, all of the sciences are members of philosophy, not the other way around. All of science use the same principles of grammar.
The Bible is laid out the same way. There are four standards of binary recursion by which grammar is expressed.
You must be rich kid, I am still trying to earn one mind, two is definitely not in my future.

Semantics.

You’re trying to mimic Age now, with the obsession for correct grammar. Is that grammar obsessed mind just an internet trend or something?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:55 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:49 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:32 am
How very democratic of you.

So, tell my why you are on a philosophy site, when philosophy is about truth, and truth is only expressible by standards of grammar you constantly protest against. I.e., the sociopaths on this site are here not for philosophy, but because they find they can express their sociopathology here. Why are you here? Why so many years specifically on philosophy sites, yet you constantly declaim its very foundation? What is your excuse for being schizophrenic?

Sometimes I wonder, but two things, really. First of all, the philosophy of history, religion, and that sort of thing, and also the philosophy of perception. It's in my profile, if you can be bothered to read it.

As for schizophrenia, well, I'm in two minds about it...

When people use the phrases the philosophy of this and the philosophy of that, they are illiterate. As Plato pointed out, all of the sciences are members of philosophy, not the other way around. All of science use the same principles of grammar.
The Bible is laid out the same way. There are four standards of binary recursion by which grammar is expressed.
You must be rich kid, I am still trying to earn one mind, two is definitely not in my future.

On the contrary, to say, the philosophy of something, or other, is perfectly acceptable and completely unremarkable.

The word philosophy was apparently invented by Pythagoras, so, strictly speaking, perhaps it should only refer to adherents of his mystical brand of maths and weird diets.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 10:04 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:55 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:49 am

Sometimes I wonder, but two things, really. First of all, the philosophy of history, religion, and that sort of thing, and also the philosophy of perception. It's in my profile, if you can be bothered to read it.

As for schizophrenia, well, I'm in two minds about it...

When people use the phrases the philosophy of this and the philosophy of that, they are illiterate. As Plato pointed out, all of the sciences are members of philosophy, not the other way around. All of science use the same principles of grammar.
The Bible is laid out the same way. There are four standards of binary recursion by which grammar is expressed.
You must be rich kid, I am still trying to earn one mind, two is definitely not in my future.

On the contrary, to say, the philosophy of something, or other, is perfectly acceptable and completely unremarkable.

The word philosophy was apparently invented by Pythagoras, so, strictly speaking, perhaps it should only refer to adherents of his mystical brand of maths and weird diets.

Seriously? You do not know the simple principles of predication? You have two parts of speech, Plato introduced them, taught them and their implications in reasoning. But as you said, you never really studied Plato. But you still have only deflected from answering my question. Why are do you target philosophy sites, yet cannot even seem to comprehend its foundation?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 10:14 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 10:04 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 9:55 am

When people use the phrases the philosophy of this and the philosophy of that, they are illiterate. As Plato pointed out, all of the sciences are members of philosophy, not the other way around. All of science use the same principles of grammar.
The Bible is laid out the same way. There are four standards of binary recursion by which grammar is expressed.
You must be rich kid, I am still trying to earn one mind, two is definitely not in my future.

On the contrary, to say, the philosophy of something, or other, is perfectly acceptable and completely unremarkable.

The word philosophy was apparently invented by Pythagoras, so, strictly speaking, perhaps it should only refer to adherents of his mystical brand of maths and weird diets.

Seriously? You do not know the simple principles of predication? You have two parts of speech, Plato introduced them, taught them and their implications in reasoning. But as you said, you never really studied Plato. But you still have only deflected from answering my question. Why are do you target philosophy sites, yet cannot even seem to comprehend its foundation?

I think I've answered your question.

Philosophy grew out of Greek mythology, via mystics like Pythagoras.