Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 7:49 pm “Claiming that you know there is nothing that knows things is about one of the funniest self-contradictory and self-refuting claims, here”

Response: like I said earlier. I understand what I am saying. I know what I’m talking about.

Your response is irrelevant and doesn’t in any way shape or form change my understanding.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:46 am Lol... 'I know' that there is not a thing that 'knows things'.

Can you really still not see and understand the contradiction, here?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:46 am

Lol... 'I know' that there is not a thing that 'knows things'.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 2:51 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 1:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 12:35 pm [

Okay, but what is that 'sane idea', exactly?



Do you have proof of 'this', and therefore it is an irrefutable fact?

Or, is 'this' just what you believe is true?

Because the proof that 'now' exists, objectively, means that 'now' actually does exist objectively.


What do you mean by, 'There is no subsection of the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change where the act of measuring 'duration', itself, and change stands still, exactly?

Sorry about that. I mean that there is no period of time that stands between pastand future. Past and future is actually a continuum

And, to you, is there ever a moment of 'now', or there is not?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 7:50 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:46 am Lol... 'I know' that there is not a thing that 'knows things'.

Can you really still not see and understand the contradiction, here?

Claiming other people’s claims are wrong is wrong.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 7:50 am Assuming other people’s ideas are a misunderstanding is projection sourced from you, not them.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 7:50 am This one here already understands the contradictory nature of a Not-Knowing reality.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:46 am

Lol... 'I know' that there is not a thing that 'knows things'.

The ideas that someone transmits to you may or may not help you open up to the absolute truth of reality, but they are never, in any case, the absolute truth; they are just ideas.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am If you want to delve deeper into this matter, you must understand that you cannot believe anyone because doing so, no matter who it may be, closes you off from the real truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Ideas could be a help to open your perspective, but at the end only you can see and understand.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am These words are still recursive mental activity. In other words (Occupied Emptiness ) Words cannot tell what truth is. They can only point.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am The OP is pointing to a truth, not telling it.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am There’s no distance between knower and known.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Dual perspectives are illusory

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am creating an artificial gap between knower and known. Understanding metaphysics closes the apparent gap.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 2:51 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 1:37 pm
Sorry about that. I mean that there is no period of time that stands between pastand future. Past and future is actually a continuum

And, to you, is there ever a moment of 'now', or there is not?

Yes there is.

However that "moment of 'now' " is a habit of thinking which, when I think more precisely, as a philosopher I know it to be incorrect.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am I know it to be incorrect because it is not nature but we who divide the unbroken flow of time into bits and pieces.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 30, 2025 2:51 pm

And, to you, is there ever a moment of 'now', or there is not?

Yes there is.

However that "moment of 'now' " is a habit of thinking which, when I think more precisely, as a philosopher I know it to be incorrect.

1. Who and/or what is a so-called "philosopher'", exactly?

2. How does one think 'more precisely', exactly? And, why were 'you' not thinking 'more precisely', from the outset anyway?

3. you were asked to clarify whether, to you, there is ever a moment of 'now', or not. you very clearly answered and clarified, 'Yes there is'.

4. What is so-called 'habit of thinking', and does so-called 'habit of thinking' not align with the actual Truths, in Life?

5. Why would 'you' provide an answer, and clarify, but in the very next sentence inform the readers, here, that your answer and clarification is 'incorrect'? Why not just express, answer, and clarify, only with what is Correct, instead?

6. Also, why can what is called a, ' moment of 'now' ', just be a continual moment, and one that is True, and Real?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am I know it to be incorrect because it is not nature but we who divide the unbroken flow of time into bits and pieces.

you have, previously, claimed that 'time' is a word that is used when expressing 'the measuring of duration', which, itself, is obviously not any 'unbroken flow'. Would 'you' like to 'think more precisely', here, 'now', and then respond, again, here, and 'now'.

Also, could the 'unbroken flow', itself, just be the, ' moment of 'now' '? Or, is 'this' not a possibility, in 'your' view, and thinking?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 11:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am
Yes there is.

However that "moment of 'now' " is a habit of thinking which, when I think more precisely, as a philosopher I know it to be incorrect.

1. Who and/or what is a so-called "philosopher'", exactly?

2. How does one think 'more precisely', exactly? And, why were 'you' not thinking 'more precisely', from the outset anyway?

3. you were asked to clarify whether, to you, there is ever a moment of 'now', or not. you very clearly answered and clarified, 'Yes there is'.

