Philosophy Now Forum

why do you like TV filled with assholes as main characters? It's a refreshing change from the ceaseless pressure to get you to identify with characters with PC personality disorder. I reject your "false choice" per characters. I stated prior i hate any TV show post 2000............so only...

pearls before swine i guess ;-(. Every episode was basically the same. Mulder open minded gullible; skully scientific skeptic; argue over a stupid predictable scenario. Will they ever shag? Did I give a fuck? ya, per that show. and Nowhere Man, Space above and Beyond? (they were better shows - esp ...

But seriously - even the most abstract ideas and systems of thought have empirical correlates.
Without relating to some THING, ideas do not survive without hard relevance.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:42 pm But wait—rationalistic proof requires no observation,
No?

Have you an example that does not rely at some point about your existence in the real world or are you content to live inside your own head?

But wait—rationalistic proof requires no observation, save only the recognition that the connection between given thoughts is non-contradictory. Rationalism is not observable unless thought is observable. And rationalism has no requirement to be derived from nor applicable to the material. Rational...

You think therefore you are?? I think what your mate said was: I think therefore I am. Changed it to. I think, I am. Then decided to say I think I am. And promptly died in the fireplace. So much for Rene. LOL. You didn't kept the pretence very long, did you? Nothing intelligent to say, therefore......

Without observation of empirical reality, reason almost immediately leads to falsehoods and idols of the mind. Sure, since your own mind is an empirical fact. And without rationality, empiricism definitely leads to "falsehoods and idols". Once you get that we are all ultimately empiricist...

The difference between rationalism and empiricism is in the method of proof. Empiricism requires, by the conventional definition and usual understanding of the term, that the proof of your claim be an observation of the material world. Rationalism requires instead that the proof of your claim be an...

Yes, you seem to be talking to one hopelessly ignorant person. One that has gathered up his wits into a paper bag and flushed it down the toilet whilst adhering to a fantasy world of his own construction; a world with no reference to reality, what is evident, or what succumbs to reason or logic. He...

July 23, 2019 Of course this is a "waste of time", as most of what we do no doubt is. It's a part-message for perhaps one in a billion people which they could figure out for themselves, but I did need a few clues to get where I am. It's one half of a puzzle with which that possible one in...

The Woodster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:19 amx

This is much smarter than your other posts.

"I think his is unstable under load, the simplicity of the principles fails to assist with any complex choice, and the whole thing is like entering a maze and saying you can find your way out by taking every right turn. There is every possibility that we are both right." The principle (th...

I read Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy and the book was funnier and much deeper than the movie. Originally it was a Radio drama. Then a short TV series The film was a complete fuc ing tradegy and waste of time. I like Martin Freeman but not as Arthur Dent, who was much better represented by Simon ...

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:55 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:30 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:10 am TV was best in the early 90's with X-files,

boring predictable, formulaic

pearls before swine i guess ;-(.

Every episode was basically the same.
Mulder open minded gullible; skully scientific skeptic; argue over a stupid predictable scenario.
Will they ever shag?
Did I give a fuck?

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:10 am TV was best in the early 90's with X-files,

boring predictable, formulaic