Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:57 am
Where?
Show me the post[s]?
Are you fucking serious?

Have you not been using the phrase "the universe" throughout this forum?
Have you not been using the phrase "reality" throughout this forum?
Have you not been using the phrase "cosmos" throughout this forum?

Use the search function to remind yourself where you keep using them.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:55 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:08 am


The clue to the pseudo-rational syllogism is stated in the above quote;
  • There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
It is like, the idea of God do not have any empirical elements, but yet it is ascribed Objective Reality as real.
If you read the thread, Kant: God is a Transcendental Illusion, you will get an idea.
"Clue"? So it is all a mystery and you are a mystic now? Is that your premise...a clue? That is not very rational, and you are subject to analytical looping.
It is only because of your ignorance that I have to give a clue.

Note a 'clue' is often given in TV Reality Shows that involved Test of Knowledge, when the participant hesitate. What is so mystical about that?
Then you are alluding to it all being a test...and then absolutizing test.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:25 am


"Clue"? So it is all a mystery and you are a mystic now? Is that your premise...a clue? That is not very rational, and you are subject to analytical looping.
It is only because of your ignorance that I have to give a clue.

Note a 'clue' is often given in TV Reality Shows that involved Test of Knowledge, when the participant hesitate. What is so mystical about that?
Then you are alluding to it all being a test...and then absolutizing test.
In a way it is a test of your ignorance.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:48 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:57 am
Where?
Show me the post[s]?
Are you fucking serious?

Have you not been using the phrase "the universe" throughout this forum?
Have you not been using the phrase "reality" throughout this forum?
Have you not been using the phrase "cosmos" throughout this forum?

Use the search function to remind yourself where you keep using them.
HEY!!

Yes, I am serious because it is your misunderstanding.
You are the one who saw the ghost not me, so go back and check.
It is more like you are chasing your own tail.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:48 am
HEY!!

Yes, I am serious because it is your misunderstanding.
You are the one who saw the ghost not me, so go back and check.
It is more like you are chasing your own tail.
I am mis-understanding the fact that you are using words that you are using?

Fuck off :)

You excused yourself from defining God because you don't believe in God.
So I am asking you whether you believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos

If you believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos - define it.
If you don't believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos - why are you using the words?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:48 am
HEY!!

Yes, I am serious because it is your misunderstanding.
You are the one who saw the ghost not me, so go back and check.
It is more like you are chasing your own tail.
I am mis-understanding the fact that you are using words that you are using?

Fuck off :)

You excused yourself from defining God because you don't believe in God.
So I am asking you whether you believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos

If you believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos - define it.
If you don't believe in the Universe/Reality/Cosmos - why are you using the words?
You are really ignorant and stupid.

I have told you there are many definitions of 'the universe' and I'd used the term as qualified to a context.
  • Many cultures have stories describing the origin of the world and universe. Cultures generally regard these stories as having some truth.
    There are however many differing beliefs in how these stories apply amongst those believing in a supernatural origin, ranging from a god directly creating the Universe as it is now to a god just setting the "wheels in motion" (for example via mechanisms such as the big bang and evolution).[143]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe# ... onceptions
I have already stated many times.

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
I do not agree with the definition by theists, i.e. the universe as created by a God.

When I used the term 'the universe' it is either in one of the above context or the other.

Btw, I have ignored all your previous posts for a long time but decide otherwise to one earlier post because I thought there was some rationality to it. But unfortunately the same old mess returned. I am opting out again.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
You are really ignorant and stupid.
Why should I care about your opinion of me? You are just a philosopher.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
I have already stated many times.

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

When I used the term 'the universe' it is either in one of the above context or the other.
That's why you are an idiot. Science is not an entity with agency - it has no definitions.
The responsibility for using words (and the meaning you assign to those words) is yours and your alone.

You are committing a bandwagon fallacy. Exactly like a theist would.

You are bowing at the altar of Science while scolding theists. But you aren't a scientist, you only worship science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am
Btw, I have ignored all your previous posts for a long time but decide otherwise to one earlier post because I thought there was some rationality to it. But unfortunately the same old mess returned. I am opting out again.
That's what every sophist does when you point out their religion. Your religion is Science.

All that science could ever do is to produce a description of the table in a man-made language and scientists often have to invent new language to describe new things. Those descriptions are called models. Given two models (descriptions) of the same table there is no way to determine which one is the "more real" model. All models can ever be is "equally useful for a particular purpose". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

You happen to be using language to make arguments, but arguments suffer from exactly the same problem as models. In the absence of Sophist Olympics, how do you determine which argument is better?

