Philosophy Now Forum

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:19 am 1.There is more than one way to interpret the world and the things in it.
This is the summation of all viewpoints under one view point.


2.No one can prove one way to understand a thing or the whole universe is better than another.
Proof is definition and we can define things.

3.A standard for doing this could be made, but not proved.
The standard would be a means of defintions that even the standard would fall under. All phenomena follow a tautological spiral: a --> b --> (a,b,c)

4.A standard for proving the standard of proof were true could be made, but itself would be unprovable and so on.
See above, it would have to follow it's own laws.


5.Someone might claim this is not a proof, however, their brain is stripped to the skin and left shivering in the cold wind of nihilismus.

Nihilism is an extremist stance of meaninglessness. All contexts of reality, as leading to further contexts, necessitates all contexts existing as center points to further contexts.
Meaning is logically inevitable.
Q.E.D.

See above, it would have to follow it's own laws.

Meaning is logically inevitable.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:33 am [Eodnhoj7 post_id=446044 time=1583796656 user_id=14533]

See above, it would have to follow it's own laws.

This is what I would call nihilism. There is a respect for laws, but only those one permits.

Being exists under and through laws, and law which exists through itself is self referential and sets the parameters for what could be called "consciousness".


Paradoxically that would be a law determining whether or not one can permit anything at all.

Meaning is logically inevitable.

Not on my interpretation of what logic is. Logic is a way of permitting speech to be narrowed in its meaning and correspondingly, as corollary to that, in what it tells us.

Speech is definitive by nature, all of being exists through definition.

------

How can you quote the person you are answering without getting the whole message caught in it?

Simple, quote them from a lower context.

Speech is definitive by nature, all of being exists through definition.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:20 am

Speech is definitive by nature, all of being exists through definition.

So, you claim animals have no “being?” Since they don’t “define.”

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:19 am 1.There is more than one way to interpret the world and the things in it.
2.No one can prove one way to understand a thing or the whole universe is better than another.
3.A standard for doing this could be made, but not proved.
4.A standard for proving the standard of proof were true could be made, but itself would be unprovable and so on.
5.Someone might claim this is not a proof, however, their brain is stripped to the skin and left shivering in the cold wind of nihilismus.
Q.E.D.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:42 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:20 am

Speech is definitive by nature, all of being exists through definition.

So, you claim animals have no “being?” Since they don’t “define.”

They define reality by inverting resources from one state, such as grass, into another, dirt. Definition occurs through the inversion of any phenomena.

They define reality by inverting resources from one state, such as grass, into another, dirt. Definition occurs through the inversion of any phenomena.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:15 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:19 am 1.There is more than one way to interpret the world and the things in it.
2.No one can prove one way to understand a thing or the whole universe is better than another.
3.A standard for doing this could be made, but not proved.
4.A standard for proving the standard of proof were true could be made, but itself would be unprovable and so on.
5.Someone might claim this is not a proof, however, their brain is stripped to the skin and left shivering in the cold wind of nihilismus.
Q.E.D.

If nothing else is valuable, at least interpretation is - otherwise we wouldn't have so many different interpretations.
If nothing else is valuable, at least understanding is - otherwise we wouldn't have so many different understandings.

If nihilism is self-evident to you, then it's unclear to me why so many people value interpretation and understanding.

If nothing else is valuable, at least interpretation is - otherwise we wouldn't have so many different interpretations.

If nothing else is valuable, at least understanding is - otherwise we wouldn't have so many different understandings.

If nihilism is self-evident to you, then it's unclear to me why so many people value interpretation and understanding.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:42 am

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:20 am

So, you claim animals have no “being?” Since they don’t “define.”

They define reality by inverting resources from one state, such as grass, into another, dirt. Definition occurs through the inversion of any phenomena.

They define reality by inverting resources from one state, such as grass, into another, dirt. Definition occurs through the inversion of any phenomena.

I don't understand this "inversion" talk.

One state changes to another state.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:33 pm

One state changes to another state.

Why is this definition?

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:26 am So you claim a tennis shoe is also a tennis shoe, as phenomenon and as definition?