4. What is so-called 'habit of thinking', and does so-called 'habit of thinking' not align with the actual Truths, in Life?

5. Why would 'you' provide an answer, and clarify, but in the very next sentence inform the readers, here, that your answer and clarification is 'incorrect'? Why not just express, answer, and clarify, only with what is Correct, instead?

6. Also, why can what is called a, ' moment of 'now' ', just be a continual moment, and one that is True, and Real?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 10:14 am I know it to be incorrect because it is not nature but we who divide the unbroken flow of time into bits and pieces.

you have, previously, claimed that 'time' is a word that is used when expressing 'the measuring of duration', which, itself, is obviously not any 'unbroken flow'. Would 'you' like to 'think more precisely', here, 'now', and then respond, again, here, and 'now'.

Also, could the 'unbroken flow', itself, just be the, ' moment of 'now' '? Or, is 'this' not a possibility, in 'your' view, and thinking?

1. A philosopher is able to think objectively , logically, and sceptically.

2. Sometimes I think analytically and sometimes synthetically.


3. Habits of thinking often don't align with search for truth

5 I know nothing . Like everyone else I present a narrative.

6. Continuum seems to me to describe time. Nature does not divide things up.

The eternal now became more distant in human consciousness with the advent of agricultural and industrial revolutions when the clock and other machines took charge of his hours and minutes for the sake of commercial profit.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 12:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 11:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:14 am

1. Who and/or what is a so-called "philosopher'", exactly?

2. How does one think 'more precisely', exactly? And, why were 'you' not thinking 'more precisely', from the outset anyway?

3. you were asked to clarify whether, to you, there is ever a moment of 'now', or not. you very clearly answered and clarified, 'Yes there is'.

4. What is so-called 'habit of thinking', and does so-called 'habit of thinking' not align with the actual Truths, in Life?

5. Why would 'you' provide an answer, and clarify, but in the very next sentence inform the readers, here, that your answer and clarification is 'incorrect'? Why not just express, answer, and clarify, only with what is Correct, instead?

6. Also, why can what is called a, ' moment of 'now' ', just be a continual moment, and one that is True, and Real?



you have, previously, claimed that 'time' is a word that is used when expressing 'the measuring of duration', which, itself, is obviously not any 'unbroken flow'. Would 'you' like to 'think more precisely', here, 'now', and then respond, again, here, and 'now'.

Also, could the 'unbroken flow', itself, just be the, ' moment of 'now' '? Or, is 'this' not a possibility, in 'your' view, and thinking?

1. A philosopher is able to think objectively , logically, and sceptically.

2. Sometimes I think analytically and sometimes synthetically.


3. Habits of thinking often don't align with search for truth

5 I know nothing . Like everyone else I present a narrative.

6. Continuum seems to me to describe time. Nature does not divide things up.

The eternal now became more distant in human consciousness with the advent of agricultural and industrial revolutions when the clock and other machines took charge of his hours and minutes for the sake of commercial profit.

Okay, that is just your own personal and subjective narrative, right?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:33 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 12:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 11:35 am
1. A philosopher is able to think objectively , logically, and sceptically.

2. Sometimes I think analytically and sometimes synthetically.


3. Habits of thinking often don't align with search for truth

5 I know nothing . Like everyone else I present a narrative.

6. Continuum seems to me to describe time. Nature does not divide things up.

The eternal now became more distant in human consciousness with the advent of agricultural and industrial revolutions when the clock and other machines took charge of his hours and minutes for the sake of commercial profit.

Okay, that is just your own personal and subjective narrative, right?

Right you are. I did not invent it but was taught it at university. I admire your humility in that you ask questions and never push your own narrative.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:00 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:46 am

Lol... 'I know' that there is not a thing that 'knows things'.

The ideas that someone transmits to you may or may not help you open up to the absolute truth of reality, but they are never, in any case, the absolute truth; they are just ideas.

Of course your ideas, here, which do not align with the absolute Truth are 'just your ideas' only, and alone.

And, that you keep presenting your own personal ideas, as though they the absolute Truth of 'Reality', shows and proves that you, still, do not yet know how to find the absolute Truth, of things.

Do you believe that you are 'open' to the absolutely Truth, of 'Reality'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am If you want to delve deeper into this matter, you must understand that you cannot believe anyone because doing so, no matter who it may be, closes you off from the real truth.