Age
Posts: 3581
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Age » Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:34 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:05 am

It is only because of your ignorance that I have to give a clue.

Note a 'clue' is often given in TV Reality Shows that involved Test of Knowledge, when the participant hesitate. What is so mystical about that?
Then you are alluding to it all being a test...and then absolutizing test.
In a way it is a test of your ignorance.
One you failed, because the questions are faulty. If it is all a test, with no agreement or clarity as to the criterion, then by default the test is an transcendental illusion in one respect...in another respect all the answers are correct as the test is void.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am

Age wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?
Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].

Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:47 am

I don't have a personal definition for 'the universe'. I agree with the one defined and accepted by Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?
Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].

Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
But througj definitions just loop through definitions into an empty knot....your faith is blind.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:10 pm


So, are you saying that whatever "science" defines and accepts the Universe to be, then you would just agree with it?
Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].

Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
But througj definitions just loop through definitions into an empty knot....your faith is blind.
Why are you so obsessed with definitions in a loop rather than on reality?

I understand definitions can be looped, i.e.
  • What is true,
    truth is fact,
    fact is real,
    real is true.
But you have to deal with reality by bringing the relevant context and perspective.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:16 am

Yes, but not 'just agree with it' blindly.
I believe in scientific theories with the relevant confidence level and subject to the qualified assumptions, limitations and circumstances.
In addition whatever scientific theories I accept, I will filter them through the philosophical lens [logical, critical thinking, rationality, wisdom, etc.].

Note the difference is, my belief is different from yours [?] which is accepted based on blind faith.
But througj definitions just loop through definitions into an empty knot....your faith is blind.
Why are you so obsessed with definitions in a loop rather than on reality?

Because the circularity of definitions is reality...don't believe me? Look at definitions in a dictionary, or the rotary movements in sports, or the movements of atoms, or the movements of stars, or cycles in the body, or the cycles in mechanics, or the cycles of genetic material in reproduction, or the cycles of money in economics, or input/output cycles in computing, or the cycles of the seasons, or the earth, or the cycles of....you get the point?

Probably not...you will just cycle Kant again or some proof against God....even that is a cycle..../color]

I understand definitions can be looped, i.e.

No you don't, you tell yourself you understand, but you know nothing.

  • What is true,
    truth is fact,
    fact is real,
    real is true.


But you have to deal with reality by bringing the relevant context and perspective.

Context is the repitition of factors...it is a loop. Perspective is the reptition of memories or experiences...it is a loop.

I am not bring context...I am stating nothing but context as absolute....and everyone here is running loops around you while you do it.


You have no argument....at all, its not even not an argument....its not even wrong....


And for the record, the Muslims view their God as formless.


Wannabe intellectual.....


Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:40 am


But througj definitions just loop through definitions into an empty knot....your faith is blind.
Why are you so obsessed with definitions in a loop rather than on reality?

Because the circularity of definitions is reality...don't believe me? Look at definitions in a dictionary, or the rotary movements in sports, or the movements of atoms, or the movements of stars, or cycles in the body, or the cycles in mechanics, or the cycles of genetic material in reproduction, or the cycles of money in economics, or input/output cycles in computing, or the cycles of the seasons, or the earth, or the cycles of....you get the point?

Probably not...you will just cycle Kant again or some proof against God....even that is a cycle....


I understand definitions can be looped, i.e.

No you don't, you tell yourself you understand, but you know nothing.
  • What is true,
    truth is fact,
    fact is real,
    real is true.
But you have to deal with reality by bringing the relevant context and perspective.

Context is the repitition of factors...it is a loop. Perspective is the reptition of memories or experiences...it is a loop.

I am not bring context...I am stating nothing but context as absolute....and everyone here is running loops around you while you do it.


You have no argument....at all, its not even not an argument....its not even wrong....


And for the record, the Muslims view their God as formless.


Wannabe intellectual.....
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.

I have responded in the other thread, the Abrahamic God is a God that is supposedly formless in general.
Btw the Christian and Islamic God can manifest in various forms, e.g. Jesus or Isa, and including angels in Islam.
I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam, so don't try to pull a fast one on me with regard to Islam.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:18 am
Your above are toothless without proper arguments.
That's a double standard on your part. For all the bullshit you've been spewing on this forum, I am yet to see a proper argument coming from you.

In the real world toilet paper is a far more valuable currency than arguments.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests