They both do - it's called the futility award.
What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Can you know his thoughts without him actually telling you what they are ?Age wrote:So what is his mind and how do you KNOW that I cannot read it ?surreptitious57 wrote:But you have no way of knowing if he is being open and honest in communication - not unless you can read his mindAge wrote:
Your belief and / or your change in belief can be tested and verified and so is falsifiable by and through OPEN and Honest communication
Is there any possibility at all that you could be partly or completely WRONG here ?
Oh and by the way when a person says something at first then there may be no way of knowing if that person is being open and honest in
their communication but with the right kind of series of clarifying questioning then what thee actual Truth IS can be exposed and / or revealed
Is there any possibility that I could be partly or completely wrong about you not knowing someones thoughts without them telling you ?
Can truth always be revealed from clarifying questions ? Can you think of any examples when this would not be possible ?
I can think of at least two examples when it would not be possible so are absolutely certain your view is the correct one ?
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Your "this error is not worth correcting" was in relation to another error, which I had ALREADY corrected.
Also, seems rather very weak and extremely unreasonable of you to make a claim and accuse me of not speaking the Truth here, but when you are challenged to put forward some evidence or proof of this, you then say, "This error is not worth correcting".
Is it because the actual error made was on your part here?
If I have EVER not been speaking the Truth here, then I want to be SHOWN this. If I have not been speaking the Truth here, then I am NOT afraid of this. In fact I want it brought to light and revealed to EVERY one here.
So, if you want to continue with the accusations and claims, then reveal what thee actual Truth IS.
If you mean me highlighting and showing how you make claims and accusations of and about "others", but you will not back up and substantiate those accusations and claims is just excessive concern with minor details, then that would explain about the way you expose yourself here.
A philosophy forum is, to me anyway, the actual place where it would be best one is able to back up and support their views and actually does this. Otherwise people like yourself could just make absolutely any accusation and/or claim at all about absolutely anything, and never have to support them at all. Obviously this is NOT a minor detail in a philosophy forum.
You suggesting that not substantiating your claims is not as unreasonable as pedantry, especially in a philosophy forum, is absurdity in the highest degree.
To object to you refusing to substantiate your claims is not mere pedantry.
Just look at how much time, energy, and effort you have and you still are putting into 'trying' not to reveal that you actually have absolutely nothing at all to back up, support, and substantiate your claims and accusations here.
Obviously, if you did have any thing you would have put them forward, and just as obvious is that by doing that you would have spent far less time and energy than you still are now.
Any one can claim any thing. But, if they have absolutely nothing to prove their claim, then obviously they are the ones who look the fool.
LOL The amount of time and energy you are unnecessarily using to 'try' and deflect away from the actual Truth, which is; You have absolutely NOTHING to show, completely outweighs and outstrips the time and energy you could have used by just writing where I have supposedly not been speaking the Truth.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amOr...the evidence is recorded in this very thread and in this very forum for everybody else to see, so I don't have to collate it.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:28 am Now, you want to accuse me of not speaking the Truth here. So, either you have some evidence of this, which if you did, then you would put forward very quickly. Or, you have no evidence at all. And, considering you do not consider providing any thing at all, then most people will decide what your accusation really IS.
I have no intention to produce any evidence. But you are welcome to go looking for it - it's there.[/quote]
LOL You have no intention to produce any evidence BECAUSE you have NONE.
And, suggesting I go looking for YOUR evidence, of some imagined thing existing, is about one of the most absurd and STUPID things I have heard in this forum.
I am OPEN to any one to go looking for where I have, allegedly to "skepdick", 'not been speaking the Truth', and if they find any to bring it forward. Obviously, "skepdick" is completely and utterly incapable of doing this. Either this is because "skepdick" is lazy, there is no evidence of this at all and therefore "skepdick's" accusations and claims are just false and lies, or for some other reason.
I did not answer it. I informed that to me it was nonsensical.
If that is what you learned and took from this encounter, then this is perfectly fine with me.
WHEN did you supposedly tell me this?