Obviously you have not been reading, and comprehending and understanding, 'my words' from the outset of me entering, here. 'I' am the only one, here, who neither believes any of you human beings. It is 'you' "fairy" who 'believes' others, and your own views and ideas. Which, as 'I' have been continually explaining and informing 'you' is the very reason why you are closed of to, and are prevented and stopped from seeing and understand, the actual Truth of things, in Life.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Ideas could be a help to open your perspective, but at the end only you can see and understand.

LOL your own personal and subjective ideas, and belief, like, for example, 'There is not a thing in the whole of the Universe that knows thing', is not helpful in anyway, nor to anyone, in helping you, nor another, in opening up to the actual Truth of things.

See, presenting and expressing what is, clearly, an absolute Falsehood never ever helps any one. And, it could be said and argued, especially more so in the case of 'the one' spreading such an absolute lie, and untruth. Also, and let 'us' not forget, how much of the Falsehood you are 'trying to' share and spread, here, is very clearly an absolute contradiction in itself. 'Trying to' say and claim that you 'know' that there is no thing that 'knows' things is beyond being absolute absurdity and ridiculous. It is like those who claim that there is no truth, or, that there is no one truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am These words are still recursive mental activity. In other words (Occupied Emptiness ) Words cannot tell what truth is. They can only point.

What are 'they' point to, exactly?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am The OP is pointing to a truth, not telling it.

Why do you 'believe', absolutely, that the 'truth' can not be 'known'?

Why do you 'believe', absolutely, that you can tell others, with and through, words what the 'absolute truth' is?

Also, do you, still, really, not recognize and see the absolute contraction in claiming that you 'know' 'the truth', and that you can come to a philosophy forum and 'tell' others' 'the truth', through the use of 'words', which you claim, and say and thus 'tell', can not tell what 'the truth' is?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am There’s no distance between knower and known.

Except for the countless examples when the 'knower', that is, 'you', a human being, or person, is 'a distance' from the countless 'things known'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Dual perspectives are illusory

So, to 'you', every 'perspective' is the 'exact same One', right?

And, that there are no two human beings with different perspectives, correct?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am creating an artificial gap between knower and known. Understanding metaphysics closes the apparent gap.

It sounds like 'you', the one, here, known as "fairy", believes, absolutely, that it understands 'metaphysics', and that your understanding and knowing of 'metaphysics' is the only actual True and Right one, in Life. Which is all well and good. But, for any one who wants to come to, especially, a philosophy forum and claim that, 'understanding metaphysics closes the claimed 'artificial gap' between 'knower' and 'known', then all 'that one' would have to do, to show and prove that 'they' actually do 'understand metaphysics', itself, is just answer the question, 'What is 'metaphysics', exactly?' when they are challenged to so. Exactly like 'you' have just been challenged to do so, here, now, "fairy".

Show, and prove to, the readers, here, that 'you' actually do understand 'metaphysics', itself.

Now, obviously if 'you' do not, then 'you' are showing, and proving, what 'you' actually really do not yet 'understand', once again.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:00 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am

The ideas that someone transmits to you may or may not help you open up to the absolute truth of reality, but they are never, in any case, the absolute truth; they are just ideas.

Of course your ideas, here, which do not align with the absolute Truth are 'just your ideas' only, and alone.

And, that you keep presenting your own personal ideas, as though they the absolute Truth of 'Reality', shows and proves that you, still, do not yet know how to find the absolute Truth, of things.

Do you believe that you are 'open' to the absolutely Truth, of 'Reality'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am If you want to delve deeper into this matter, you must understand that you cannot believe anyone because doing so, no matter who it may be, closes you off from the real truth.

Obviously you have not been reading, and comprehending and understanding, 'my words' from the outset of me entering, here. 'I' am the only one, here, who neither believes any of you human beings. It is 'you' "fairy" who 'believes' others, and your own views and ideas. Which, as 'I' have been continually explaining and informing 'you' is the very reason why you are closed of to, and are prevented and stopped from seeing and understand, the actual Truth of things, in Life.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Ideas could be a help to open your perspective, but at the end only you can see and understand.

LOL your own personal and subjective ideas, and belief, like, for example, 'There is not a thing in the whole of the Universe that knows thing', is not helpful in anyway, nor to anyone, in helping you, nor another, in opening up to the actual Truth of things.

