Philosophy Now Forum

Because you have NOT said that you KNOW how to solve ALL problems. So, at the moment, I really do NOT care what you are saying. Nobody asked you to solve all problems. I am only asking you to solve hunger and poverty. Now that you have said it, then now I can once again make it clear; That when you...

Also, it is NOT about stopping any one else from doing any thing. It is about 'you' wanting to STOP being the cause of hunger and poverty. Why would you allude that I don't want to stop hunger and poverty, when I told you that I do? Why do you believe I am the cause of cause of hunger and poverty, ...

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:11 am You MUST BE an idiot.

Why do you believe that?

Are you an idiot? Have you ever read where I have said: I do NOT believe any thing? If no, then now you have. If yes, then WHY would you make such a STUPID comment as, "You believe this"? No. I am not. You should be more charitable with your words. Why don't you try and ask some clarifying question...

STOP being greedy, share with and feed each other. See absolutely SIMPLE and EASY. Why do you believe that stopping 8 billion people on Earth from being greedy is "simple" and "easy" ? After all, this is not a new idea. People have been saying "stop being greedy and share with each other" for thous...

To me, it appears that you start a thread by stating how some things can be done, but you completely disregard and ignore those things yourself, and just back to your usual and the old slow, complicated, and hard ways of doing things. Well, tell us then. What's the easy way to solve hunger and pove...

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:46 am To me, ignoring what 'you' see as a 'problem' is NOT a very good strategy at all. In fact, it can even make the so called 'problem' even far more worse.

We know this too. You are the one saying that problems can be solved 'trivially' and 'easily'.

You believe this. Most of us don't.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:42 am When did I ever say I want to teach 'you', human beings, any thing?

Where did you get the ASSUMPTION that I wanted to 'teach you human beings' this from?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:27 am I am teaching, through explanation, how the Mind and the brain work.

See how also asking clarifying questions is also a much better (quicker, simpler, and easier) way to comprehend and thus understand what "another" is actually saying and meaning. Again. We know this. It is you who believes that we don't. War is only a problem if you want it to be. Poverty is only a...

I like to write in True 'paradoxical' ways, to expose; that if 'you', human beings, did NOT interpret what I write, in ANY way, but just asked me clarifying questions instead, then the actual and real Truth of things can be and WILL be revealed. For example; ALL current commonly known "paradoxes" a...

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:23 am Conclusion - Human beings do not need money to live.

Obviously. Humans lived long before money was invented. Money is just a token of value.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:23 am Conclusion - The Universe is infinite and eternal.

What do you mean by "the universe"?

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. Philosophy uses the law of non-contradiction (P ...

But I can think whatever I please, provided only that I do not Contradict myself, that is, provided my Concept is a Possible Thought. How and why have you chosen the religion of non-contradiction? Quantum logic allows for dialethisms . Here's a paper: The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositi...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:28 am Don't blame others when you are the one who is so ignorant of Kant's thing-in-itself.

Lol. What. Are you claiming that you are NOT ignorant of a thing-in-itself?

In context of the token/type distinction.

Could you tell me what a token electron is, in itself?

You got it wrong. Science made point 2 as merely an assumption not claimed it as a ground nor truth. This is why Popper claimed scientific theories are at best polished conjectures grounded on various assumptions. It's not an assumption. it's a metaphysical limit. Science is the best metaphysic we ...