There you go again.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:01 pmNah, there's simply no point in trying to present extensive arguments that you will avoid dealing with, while resorting to your usual dogmatic mantras. It is not that I'm out of arguments, they are there, still unanswered and not dealt with properly, and apparently too much for what your idealist cult can handle.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am You are merely babbling and making noises without reference to the details of the arguments. You are running out of argument to counter my views and address the challenge of the OP.
Something is very wrong with you, i.e. keep mumbling about an 'idealist cult' and include me therein, when you run out of arguments.
You are like those immature ones who keep calling and simply branding people they cannot agree with as Nazis, racists, white supremacists, misogynists, fascists, communists, etc., when they don't have the capacity to counter argue.
Nope!
For those arguments you think I have not addressed, I have raised specific threads to deal with them, but you have not posted therein to deal with them specifically.
If there is still anything you think is not answered, that is due to your dogmatic blindness an bad communication of what you are expecting.
Btw, you still have not "proven" [not mathematical sense] the challenge in the OP conclusively.
The best counter you and other opponents can bring is 'things predated humans' so things had existed by-themselves or in-themselves. This argument is full of holes from the rigorous perspective.
You are really ignorant.This is a perfect example of what I've been saying. Your childish, silly naivety to produce such laughable arguments is baffling. I mean, you really expect me and everyone else to buy into the notion that "research" means googling and reading books from a couch in your home. One has to be really stupid to entertain such a vulgar, pedestrian notion, in a debate forum dedicated to a complex issue from a particular discipline. No different than anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers and alternative medicine and nutrition gurus feeling entitled to lecture the rest of the world based on their "own research" expertise.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am This is nonsensical from you.
For example, where else can one begin to research on 'what is philosophy' if not from books and at present from an extensive search from 'google'?
I had made the attempt to exhaust all the books accessible by me [re Western, Eastern, and everywhere] and from google.
As stated I made an attempt to extract the essence of 'what is philosophy' from all the definitions of 'what is philosophy' I have collected.
If you have enough books you will note many authors take a "Sabbath" from their regular work and spent months alone researching their thesis, reading books, articles, and in this modern time, using google and the internet to access various libraries.
Thereafter they present their drafts for discussions and peer review.
I have done the above, i.e. read and review at least 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' and presented my definition of 'what is philosophy' as in
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28792
Since I have presented my findings and proposals [the above link and elsewhere], re "What is Philosophy", I have not received any significant counters to it.
In contrast to your very 'researched' definition, i.e.
"Philosophy is Speculation"
to represent Philosophy in essence and totality is laughable.
You think too highly of yourself when you are a merely a gnat within philosophy.
Note, no one is forcing you to accept any notion [proper, vulgar, pedestrian, etc.] here.
Since you are participating in this forum, the expectation is on you to discuss or counter whatever is presented. If you don't want to, just shut up.