What is philosophy?

[Age]

Then there's nothing wrong with "Philosophy" meaning the same thing "TO ME" that it MEANS to Isiah Berlin then.

Did I ever say there was?

If yes, then WHERE?

I pointed out WHAT IS WRONG, to me, in the meaning you, and that "other" person, have for the word 'philosophy'.

I do NOT recall ever saying that agreeing upon the SAME MEANING as "another" is in ANY way WRONG at all.

And you SHOULD just admit that this was a bad and STUPID thing to write...

What does the 'this' word in your sentence here refer to EXACTLY?

What I wrote above, what I wrote below, or what I wrote somewhere else?

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

And, considering that you have CLAIMED that you RARELY READ EVERY thing I write, which is WHY you can NOT GRASP the WHOLE of what I write, I will make it CLEAR now, FOR YOU, that I also ADDED these below words, in bold and underlined, DIRECTLY AFTER that sentence of mine, which you have separated from the paragraph I wrote, and have quoted above here.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

So, if it was 'this' sentence of mine, which you are referring to, which is, supposedly, "bad" and "STUPID", then I DID actually offer you the chance to correct me, if I was WRONG.

Also, you will just have to ACCEPT that I have ALREADY POINTED OUT SOME of the FAULTS and FLAWS in that VIEW, of yours, which I saw, which you are now absolutely FREE to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

What you did there was completely fuck up by hitting reply before you had read the post. This shouldn't be that fucking difficult for even you to comprehend.

I mean.... after writing that you have no recollection of saying that there is anything wrong with agreeing things, you then, in the next few seconds, read a quote of yourself saying that it is wrong for me to agree a thing. This happened to you because you were too lazy and stupid to read the post before you decided it was time to reply.

It is you who does NOT read the whole post. You have even admitted that this is what you do do.

And, considering what you have just written here, you have just PROVED that you do NOT read the WHOLE post, or that you do NOT understand the WHOLE, at least.

WHERE did I EVER SAY, in that quote of mine, that it is WRONG for you to agree with ANY thing?

You appear to be SEEING things, which are just NOT THERE "flashdangerpants".

[Age]

See, what a 'thing' ACTUALLY is, is all depended on 'agreement' AND 'acceptance'. A thing is NOT necessarily, and I repeat NOT necessarily, EXACTLY what one person says 'it' is, Just like what you did above here.

That 'we' just happen to 'agree with' and 'accept' a definition, then this does NOT make 'it' EXACTLY what 'it' is. Is this FULLY understood?

What about qualia such as 'the apple is red'?



Is opposition to qualia possible?

Yes.

If not, can it be said that a hypothesis concerning qualia concerns necessity beyond the scope of subjectivity?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is you who does NOT read the whole post. You have even admitted that this is what you do do.

And, considering what you have just written here, you have just PROVED that you do NOT read the WHOLE post, or that you do NOT understand the WHOLE, at least.

WHERE did I EVER SAY, in that quote of mine, that it is WRONG for you to agree with ANY thing?

You appear to be SEEING things, which are just NOT THERE "flashdangerpants".

READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU HIT REPLY AGE.

I shall recount the dismal timeline of this foolish story on time.

Earlier in this dumb thread, I was mentioning that you have a giant ego, and a tendency to write the same boring shit over and over again, and that you take over discussions about any subject at all in order to make them about how special you are and all of this "ThhheeEEEeeEEEEE aBSLoutE tRUTH" stuff that proves it. Remember where you compared yourself to the only guy who knows the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

You went on a little ego rampage for a bit, repeatedly boasting that you manipulate us all for your own ends. Quite an odd claim to be made by someone who suffers such visible frustration when he is not in control of even a conversation. But never mind, it was at that point where you wrote that "your" defintion of what a hypothesis is to "you" was ... well it was copied and pasted from this dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/hypothesis you may remember that I mocked you a little for pretending that was what-it-means-to-me given that it was also what-it-means-to-everyone.

And then you claimed this .... "OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD." That was your painfully artifical and desperate face-saving measure to suggest that somehow the choice of which particualr dictionary to get the defintion from makes it a "to-me" meaning. Now you need to remain consistent with that move in the next conversation...

Because I foolshly assumed this whole thread had hit peak stupid already, I chucked in an aside... "It's a good job 'what is philosophy' is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying."

And then you, the manipulative genius at whose command we all dance, demanded my defintion of what-philosophy-means-to-me...

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' can ACTUALLY STAND UP for "yourself", and SAY 'what 'philosophy' is', to 'you'.

Here 'I' will give 'you' a helping hand, as 'you' appear to REALLY NEED one. Start off by saying and writing;

Philosophy is ... [and then finish that sentence]. SHOW 'us' what 'you' ACTUALLY HAVE "flashdangerpants".

At this point, if you haven't stupidly started trying to tear this post apart word by word already, you should have already worked out that you had damned yourself with your own words.

So I gave you my defintion of what Philosophy means to me, and to Isiah Berlin, and many others. Which got a stream of largely unintelligle gibberish in response from you, the sort you always give when you have no real idea what's going on. In the end you managed this...

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

So that's it. The rest of this discussion has pretty much been an excercise in trying to work out why you are systematically unable to understand that your defence of your own defintion of hypothesis (literally ripped from a simple google search) has to be applied to my defintion of philosophy as well.

Seriously, why is it this difficult to get you to understand something so pathetically simple?

You have an ego problem. You can't just concede a simple point because it hurts your pride too much, so you do this die-on-a-hill-over-nothing bullshit all the time.

[henry quirk]

for feedin' the troll/crazy person.

[theory]

Is opposition to qualia possible?

Yes.

Can you give an example?

For example: "bright purple is necessarily a color"

Can you oppose that proposition?

[Age]

It is you who does NOT read the whole post. You have even admitted that this is what you do do.

And, considering what you have just written here, you have just PROVED that you do NOT read the WHOLE post, or that you do NOT understand the WHOLE, at least.

WHERE did I EVER SAY, in that quote of mine, that it is WRONG for you to agree with ANY thing?

You appear to be SEEING things, which are just NOT THERE "flashdangerpants".

READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU HIT REPLY AGE.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO, NOR WHAT NOT TO DO.

AND, considering the FACT that you have ALREADY ADMITTED that it is 'you' who does NOT read ALL of what I write BEFORE you reply to me, that makes what you said here EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL.

ALSO, I HAVE ALWAYS READ ALL OF WHAT YOU WRITE BEFORE I REPLY, to you.

I shall recount the dismal timeline of this foolish story on time.

Earlier in this dumb thread, I was mentioning that you have a giant ego, and a tendency to write the same boring shit over and over again, and that you take over discussions about any subject at all in order to make them about how special you are and all of this "ThhheeEEEeeEEEEE aBSLoutE tRUTH" stuff that proves it. Remember where you compared yourself to the only guy who knows the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

But I do NOT compare thy 'Self' to ANY of 'you', human beings. This is because I KNOW, EXACTLY, who AND what 'I', ACTUALLY, am, and, EXACTLY who and what 'you', ACTUALLY, are.

Understand?

You went on a little ego rampage for a bit, repeatedly boasting that you manipulate us all for your own ends. Quite an odd claim to be made by someone who suffers such visible frustration when he is not in control of even a conversation. But never mind, it was at that point where you wrote that "your" defintion of what a hypothesis is to "you" was ... well it was copied and pasted from this dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/hypothesis you may remember that I mocked you a little for pretending that was what-it-means-to-me given that it was also what-it-means-to-everyone.

But, it, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT mean that to everyone.

And then you claimed this .... "OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD." That was your painfully artifical and desperate face-saving measure to suggest that somehow the choice of which particualr dictionary to get the defintion from makes it a "to-me" meaning. Now you need to remain consistent with that move in the next conversation...

You appear to STILL be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DEAF and BLIND here.

But considering the FACT that you do NOTvread ALL of what I write, then this explains EXACTLY WHY you are STILL do LOST and CONFUSED here.

Because I foolshly assumed this whole thread had hit peak stupid already, I chucked in an aside... "It's a good job 'what is philosophy' is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying."