You have a tendency to say this sort of thing, but when reading back there is no actual evidence of you "telling me why".
So, why do you purposely say and ask nonsensical things to me just to find out whether they are nonsensical to me?
Do you have a habit of saying and asking nonsensical things?
So, to you the so called "great overlap" between what could after all be two extremely different concepts is just the one word that two completely extremely different words are next to.
I think you are missing the point of what the two words actually mean is what affects the actual concepts of the terms being used.
The two different concepts both exemplify the general notion of swimming, so your distinction is only between the general and the particular - it's not even relevant.[/quote]
Did you forget that it was supposedly you previously who did not know what things mean, but here you are all of sudden 'trying' to tell me what things mean.
'To swim' is in relation to the action of swimming. 'Swim in' is in relation to where this swimming takes place. These are obvious two extremely very different concepts.
'To believe' and 'believe in' can also be two extremely very different concepts. But, on your own admission, you have absolutely NO idea at all about this fact.
This allegation is OBVIOUS.
You allege or portray you are not capable of forming concepts in relation to these words and phrases by yourself.
You actually acknowledge you need "others" to teach, lead and/or show you the way of how to conceptualize things here.
And I have told you numerous times how to find that out.
But because you are blinded by your own beliefs and assumptions here you are not able to see nor understand this.
You still did not see, and so will still not understand this.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amI don't know if it will work or it won't work. But it probably will work.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:28 am Also, if you just want to know what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me, just ask me. Asking me whether I believe in elephants, will NEVER provide you with the answer to what 'believing' and 'not believing' means to me. So, that so called "tactic" will not work.
I even capitalize and you still can not SEE.
And, as I have said and pointed out to you, I will let you know when you tell me what the word 'believe' means to you.
Well then I suggest that they would be the best people to inform you of what 'to believe in something' means.
Obviously if I do not believe in any thing, then I would not be the best one to ask what does it mean to believe in some thing.
Did you ask your "other friends" what does it mean to believe in something?
If no, then why not?
Because I look at and listen to the actual facts and actual Truth of things. Thee actual Truth and the fact is that I do not believe any thing at all. Therefore, that is how I KNOW I do not believe in elephants.
Are you at all aware that what you are 'trying' to achieve here in regards to your beliefs about 'logic' are not going to work?
Your confirmation biases will not let you SEE and UNDERSTAND the plain CLEAR Truth and FACT here. That is; you are just fooling and deceiving your own self by saying that you do not know if you believe in things or not. You CAN easily KNOW this. But you can NOT admit to this FACT because that would then dismantle and rip to shreds all of your beliefs in regards to 'logic'.
And what was the supposed "answer", which you are now claiming I made?
Or, is this going to be one of these "I do not want to spend time and energy on" excuses for not bringing anything forward?
You just made the unsubstantiated claim that, "The purpose of ALL of this was for you to figure out what "believing" and "belief" means to me".
I was just correcting what you wrote. That is 'so what'. Because I like to speak the Truth, I also like to correct when the Truth is not being spoken by "others".
Well the purpose of ALL that you are saying here is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same as the purpose of ALL "of this".
If you want your words accepted for being the Truth, then you really do need to speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but thee Truth.
LOL Nice 'try'. You once again twisted things around, as though that was what we were talking about. Obviously it was NOT. So, there is nothing more that needs to be said here.
Provide evidence and examples that I have actually determined an answer to your nonsensical questions.
You misunderstood what I said, and meant, once again.
You are also only fooling yourself here. I KNOW how to determine whether I do or do not believe in a thing. This can be determined very easily and very simply, to and by me.
But if you want to insist with your belief that you "can not possibly determine whether you do or do not believe in a thing", then go right ahead and keep believing that. I really do not care, now.
Once again, nonsensical, to me.
How are you defining 'woggyboogy in wafflespocks' here?
But depending on what actual word you are referring to here now, there may be no different contexts at all. So, once again, you will have to explain yourself much better.
Also, I was not worrying about any different contexts?
