Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pmProof is merely a state of definition.
If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amAge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 amEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You proved your stance as strictly subjective.
Obviously, I stated my view as being strictly subjective. I did, after all, use the 'To me' words for that specific reason. After all, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, which by the way is one of many non assumed statements.
Actually you are still assuming it is subjective, the fact I can understand certain degrees of your dialogue lends a necessary objectivity.
But I am NOT assuming it is subjective. I wrote it specifically to show that it was strictly subjective. Even you said, "You proved your stance as strictly subjective", but now, after I agreed with you, you want to change and now say that really it is not strictly subjective but "lends a necessary objectivity".
You appear to behave and act like that one, which is at the moment, called "skepdick" in that when some one starts to agree with what you say you then change and try and argue for the other way.
Because the views and beliefs of both of you are based around some strange concept that some things can not be known you both have to keep changing your stance on things to prove your own beliefs and assumptions are correct.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amAge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 amI specifically wrote 'to me, (the answer is) no' because I knew there are different views. So, I was not saying thee answer is no. I am saying, to me, the answer is no. Surely you understand this?
You are assuming you are not agreeing at all, when in fact your dialogue is purely assumed by a premise of "I".
What are you going on about now? I was certainly NEVER assuming I am not agreeing at all. I KNOW there are different views. Are you not aware of this fact yet? Your assumptions has, once again, let you down badly.
Also, my dialogue was NEVER assumed by a premise of "I". I specifically wrote to 'me', which MEANS the 'i', which obviously is NOT thee 'I'. These are obviously two very different things, which can be obviously observed. So, once again, your assumption is WRONG.
If 'you' mean them to be the same thing and believe that they are the same then, then that is ok. But just remember 'you' are not 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am "I" is both a subjective and objective axiom, considering we all observe it.
How do propose that 'we' observe "I"? You have, after all, just made the assumption that "we all observe It".
Maybe if you start clarifying, by giving your definition for words like 'axiom', 'assumption', 'philosophy', 'I', then what you are trying to propose might become much more clearer. But as your words stand now what you are trying is not very clear at all to me.
The reason I wrote, "To me, no", to your question, "Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy? Yes, no, maybe", is because I obviously am using a completely different definition for the 'philosophy' word than you are. And, this contrary to what you believe is NOT an assumption.
If you really want to move onto subjectivity and objectivity, then we can. But I suggest that you come to forming a clear, concise, and correct version of your "argument" first.
As,
absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, it depends on how things are being observed whether there is a subjective view or an objective view being held.
Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amtrillema rule 2....all axioms exist in a progressive continuum; hence cause variation.
Just because there is a "trillema problem", to you, that does not mean that there is an actual "trilemma problem", in Life, that has not already been resolved, by some.
Just because you call some thing a rule does not necessarily make it so.
Just because you say all axioms exist in a progressive continuum (and all axioms are assumptions) does not necessarily make it so.
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pmAge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pmYou assumed a negative stance.
Just to correct you, I never assumed a negative stance at all. What I did was, I took a negative stance, and for very good reason. But you assume and believe some thing else, so we will never move on from this.
No is an assumption, just as yes is one as well.
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?
I am just trying to work out how you see things.
This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.[/color]
I am well aware that you believe that everything you say is an assumption. You HAVE TO do this because to do otherwise would be contradict your very firm stance.
Sadly though, ALL assumptions could be WRONG or partly wrong. Therefore, every thing you say could be WRONG or partly wrong.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pmAge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 amEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
That there are no assumptions.
As I have already stated, and which is now proven to be true and correct,
you are assuming some thing completely wrong.
False,
Okay what were you assuming here that was not wrong?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am because wrongness is strictly a deficiency in a connection between assumptions...this does not negate the fact there are assumptions.
I have NEVER said that there are no assumptions. I have NEVER even assumed that there are no assumptions. To assume otherwise would be clearly WRONG.
So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amRelative to the context of "all is assumption" under certain contexts, according to you, there are no assumptioms.
Of course there are assumptions. I have NEVER stated that there are no assumptions. In fact I have said that I make assumptions. I do not like to and continually try to take notice of my thoughts so that I do not make assumptions, but unfortunately some times I do make them, and far more regularly than I like to, I might add. Making just one assumption is far to more than I like, in my view.
Also, you CLEARLY make many upon many assumptions so OBVIOUSLY there ARE assumptions. If I did not already know why you make such ridiculous assumptions and believe certain things, then how you could actually arrive at the conclusion that "according to me there are no assumptions" would really baffle me.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amAge wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 amHere is handy hint, if you stop making assumptions, then you will stop being so frequently wrong. But, unfortunately, you are unable to stop making assumptions because that then goes against your very own assumptions and beliefs about how all thinking is assumed. And, you would not, nor could not, go against what you already assume and believe is True.
Until you stop making assumptions and believing things you are unable to move forward.
False,
How do you know this is false?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amrule 2 observes all assumptions as a continuum in themselves. One assumption progresses to another assumption and this is what we call definition.
This is what YOU call definition. I certainly do NOT.
If one assumption progresses to another assumption, and all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, then I would suggest never making another assumption ever again.
I find just looking at and seeing the Truth of things far easier and simpler anyway than trying assume the truth of things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am Definition is of course an assumption and the argument is an expanding or contracting circle.
Your argument is certainly expanding, but not getting anywhere other than deeper into contradiction and absurdity, from my perspective, and you are yet to even provide one definition for the words you are using. If, and when, you do that, then we will see what happens.
By the way circularity in that Answers circle back onto themselves, to verify and reaffirm themselves, in regards to Truth and Life, Itself, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, thee Truth does loop back onto Its own Self, providing more proof of HOW thee Truth is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.
Seeing and following thee circle of Life brings you, naturally, back on to the right track.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 amThus we always have constant truth, but relativity is an angle of awareness...or rather just the relation of points, which is what an angle is primarily.
If this is what you believe, then so be it.
You can continue believing and assuming all you want. But what is it exactly that you are trying to express here in this thread?
What is the point of you trying to formulate an argument here?
I think you will find 'we', human beings' do not really always have constant truth. But I agree that thee Truth is constantly HERE/NOW for all to see, and understand.