And then you, the manipulative genius at whose command we all dance, demanded my defintion of what-philosophy-means-to-me...

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' can ACTUALLY STAND UP for "yourself", and SAY 'what 'philosophy' is', to 'you'.

Here 'I' will give 'you' a helping hand, as 'you' appear to REALLY NEED one. Start off by saying and writing;

Philosophy is ... [and then finish that sentence]. SHOW 'us' what 'you' ACTUALLY HAVE "flashdangerpants".

At this point, if you haven't stupidly started trying to tear this post apart word by word already, you should have already worked out that you had damned yourself with your own words.

So I gave you my defintion of what Philosophy means to me, and to Isiah Berlin, and many others. Which got a stream of largely unintelligle gibberish in response from you, the sort you always give when you have no real idea what's going on. In the end you managed this...

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

So that's it. The rest of this discussion has pretty much been an excercise in trying to work out why you are systematically unable to understand that your defence of your own defintion of hypothesis (literally ripped from a simple google search) has to be applied to my defintion of philosophy as well.

But WHY would I even want to apply you definition to mine? If you HAD read what I have ALREADY written, the you would have SEEN and HEARD HOW and WHY your definition is just ridiculous.

Also, where is this assumption and/or belief, coming from, EXACTLY, that my definition "HAS TO BE" "applied to" your definition.

I much prefer to keep your illogical and ridiculous definition SEPARATE from mine, understood?

Seriously, why is it this difficult to get you to understand something so pathetically simple?

BECAUSE what you are IMAGING took place and which is "pathetically simple" is NOT what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. SEE, you are StILL UNDER THE ILLUSION that I was saying and meaning some 'thing', which I ACTUALLY WAS NOT.

If you EVER get around to reading ALL of what I wrote, then you MIGHT SEE and UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.

You have an ego problem. You can't just concede a simple point because it hurts your pride too much, so you do this die-on-a-hill-over-nothing bullshit all the time.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

[Age]

Is opposition to qualia possible?

Yes.

Can you give an example?

The apple is NOT necessarily red.

For example: "bright purple is necessarily a color"

To who, and/or what, is bright purple necessarily a color?

Can you oppose that proposition?

Maybe NOT.

Is that proposition an ACTUAL Truth, which EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS?

[FlashDangerpants]

It is you who does NOT read the whole post. You have even admitted that this is what you do do.

And, considering what you have just written here, you have just PROVED that you do NOT read the WHOLE post, or that you do NOT understand the WHOLE, at least.

WHERE did I EVER SAY, in that quote of mine, that it is WRONG for you to agree with ANY thing?

You appear to be SEEING things, which are just NOT THERE "flashdangerpants".

READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU HIT REPLY AGE.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO, NOR WHAT NOT TO DO.

AND, considering the FACT that you have ALREADY ADMITTED that it is 'you' who does NOT read ALL of what I write BEFORE you reply to me, that makes what you said here EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL.

ALSO, I HAVE ALWAYS READ ALL OF WHAT YOU WRITE BEFORE I REPLY, to you.

I shall recount the dismal timeline of this foolish story on time.

Earlier in this dumb thread, I was mentioning that you have a giant ego, and a tendency to write the same boring shit over and over again, and that you take over discussions about any subject at all in order to make them about how special you are and all of this "ThhheeEEEeeEEEEE aBSLoutE tRUTH" stuff that proves it. Remember where you compared yourself to the only guy who knows the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

But I do NOT compare thy 'Self' to ANY of 'you', human beings. This is because I KNOW, EXACTLY, who AND what 'I', ACTUALLY, am, and, EXACTLY who and what 'you', ACTUALLY, are.

Understand?

You went on a little ego rampage for a bit, repeatedly boasting that you manipulate us all for your own ends. Quite an odd claim to be made by someone who suffers such visible frustration when he is not in control of even a conversation. But never mind, it was at that point where you wrote that "your" defintion of what a hypothesis is to "you" was ... well it was copied and pasted from this dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/hypothesis you may remember that I mocked you a little for pretending that was what-it-means-to-me given that it was also what-it-means-to-everyone.

But, it, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT mean that to everyone.

And then you claimed this .... "OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD." That was your painfully artifical and desperate face-saving measure to suggest that somehow the choice of which particualr dictionary to get the defintion from makes it a "to-me" meaning. Now you need to remain consistent with that move in the next conversation...

You appear to STILL be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DEAF and BLIND here.

But considering the FACT that you do NOTvread ALL of what I write, then this explains EXACTLY WHY you are STILL do LOST and CONFUSED here.

Because I foolshly assumed this whole thread had hit peak stupid already, I chucked in an aside... "It's a good job 'what is philosophy' is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying."

And then you, the manipulative genius at whose command we all dance, demanded my defintion of what-philosophy-means-to-me...

Let 'us' SEE if 'you' can ACTUALLY STAND UP for "yourself", and SAY 'what 'philosophy' is', to 'you'.

Here 'I' will give 'you' a helping hand, as 'you' appear to REALLY NEED one. Start off by saying and writing;

Philosophy is ... [and then finish that sentence]. SHOW 'us' what 'you' ACTUALLY HAVE "flashdangerpants".

At this point, if you haven't stupidly started trying to tear this post apart word by word already, you should have already worked out that you had damned yourself with your own words.

So I gave you my defintion of what Philosophy means to me, and to Isiah Berlin, and many others. Which got a stream of largely unintelligle gibberish in response from you, the sort you always give when you have no real idea what's going on. In the end you managed this...

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

So that's it. The rest of this discussion has pretty much been an excercise in trying to work out why you are systematically unable to understand that your defence of your own defintion of hypothesis (literally ripped from a simple google search) has to be applied to my defintion of philosophy as well.

But WHY would I even want to apply you definition to mine? If you HAD read what I have ALREADY written, the you would have SEEN and HEARD HOW and WHY your definition is just ridiculous.

Also, where is this assumption and/or belief, coming from, EXACTLY, that my definition "HAS TO BE" "applied to" your definition.

I much prefer to keep your illogical and ridiculous definition SEPARATE from mine, understood?

Seriously, why is it this difficult to get you to understand something so pathetically simple?

BECAUSE what you are IMAGING took place and which is "pathetically simple" is NOT what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. SEE, you are StILL UNDER THE ILLUSION that I was saying and meaning some 'thing', which I ACTUALLY WAS NOT.

If you EVER get around to reading ALL of what I wrote, then you MIGHT SEE and UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.

You have an ego problem. You can't just concede a simple point because it hurts your pride too much, so you do this die-on-a-hill-over-nothing bullshit all the time.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

I gave you the simplest possible explanation of events and you failed to understand it in even the most basic terms.
If you aren't lying about reading it in advance, then your failure in this matter appears to be insurmountable.

If you can't understand the simple principle that if you can take a definition of "hypothesis" from any reputable source you like, such as a dictionary, then I can take a definition of "philosophy" from any reputable source I like, such as one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers, then what can you ever really be expected to get the hang of?

As of today you have written 7218 posts. Nobody has read them all. When I said I don't read most of what you write, I was telling you that I can't be bothered reading most of the posts you present. When I reply, I have read the whole post.

As for whether I need to read all your posts ... why would anyone bother? There is no variety to your output, you are largely just repeating the same few phrases on endless loop. Nobody needs to keep up to date on the 7 a day habit you have of demanding CLAriFYInG QuEStionS

[Atla]

If you think about it, low IQ + autism + schizophrenia must be pretty tough..
Having to listen all day long to "thee One", the autistic God in Age's head. Having to listen to the exact same really, really dumb divine revelations, proclaimed in the exact same tone, for the 4283th time.

[Age]

READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU HIT REPLY AGE.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO, NOR WHAT NOT TO DO.

AND, considering the FACT that you have ALREADY ADMITTED that it is 'you' who does NOT read ALL of what I write BEFORE you reply to me, that makes what you said here EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL.

ALSO, I HAVE ALWAYS READ ALL OF WHAT YOU WRITE BEFORE I REPLY, to you.

I shall recount the dismal timeline of this foolish story on time.