But you keep referring to elephants now, when obviously this started out not about elephants at all. And, you changing from what this started out to be about to now being about elephants has completely changed the context of what the words meant before.
Also, why would you even say that you are focusing on my belief (or lack thereof), especially considering what I have continually stated in relation to beliefs, from my perspective?
You have seriously NOT learned nothing from me about what I have actually been pointing out. One of those things that I have been pointing out is if you really want to know some specific thing, from me, then just ask a specific clarifying question, to me.
This is NOT, and I will repeat NOT a specific clarifying question; "Communicate 'it' to me". I have absolutely NO idea at all what 'it' is here.
Look! I don't even have a meaning for this word - so as far as I am concerned, something is better than nothing.
I'll gladly learn our meaning if you will teach it. [/quote]
But you have NOT gladly learned what I have "taught" so far.
But this is another of your nonsensical statements. Did you not understand what my question to you was asking, and meaning?
How could you possibly know whatever context I determined that I do not believe in elephants?
Do you know what context I determined that I do not believe in elephants?
If no, then your answer is completely and utterly nonsensical.
But if yes, then you now know how to determine if you believe in elephants or not.
Ah okay. And do you know what that is?
How could 'YOU' possibly be having any issue at all with my meaning of 'belief'?
Where do you get those meanings from exactly?
And, why can you not get the meaning of 'believe in', 'to believe', and/or 'believe' from that same source?
If you just did that, then, according to your so called "logic", you would then be able to determine and thus know if you believe in things or not.
Then all of this would be settled, to me.
Okay, to you, I must be paranoid then.
Is it not at all possible that you are not even consciously aware that you are doing this?
Could you be doing this completely unintentionally and have not even noticed or recognized that you are doing it?
Or, could it be the case that your confirmation biases are so strong that you are not even aware that you are 'trying' so hard to twist and distort what I say, and mean, around?
Seriously, are you still not yet AWARE that if you want to know some specific thing, then you have to ask a specific clarifying question?
You can ask me a trillion times what the word 'belief' means, but I could NEVER give you the correct and accurate answer until I find out what it is myself.
Why would you defer the answer to the question to a dictionary?[/quote]
You STILL have not yet worked out what is going on here.
Let me help you out, AGAIN. If you want to know what a word means to me, then you will have to ask me what does a word mean, to you.
Let me see if I can explain it to even more thoroughly. If you want to know what a word means, then I can not give it to you. But, if you want to know what a word means, to me, then you have to just ask for that.
Do you yet see and understand the difference?
You are continually twisting and distorting my words around.
The reason this happens is completely understandable. So, WHY you continually do this makes perfect sense.
I suggest if you do not yet know what a word means, then you stop using that word until you do.
Also, how one uses words is just by putting one after the other. But if you did not know what words mean, as you allege you do, then you would not be able to put words one after the other in an order that would make sense to "others".
But how do you expect me to understand the words you use when you yourself admit that you do not even know what some of them mean. If you do not know what the words mean that you use, then why would I?
I understood this from about the second or third post.
But I do know what the word 'belief' means, to me.
Why would you assume that I would not?
Why do you assume that I do not know what 'belief' is?
If that is "obvious", as you allege it is, then where and when were you asking me how I know 'that'?
But the notion of 'belief' has never been nonsensical to me?
Why would you assume such a thing?
Okay.
But the notion of 'belief is NOT nonsensical to me.
What is this is relation to exactly?
But I already know what 'belief' means, to me.
First you will have to rid yourself of the WRONG assumption that the notion of 'belief' is nonsensical to me.
Let me know when you have rid yourself of this completely and utterly WRONG assumption of yours, then we can proceed.
What is it exactly that you allege that I am more confused about than you.
Also, before you said you were not confused, so how could I be more confused than you now?
Are you now admitting that you are somewhat confused? Obviously for me to be more confused than you are, then that means you are somewhat confused.
Where is this 'assumption' coming from exactly that the notion of 'belief' is nonsensical to me?
Have you completely forgotten that it is you that the notion of 'belief' is nonsensical to?
You really do need to get rid of this assumption about the notion of 'belief' being nonsensical to me.
When I chose to stop believing any thing. From then on I KNEW I did not believe any thing.
How did you arrive at the knowledge that you supposedly could not determine whether you believed in some thing or not?
How I know that I do not believe in any thing is by the choice I made to not believe in any thing. Oh, and by the way, the notion of 'belief' is not nonsensical to me. In case you have not yet worked that out by now.
Is it possible you are failing to hear me? Or, is this failing on my part alone?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amMy perspective is "Truly OPEN", Age! I have told you now, many times, over and over, and in different words, but you are failing to hear me.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:28 am Also, and by the way, if you just want to KNOW what the word 'believing' means to me, then just me ask a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective. In fact if you just want to KNOW what any thing means to me, then just ask me a clarifying question, from a Truly OPEN perspective.
Is this thee actual Truth?
Or, is the actual Truth I have knowledge of some things, and, you do not have knowledge of some things? Or, are you actually saying you do not have knowledge of any and all things?
In regards to what exactly?
Okay, so when, and if, you start to ask me some specific clarifying questions, then we can and will begin.
Are you seriously suggesting and/or saying that you have a Truly OPEN perspective ALWAYS?
Yes agreed.
But that does not back up nor support your previous claims.
Also, do you seriously consider me just asking you, politely, to back up and support your claims, "obsessing over", what I consider to be false and wrong claims and accusations?
Okay.
Why do you think you do not know what it means 'to believe'?
Also, what do you consider is preventing and/or stopping you from knowing what it means 'to believe'?
But I have told you already. You just could not grasp onto it and understand it.
But I am NOT trying to teach you any thing here now. Where did you get this ludicrous assumption from?
I may have tried to teach you some thing before. But I gave up, a while ago now in fact.
Also, why do you not know how to use the word "belief" but you know how to use the word "meaning", but yet you do not know what both of these words mean?
If, as you say, you do not know what 'meaning' means, you just know how to use it, then why do you not know how to use the word 'belief'? Why the discrepancy here?
But you have also alluded to the fact that you do not know the meaning of any word.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amI know that. Which is why I am not using the word. I am only mentioning it.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:28 am Nothing I said in that quote of mine was in relation to any one word. I just said; If you do not know what a word means, then I suggest it best to not use that word, until you do discover and/or learn what it means. This is in relation to absolutely ANY word, as is clearly evidenced in the words I used.
Do you know what other words mean?
If yes, then why can you not learn what the word 'believe' means?
But if no, then why do you use those words but only mention the 'believe' word?
You are doing the EXACT opposite of what I said to do.
It appears you have, once again, completely and utterly misunderstood me.
Why doubtful? Are you now proposing you know a lot of things?
You just got through explaining to us that you do not even know if you yourself believe in some thing or not. So, if you do not even know that, then it appears that a lot of things could get passed you without you knowing.
If the actual thoughts/thinking within that actual head gets passed you, without you knowing, then what thoughts/thinking happens outside of you and that head could much more easily get passed you, without you ever knowing.
If you find errors, especially in a philosophy forum, need not be corrected, then this explains a lot about the way you speak and the way you write things here, in this philosophy forum.
Also, to what exact way of thinking do you say I should probably correct that thinking.
Ah okay, that is one way to 'try to' "justify" all of the errors one keeps making.
I prefer to just not make any errors at all from the very start, that way I then do not have to spend much time at all to correct all of the errors that I do actually make.
When you say, "When you teach me what it 'means' ...", what do you actually mean?
Well you certainly twisted this around in a very distorted way, from my perspective.
Okay, so do you accept and agree that what the word 'believing' means is; accepting something as true or real?
If you do, then we can proceed from here. So, just let us know if you do.
Also, remember if you want to find and see thee actual Truth of things, then you have to speak the actual Truth also, okay?
No, this is because you have twisted and distorted things around here a bit.