See, presenting and expressing what is, clearly, an absolute Falsehood never ever helps any one. And, it could be said and argued, especially more so in the case of 'the one' spreading such an absolute lie, and untruth. Also, and let 'us' not forget, how much of the Falsehood you are 'trying to' share and spread, here, is very clearly an absolute contradiction in itself. 'Trying to' say and claim that you 'know' that there is no thing that 'knows' things is beyond being absolute absurdity and ridiculous. It is like those who claim that there is no truth, or, that there is no one truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am These words are still recursive mental activity. In other words (Occupied Emptiness ) Words cannot tell what truth is. They can only point.

What are 'they' point to, exactly?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am The OP is pointing to a truth, not telling it.

Why do you 'believe', absolutely, that the 'truth' can not be 'known'?

Why do you 'believe', absolutely, that you can tell others, with and through, words what the 'absolute truth' is?

Also, do you, still, really, not recognize and see the absolute contraction in claiming that you 'know' 'the truth', and that you can come to a philosophy forum and 'tell' others' 'the truth', through the use of 'words', which you claim, and say and thus 'tell', can not tell what 'the truth' is?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am There’s no distance between knower and known.

Except for the countless examples when the 'knower', that is, 'you', a human being, or person, is 'a distance' from the countless 'things known'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am Dual perspectives are illusory

So, to 'you', every 'perspective' is the 'exact same One', right?

And, that there are no two human beings with different perspectives, correct?

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 31, 2025 8:23 am creating an artificial gap between knower and known. Understanding metaphysics closes the apparent gap.

It sounds like 'you', the one, here, known as "fairy", believes, absolutely, that it understands 'metaphysics', and that your understanding and knowing of 'metaphysics' is the only actual True and Right one, in Life. Which is all well and good. But, for any one who wants to come to, especially, a philosophy forum and claim that, 'understanding metaphysics closes the claimed 'artificial gap' between 'knower' and 'known', then all 'that one' would have to do, to show and prove that 'they' actually do 'understand metaphysics', itself, is just answer the question, 'What is 'metaphysics', exactly?' when they are challenged to so. Exactly like 'you' have just been challenged to do so, here, now, "fairy".

Show, and prove to, the readers, here, that 'you' actually do understand 'metaphysics', itself.

Now, obviously if 'you' do not, then 'you' are showing, and proving, what 'you' actually really do not yet 'understand', once again.

Absolute truth simply points to no truth except as an idea.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm There’s multiple ideas, not just mine. Understanding metaphysics is personal and may or may not differ from one person to the next.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm Asking for proof of someone’s understanding is absurd.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm I learned everything I know about not- knowing reality. I can’t learn what I think I already know.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm The idea that "proof" is a useless word in metaphysical studies stems from the nature of metaphysical inquiry. Unlike empirical sciences, metaphysics grapples with fundamental questions about reality that often lack direct empirical verification.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm While metaphysics explores concepts like existence, causality, and the nature of being, it doesn't aim to provide definitive, provable answers in the same way that scientific experiments do.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm Philosophers on PhilArchive note that metaphysics doesn't necessarily aim for a positive, verifiable theory, but rather explores the limits of knowledge and understanding.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm Here's why "proof" is often considered problematic in this context:
Lack of Empirical Verification:
Metaphysical statements, such as those about God or the nature of consciousness, often cannot be empirically tested or proven in the same way that scientific hypotheses can.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm The verification principle, central to logical positivism, argues that meaningful statements must be either empirically verifiable or tautological (true by definition), which excludes many metaphysical claims.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:57 pm Different Aims:
Metaphysics is not primarily concerned with establishing facts about the observable world. Instead, it seeks to understand the fundamental nature of reality, which may involve concepts beyond our direct sensory experience.
Potential for Contradiction:
Some philosophical perspectives suggest that any attempt to create a complete, consistent theory of reality within metaphysics may lead to unavoidable contradictions. This doesn't mean metaphysics is useless, but it highlights the challenges of achieving definitive "proof" in this domain.
Focus on Meaning and Understanding:
Metaphysics often prioritizes exploring the meaning and implications of concepts, rather than simply seeking to prove their existence or truth. For example, understanding the concept of free will or the nature of time can be valuable even without a definitive, universally accepted "proof" of their existence or non-existence.
In essence, while the term "proof" is central to scientific discourse, its application in metaphysics is limited by the nature of the questions being asked and the lack of empirical verification. Some philosophers on Medium argue that metaphysical inquiry is more about exploring the limits of knowledge and understanding fundamental concepts, rather than providing definitive, empirically verifiable "proofs".