the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=471632 time=1600302319 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471605 time=1600295988 user_id=15238]
You're no true philosopers, mate. You do a lot more being mean than accomplishing anything resembling thought.
[/quote]
Well, if we're dropping truth bombs ... You have a clinical personality disorder and you need to talk to a medical practitioner. I don't need telling that I am no great philosopher, it's pretty obvious that I am not. But that's why I don't create inane spreadsheets and pretend they fix all the problems of philosophy.
[/quote]

I like truth bombs. I'm sure i have a lot more than one personality disorder.

If you'd be willing to take the time to understand the spreadsheet, i presume you mean either ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ The Prime Metaphor ) or ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/ philosophical dictionary ), i'll be happy to take your advice under consideration. I don't see any evidence that you've attempted to judge it by it's own standards. I haven't considered whether the dictionary can do the same task but it's probably complete enough to get everything else by logical extension.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're no true philosopers, mate. You do a lot more being mean than accomplishing anything resembling thought.

Well, if we're dropping truth bombs ... You have a clinical personality disorder and you need to talk to a medical practitioner. I don't need telling that I am no great philosopher, it's pretty obvious that I am not. But that's why I don't create inane spreadsheets and pretend they fix all the problems of philosophy.

I like truth bombs. I'm sure i have a lot more than one personality disorder.

Well, you see I know that that this is all wasted on persons with your sort of condition, and to the extent that you experience any frustrations, you probably think they are all other people's problems. But for some reason no matter how banal everything you do is, you are obviously completely convinced it is totally perfect. Even your performance in this thread, where you blatantly don't understand the very simple thing you are writing about. Normal people would have either silently dropped the discussion to preserve their pride, or gone "whoops my misunderstanding" if they are a bit less of a dick. Going full steam ahead was just a way to advertise that you are insane.

If you'd be willing to take the time to understand the spreadsheet, i presume you mean either ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ The Prime Metaphor ) or ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/ philosophical dictionary ), i'll be happy to take your advice under consideration. I don't see any evidence that you've attempted to judge it by it's own standards. I haven't considered whether the dictionary can do the same task but it's probably complete enough to get everything else by logical extension.

Both of those spreadsheets are just another case in point. They are trivial lists of trite shit. Such observations as "ownership is best understood as 'certainty of access and control'", even where they are true, are unimportant. The one that identifies selflessness as Transcendence and selfishnes as Emergence is just total gash, all the way down.

To judge any of your work "by its own standards" would require an observer to bathe themself in your delusions of grandeur. The sheer notion that stuff answers all possible questions is quite insane. Your search for recongition is doomed because your actual capaiblities are easily recognised by everyone except you, and the aspect in which you wish to be discovered is entirely fictional.

[Advocate]

>Well, you see I know that that this is all wasted on persons with your sort of condition, and to the extent that you experience any frustrations, you probably think they are all other people's problems. But for some reason no matter how banal everything you do is, you are obviously completely convinced it is totally perfect. Even your performance in this thread, where you blatantly don't understand the very simple thing you are writing about. Normal people would have either silently dropped the discussion to preserve their pride, or gone "whoops my misunderstanding" if they are a bit less of a dick. Going full steam ahead was just a way to advertise that you are insane.

Of all the possible personality disorders, including ones the DSM is insufficient for, you're going to assume it's something that interferes with an ability to recognise the truth? Why not judge the contention on its own merits instead of making a scattershot attack on the individual making the contention? I've explained why i believe these things in many ways, perfectly coherently, with no contradictions. How is that insufficient? This topic moved on from the OP quite some time ago and i thought it obvious that my response to your response that wasn't about it, isn't about it. You're calling me out for not capitulating to the contentions about the OP, but that's not even the topic of these last few responses.

>[b]Both[/b] of those spreadsheets are just another case in point. They are trivial lists of trite shit. Such observations as "ownership is best understood as 'certainty of access and control'", even where they are true, are unimportant. The one that identifies selflessness as Transcendence and selfishnes as Emergence is just total gash, all the way down.

Both of them are necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy. You never seen to arrive at arguing that point even though it's almost always explicit. The importance of them is that thing you're still ignoring. If people (including photos) already had a reasonable understanding of these things it would be useless, but they don't, so it's the opposite of that.

The extra characters indicate where those divisions lie, and it's between the two sides in the case of emergence, and between Reality (as consensus experience) and Actuality (as inaccessible) in the case of transcendence. The additional characters are to indicate that they're on those lines, not part of the rest of the column they're in. Also, as indicated in the footnote, some of them are directional and some are positional so understanding the idea as a whole may be required to understand how some of the dichotomies fit into that larger picture. I have several popular examples at the top of the one you mentioned to help people understand it on their own but i'd be willing to help if you want to get real about it.

