Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:24 am -- ---

Happy New Year Flash!!

I finally swam my way out of a puddle of my own vomit

The ULTIMATE QUEST_ION philosophy, is what is the true nature of REALITY..
1. Divine
2. Simulation
3. Random Chaos to Now <-- atheism? certainly, not sure how to frame option 3. Of course, atheists would likely state "natural processes to now", and I have no issue with that and my gnosis, since I believe GOD also is natural.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:11 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2025 3:22 pm
LOL

See OP.

Additional LOL. I had almost forgotten how bad your work was before you let ChatGPT take over.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:11 am Your philosophy, i.e. Analytic and Philosophy of Ordinary Language is of limited use but relatively barbaric and primitive. Show evidence it is effective to cover the whole spectrum of human life?

What would you kow about it? You can't read philosophy and you can't construct an argument, which is why that worthless OP doesn't contain one. Your opinion on analytic philosophy as a whole is worthless. Your belief that you understand my philosophical positions is misplaced.

Your above is mere blabbering without arguments.

On the other hand, I have provided
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

My understanding of your philosophical position is based on what you've declared it is and the views you expressed here.
If not, then you should inform what your philosophical positions are.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:47 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:11 am
See OP.

Additional LOL. I had almost forgotten how bad your work was before you let ChatGPT take over.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:11 am Your philosophy, i.e. Analytic and Philosophy of Ordinary Language is of limited use but relatively barbaric and primitive. Show evidence it is effective to cover the whole spectrum of human life?

What would you kow about it? You can't read philosophy and you can't construct an argument, which is why that worthless OP doesn't contain one. Your opinion on analytic philosophy as a whole is worthless. Your belief that you understand my philosophical positions is misplaced.

Your above is mere blabbering without arguments.

On the other hand, I have provided
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

That's just you pilfering from some book you haven't even read. And you don't know enough to relate any of it back to me.

And your OP there doesn't contain an argument you fool.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:47 am The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143

My understanding of your philosophical position is based on what you've declared it is and the views you expressed here.
If not, then you should inform what your philosophical positions are.

I have no bef with Grice, and you've never read him, so what's your point meant to be?