What I really am saying and meaning is somewhat different. I will, however, just wait to find out if you do Truly accept and agree with what that dictionary says in relation to the word 'believing' first, before I proceed.
I have NEVER even thought this, let alone even suggesting this, let alone ever mentioning nor saying any thing like this.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:56 amOK, why do you think that elephants aren't real, Age?Age wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:28 am The way of knowing if you believe in some thing or not does not necessarily have absolutely any thing at all to do with discovering and/or learning any meaning of any word here. That just involves listening to your answer when you ask yourself the clarifying question.
Where and why would you assume such a thing as this?
Your assumptions do tend to lead you astray quite a lot. But this is what happens with WRONG assumptions.
So, you do not know how to use the 'belief' word, but you know how to use other words although you supposedly do not know what any word means.
Can you spot and notice contradictions in what you are now saying from what you have said previously?
Okay, how do you intend them to mean exactly?
Also, if you can give meaning to these words, then why do you say you can not give meaning to other words?
Ah okay, so it is you who is providing the meaning for the words you are using.
Sounds like you do actually know how to find and give meaning to words after all, correct?
But ALL of your questions posed in this interaction are not the exact same thing to me. For example some are sensible while some are not. Some are nonsensical, while some are clearer and more specific than others are.
If you really believe that ALL of your questions are asking more or less the exact same thing, then I am certainly missing the 'meaning' you are putting behind the words you use.
What do you propose it means 'to believe' in things?
Yes.
Not necessarily so, but usually so.
But then again are you telling me what I do or what you do?
Obviously you do not have the knowledge to tell me what I do.
Because there is no one meaning to a word.
People give and put their own meaning to a word, and this can change more frequently than people even yet fully realize and understand.
And this has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with what I was just quoted as saying, which you just responded to.
Also, because you did not understand what I said at all, you actually just used the word 'the' in a way that I was just actually pointing out.
You would have to understand what a definition of the word 'the' means first now, before what I said and am saying will be understood.
Besides the fact that you have completely and utterly misunderstood me here, what you have just said here now does not logically and reasonably follow also, anyway.
What you said and asked here is nonsensical. But you did say that you do do this, and so I will not answer your question here.
Do I?
When was the last time I asked you if you believe in things?
How well do you actually understand how language/communication/thinking works?
So, you do not even know if you believe in something or not, and you say you do not even know thy 'self', yet you say you understand how language/communication/thinking works. Okay.
But you just made the claim that I have not even attempted to pass my knowledge to you. I just informed you that I would not be so absolutely sure of yourself here.
Also, no one has specifically asked me to clarify how I use the word 'belief'. Unless of course some evidence and proof is shown otherwise.
If you say so.
But I have NEVER insisted any thing is "trivial".
But once you gain understanding itself, then how ALL of the factors actually come into play together become obvious, and this is what helps in knowing and understanding the simplicity of ALL-OF-THIS.
If you say so, but considering what is actually happening and occurring here some would say the exact opposite is True.
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Yes.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pmCan you know his thoughts without him actually telling you what they are ?Age wrote:So what is his mind and how do you KNOW that I cannot read it ?surreptitious57 wrote:
But you have no way of knowing if he is being open and honest in communication - not unless you can read his mind
Is there any possibility at all that you could be partly or completely WRONG here ?
Oh and by the way when a person says something at first then there may be no way of knowing if that person is being open and honest in
their communication but with the right kind of series of clarifying questioning then what thee actual Truth IS can be exposed and / or revealed
Can I be absolutely sure I am right? No.
Would I be right most of the time? Absolutely not.
But is it possible to know another's thoughts without them actually telling me what they are? Yes.
Surely, you would have had first hand experience yourself of this ability before, correct? Have you ever lived or worked with people and just knew, or more correctly just guessed correctly, what they were thinking, some times?
You did not answer my clarifying question but you would like me to answer your clarifying question here correct?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pm Is there any possibility that I could be partly or completely wrong about you not knowing someones thoughts without them telling you ?