If you don't value the possibility of The Truth being knowable or known or known by me then there's nothing else to say.

>To judge any of your work "by its own standards" would require an observer to bathe themself in your delusions of grandeur. The sheer notion that stuff answers all possible questions is quite insane. Your search for recongition is doomed because your actual capaiblities are easily recognised by everyone except you, and the aspect in which you wish to be discovered is entirely fictional.

It requires a lack of ego to understand, not an ego with delusions of grandeur. I understand why you don't understand now. It would be insane to say it answers all questions directly, which is a claim never made, but to say it answers them by logical extension is a falsifiable hypothesis. It would only take a single exception to prove it wrong, but it's The Truth so that can't happen.

I don't care a whit about recognition. That's called projection. What i want is for the world to stop being stupid and solve it's problems. If that requires personal recognition then i'll take it, and if not, that's fine too.

I trust i've answered in a non-emotional enough manner for you to be able to put aside all the personal character assassination for one response and focus on the topic? I mean the contention that these documents can answer all philosophical questions, not Scotsmen.

[FlashDangerpants]

Both of them are necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy.

You mark your own homework this way a lot. There's no point doing the humility routine when you frequently announce your work is perfect.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=471716 time=1600358757 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471712 time=1600357780 user_id=15238]
Both of them are necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy.
[/quote]
You mark your own homework this way a lot. There's no point doing the humility routine when you frequently announce your work is perfect.
[/quote]

There's no point saying anything about checking homework when all you're doing is refusing to consider it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Both of them are necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy.

You mark your own homework this way a lot. There's no point doing the humility routine when you frequently announce your work is perfect.

There's no point saying anything about checking homework when all you're doing is refusing to consider it.

Dude, there's no point, you failed even to understand the no-true-scotsman thing, which is not difficult to get, and you described your own terrible argument about completely the wrong thing as "full, complete, perfect". Of course I am not going to waste my time on finding out why you think some dreary spreadsheet would be "necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy". You just got into a confused tangle over something that isn't even a question in philosophy, and just can't deal even with that information, you will ignore any argument against any position you take, you can't help yourself.

You are a narcissist, your faith in your own abilities is wildly excessive.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=471727 time=1600362511 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471717 time=1600358886 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=471716 time=1600358757 user_id=11800]

You mark your own homework this way a lot. There's no point doing the humility routine when you frequently announce your work is perfect.
[/quote]

There's no point saying anything about checking homework when all you're doing is refusing to consider it.
[/quote]

Dude, there's no point, you failed even to understand the no-true-scotsman thing, which is not difficult to get, and you described your own terrible argument about completely the wrong thing as [b]"full, complete, perfect"[/b]. Of course I am not going to waste my time on finding out why you think some dreary spreadsheet would be [b]"necessary and sufficient for answering all questions in philosophy"[/b]. You just got into a confused tangle over something that isn't even a question in philosophy, and just can't deal even with that information, you will ignore any argument against any position you take, you can't help yourself.

You are a narcissist, your faith in your own abilities is wildly excessive.
[/quote]

I understand. You are uninterested in further discussion.

[FlashDangerpants]

That poor scotsman, he'll just never be true at this rate.

[Impenitent]

the true Scotsman has a plumb bob hanging perpendicularly from his kilt

-Imp

[Advocate]

[quote=Impenitent post_id=471845 time=1600376011 user_id=3944]
the true Scotsman has a plumb bob hanging perpendicularly from his kilt

-Imp
[/quote]

Are you sure? I don't think i'm a Scotsman but mine hangs tangentially and exponentially.

[FlashDangerpants]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Justy out of interest, how is your battle with the untrue Scotsman going these days?
Did you ever learn what it actually meant?

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673417 time=1697465319 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469683 time=1599488299 user_id=15238]
a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end
[/quote]

Justy out of interest, how is your battle with the untrue Scotsman going these days?
Did you ever learn what it actually meant?
[/quote]

I said the end. You must have missed that part.

[FlashDangerpants]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Justy out of interest, how is your battle with the untrue Scotsman going these days?
Did you ever learn what it actually meant?

I said the end. You must have missed that part.

Did you ever learn what "no true Scotsman" actually means?

[promethean75]

82rmjv.jpg (40.89 KiB) Viewed 1142 times

[Iwannaplato]

Were you expecting to be taken seriously in this thread? You weren't actually attempting to address the Scotsman fallacy with that garbage were you?

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer.

The false scotsman is not a question nor is it a problem. So, what is it you are answering?