Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:26 am

Or claimed all numbers are lines.

That is a truism. We think on continuums.

Even the notion of good and bad is not an real dualism if you insist on fidelity.

For there is always one thing that is better than another, while neither of them are bad.

Here is an explanation: ⊙

ROFL!!!!!!!!! What a crock of religious fundamentalist bullshit. People have been trying to control everything since before recorded time...it is the worlds oldest religion. And look what changed...they are all dead and most are forgotten. They are dead and mostly forgotten. But their knowledge ben...

Logik wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:22 am

That which "x"'s nothing "x"'s everything.

Because you have just defined another number line

Or claimed all numbers are lines.

Actually it applies to subjective self reflection and global politics as well (the alternation of communist and capitalist values, etc.). The dialectic at any point in time seems extremely antithetical. Focus on the point of convergence. Who said a dialetic is necessary, people do what they want an...

Relative truths are not approximations of any Absolute Truth. Where is your proofs if you do not agree to the above? You are merely jumping to conclusion there is an Absolute Truth. Relative truths are truths that are conditioned to their specific Framework and System. For example, scientific truth...

Logik wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:19 am

Actually infinitism observes 1 meaning, infinity.

That which means everything means nothing.

That which explains everything explains nothing.
That which predicts everything predicts nothing.

That which "x"'s nothing "x"'s everything.

Actually the reciprocal nature of the golden rule as being derived from a circularity mirroring both abstract geometry and natural cycles observes an objective morality. That is at the inter-personal scale. I am talking about morality at the humanity-scale. Actually it applies to subjective self re...

Actually I showed you the results, quite more than a dualism. OK. Let me unpack. Yes. You showed pluralism not dualism. But that converges towards infinitism. Dualism is bad because it's ambiguous. Infinitism is worse because it's infinite meaning. Actually infinitism observes 1 meaning, infinity.

Actually a macro state is another micro state. I would agree with you, but to say this you have adopted a perspective of maximum precision. And if I were to insist on fidelity (complete description of this micro state) your head will explode. You don't have enough RAM to retain a microstate at high...

Is that any different from a regular swimmer doing repetitive strokes, proper breathing and laps in the pool? The whirling dervishes of Sufism are regarded as deviant-Islam by the mainstream Muslims. The above show you lack knowledge of the requirements of higher levels of spirituality. Do some res...

The symbol grounding problem is solved when we find the core axioms of all symbols This is what physics is trying to do. Discover irreducible truth. And no, transhumanism is a degradation of the human condition...it is dangerous and pure evil. I don't think so. The human condition is what it is. Yo...

Logik wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:10 am

Actually the answer does not result in a dualism.

So it results in ' I don't know'?

Actually I showed you the results, quite more than a dualism.

Actually the last is never fully observed, hence the future is never really controlable. You only need to control micro-states, not macro-states. This is the concept of power. The more you can control - the more powerful you are. Actually what consistency do you propose? I seen your arguments, they...

"⊙" Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute. Because I can turn it into dualism with one question. is it true? Actually the answer does not result in a dualism. Yes. Yes because of x. Yes because of x and y. .... No. No because of/therefore x. No because of/therefore x and y. .......

What is a philosopher to do when he realizes that explaining everything, doesn't really explain anything? He becomes a scientist. You no longer seeks to explain. You seek to predict/control future events by understanding past events. Now this term "philosopher" really is strictly nothing in itself ...