For me to answer your question here correctly and properly, then I would need to know what you actually mean by "not knowing someone's thoughts without them telling me"? Do you mean under absolutely EVERY situation and circumstance, or just some? Did you mean some thing else?
That would all depend on the clarifying questions asked, and the person providing the answers.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pm Can truth always be revealed from clarifying questions ?
Some people do not even know when they are lying, so No truth can not ALWAYS be revealed from clarifying questions. But with enough time, enough right people, and with enough of the right clarifying questions, then thee Truth might always be revealed. Only the future can, and will, answer this correctly.
When people want to remain dishonest.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pm Can you think of any examples when this would not be possible ?
When the right clarifying questions are not being asked.
When people are not that interested in gaining truth.
When people do not want to spend enough time.
What are those two examples?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pm I can think of at least two examples when it would not be possible so are absolutely certain your view is the correct one ?
And did you mean "not the correct one"?
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
To the uninitiated, it's not at all clear that communication is actually taking place
Much of the back-and-forth reminds me of a typical design session. "My mind is your mind" kind of thinking, but in real time this hour-long interaction would take no more than 30 seconds.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Knowing and guessing are not the same thing and my original question only referenced knowing what some ones thoughts wereAge wrote:
Have you ever lived or worked with people and just knew or more correctly just guessed correctly what they were thinking some times ?
I meant it in an objective sense where you would automatically know what someone was thinking every single time without fail
And since you have now stated that you do not actually have this ability then the question has been answered to my satisfaction
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
I agree but I had to ask the question as I wanted to see what your answer would beAge wrote:
No truth can not ALWAYS be revealed from clarifying questions
Because I genuinely did not know if you meant it in a general or an absolute sense
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
I have another two and so four in allAge wrote:
What are those two examples ?
When wrong / false answers are given / when no answers at all are given
When the question is too ambiguous / when the answer is too ambiguous
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
And, as I pointed out it is possible to know what some ones thoughts are.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 6:07 pmKnowing and guessing are not the same thing and my original question only referenced knowing what some ones thoughts wereAge wrote:
Have you ever lived or worked with people and just knew or more correctly just guessed correctly what they were thinking some times ?
The very reason I used the 'guessed' word is to highlight what thee actual Truth IS.
So, although a person can 'know' what another's thoughts are, the Truth IS that person never really 'knows', for sure, until clarification is made.
If what you actually meant was somewhat different from what you actually said and wrote, then I suggest you make this more clear. Because if what you really were referring to and wanted answered was; Can a person know what someone was thinking EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT FAIL, then I would have OBVIOUSLY provided you with ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANSWER.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 6:07 pm I meant it in an objective sense where you would automatically know what someone was thinking every single time without fail
Great, then that is all settled now.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 6:07 pm And since you have now stated that you do not actually have this ability then the question has been answered to my satisfaction
But just to remind you, if you want a specific question answered, properly and correctly, then you first need to ask that very specific clarifying question first.
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Fair enough, and thank you for the clarifying questions.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 6:08 pmI agree but I had to ask the question as I wanted to see what your answer would beAge wrote:
No truth can not ALWAYS be revealed from clarifying questions
Because I genuinely did not know if you meant it in a general or an absolute sense
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
So, we now know more clearly what prevents and stops the Truth from being revealed with and through clarifying questions. Therefore, we now better know what to do, which will actually allow thee actual Truth of things to become revealed.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 6:08 pmI have another two and so four in allAge wrote:
What are those two examples ?
When wrong / false answers are given / when no answers at all are given
When the question is too ambiguous / when the answer is too ambiguous
And, thus thee actual Truth of things is becoming more and more revealed through our Truly OPEN and Honest discussions with and from the help of Truly OPEN and specific clarifying questions.
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
Not being fooled by illusions in thinking some divine power gives a crap about humans...for one thing.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: What is Wisdom in Atheist Philosophy?
...the most obvious illusion to be fooled by! All the other ones aren't even 3rd rate. In short, I'm still trying to figure out the one I'm supposedly living in. Other illusions need not apply!