Search found 6876 matches

by Eodnhoj7
Tue May 11, 2021 1:34 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Replies: 55
Views: 464

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Objects independent of observation can be proven through the change in observation. As observation occurs it changes. A new phenomenon is introduced which is seen. The object as unseen is the potential change in observation thus the thing in itself exists as the point of change within an observation.
by Eodnhoj7
Tue May 11, 2021 1:26 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
Replies: 342
Views: 4993

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Since I have done extensive research on Kant's works, I am well aware there are loads of non-consensus on the interpretations of Kant's CPR. There are two main camps, i.e. those I agree with and those I do not agree with. Obviously I believe I have interpreted Kant's main theme in the CPR correctly...
by Eodnhoj7
Tue May 11, 2021 1:22 am
Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
Topic: P = -P
Replies: 60
Views: 1979

Re: P = -P

lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something. So identity is subject to interpretation then? I see you lost the ability to follow the conversation again. False you said: "lol--this solely hinges on what people have in mind when they say something." So I asked you: "So...
by Eodnhoj7
Mon May 10, 2021 6:34 pm
Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
Topic: P = -P
Replies: 60
Views: 1979

Re: P = -P

When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage. False, you are failing to look deeper into the language. Something "and" something is addition. lol--this solely hinges on what people ...
by Eodnhoj7
Mon May 10, 2021 6:31 pm
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion
Replies: 40
Views: 688

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know. Yes you can - you can know you merely think and/or believe something(s) while consciously knowing you truly know not . Knowing one knows not is a valid knowledge. In fact, it is the most...
by Eodnhoj7
Mon May 10, 2021 6:23 pm
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Proof of Nothing
Replies: 22
Views: 427

Re: Proof of Nothing

Nobody (else besides yourself) is equating something "to" nothing, rather "with" nothing because they are naturally an inseparable binary. Neither one can/does exist in isolation from the other - like yang and yin. You can't have one without the other. You can't talk about "nothing" unless (as) an ...
by Eodnhoj7
Mon May 10, 2021 6:22 pm
Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
Topic: 2=1!
Replies: 14
Views: 633

Re: 2=1!

1 line divided by a zero dimensional point results in two lines. 0 is a process of halving thus an manifestation of multiplicity of parts. In reality, there is no such thing as a "point", let alone a "zero dimensional point". Mathematicians use "points" as devices because they are useful for solvin...
by Eodnhoj7
Mon May 10, 2021 6:18 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: Psycopathy of Muhammad(anism) and Nazism
Replies: 28
Views: 574

Re: Psycopathy of Muhammad(anism) and Nazism

It is almost always the case that when an argument emplys the absolute "everything", it is undersminung anything useful that it might have to offer. Your opening statement is stupid, and plain wrong. "everything" is a big word. Hyperbole makes you look like a whinging child. I don't understand you ...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 1:56 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion
Replies: 40
Views: 688

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know. False, belief based ignorance is based upon beleif based justifications. Yes, but what you say about ignorance says nothing to address the belief that something is actually known. Knowle...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 1:32 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion
Replies: 40
Views: 688

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Yes, all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorances by replacing them with belief-based truisms. You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it. That’s correct. And since you cannot know what you think you know, you can only believe what you think you know. False, belief based...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 1:31 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion
Replies: 40
Views: 688

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum . Yes, all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorances by replacing them with belief-based truisms. You can only "believe" in something if you don't actually know it. Confusing belief for knowledge is like confusing darkness with li...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 1:24 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Unity and Multiplicity not Being and Nothing
Replies: 0
Views: 52

Unity and Multiplicity not Being and Nothing

Nothingness cannot be observe except through the multiplicity of phenomenon. Under the experiment of observing complete void only the self is observed thus necessitating the subjective state of the "I" observing the subjective state of the "I" therefore two or more "I's" being observed: the "I" obse...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 1:01 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Proof of Nothing
Replies: 22
Views: 427

Re: Proof of Nothing

To place nothing as part of a two sided coin, ie one side, is to equate nothing to something thus it is no longer nothing. Dually I stated nothing can neither be proven or disproven. To prove nothing is to prove nothing thus an absence of proof exists as nothing cannot be proven. To disprove nothin...
by Eodnhoj7
Wed May 05, 2021 12:40 am
Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
Topic: P = -P
Replies: 60
Views: 1979

Re: P = -P

This is simply you not understanding normal language usage. "And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand. When we talk about "a thing 'and itself'" we're not talking about addition. So if that's the way you're reading it, you're not understanding normal language usage. False, you are fai...
by Eodnhoj7
Tue May 04, 2021 6:38 pm
Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
Topic: P = -P
Replies: 60
Views: 1979

Re: P = -P

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:40 pm

So when you're doing addition, you're not "adding a phenomenon to itself."
Yet a thing and itself is the same as addition.
This is simply you not understanding normal language usage.
"And" is addition...there is nothing else to understand.