Earlier in this dumb thread, I was mentioning that you have a giant ego, and a tendency to write the same boring shit over and over again, and that you take over discussions about any subject at all in order to make them about how special you are and all of this "ThhheeEEEeeEEEEE aBSLoutE tRUTH" stuff that proves it. Remember where you compared yourself to the only guy who knows the sun doesn't go round the Earth?

But I do NOT compare thy 'Self' to ANY of 'you', human beings. This is because I KNOW, EXACTLY, who AND what 'I', ACTUALLY, am, and, EXACTLY who and what 'you', ACTUALLY, are.

Understand?

You went on a little ego rampage for a bit, repeatedly boasting that you manipulate us all for your own ends. Quite an odd claim to be made by someone who suffers such visible frustration when he is not in control of even a conversation. But never mind, it was at that point where you wrote that "your" defintion of what a hypothesis is to "you" was ... well it was copied and pasted from this dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/hypothesis you may remember that I mocked you a little for pretending that was what-it-means-to-me given that it was also what-it-means-to-everyone.

But, it, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT mean that to everyone.

And then you claimed this .... "OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD." That was your painfully artifical and desperate face-saving measure to suggest that somehow the choice of which particualr dictionary to get the defintion from makes it a "to-me" meaning. Now you need to remain consistent with that move in the next conversation...

You appear to STILL be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DEAF and BLIND here.

But considering the FACT that you do NOTvread ALL of what I write, then this explains EXACTLY WHY you are STILL do LOST and CONFUSED here.

Because I foolshly assumed this whole thread had hit peak stupid already, I chucked in an aside... "It's a good job 'what is philosophy' is such a boring question. Otherwise the idea of hijacking it just to discuss dictionaries with the least charismatic man ever to walk the Earth would be even more horrifying."

And then you, the manipulative genius at whose command we all dance, demanded my defintion of what-philosophy-means-to-me...


At this point, if you haven't stupidly started trying to tear this post apart word by word already, you should have already worked out that you had damned yourself with your own words.

So I gave you my defintion of what Philosophy means to me, and to Isiah Berlin, and many others. Which got a stream of largely unintelligle gibberish in response from you, the sort you always give when you have no real idea what's going on. In the end you managed this...



So that's it. The rest of this discussion has pretty much been an excercise in trying to work out why you are systematically unable to understand that your defence of your own defintion of hypothesis (literally ripped from a simple google search) has to be applied to my defintion of philosophy as well.

But WHY would I even want to apply you definition to mine? If you HAD read what I have ALREADY written, the you would have SEEN and HEARD HOW and WHY your definition is just ridiculous.

Also, where is this assumption and/or belief, coming from, EXACTLY, that my definition "HAS TO BE" "applied to" your definition.

I much prefer to keep your illogical and ridiculous definition SEPARATE from mine, understood?

Seriously, why is it this difficult to get you to understand something so pathetically simple?

BECAUSE what you are IMAGING took place and which is "pathetically simple" is NOT what ACTUALLY OCCURRED. SEE, you are StILL UNDER THE ILLUSION that I was saying and meaning some 'thing', which I ACTUALLY WAS NOT.

If you EVER get around to reading ALL of what I wrote, then you MIGHT SEE and UNDERSTAND what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.

You have an ego problem. You can't just concede a simple point because it hurts your pride too much, so you do this die-on-a-hill-over-nothing bullshit all the time.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

I gave you the simplest possible explanation of events and you failed to understand it in even the most basic terms.

AND, I ALSO CLAIM that you are NOT UNDERSTANDING what has ACTUALLY OCCURRED and HAPPENED here. So, which one is RIGHT?

If you aren't lying about reading it in advance, then your failure in this matter appears to be insurmountable.

Okay.

If you can't understand the simple principle that if you can take a definition of "hypothesis" from any reputable source you like, such as a dictionary, then I can take a definition of "philosophy" from any reputable source I like, such as one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers, then what can you ever really be expected to get the hang of?

I have NEVER said that you COULD NOT.

You seem to STILL be under some VERY DEEP ILLUSION that I have said some thing that implies that what you did was wrong in someway. For your information AGAIN; I have NEVER even alluded to that, let alone said absolutely ANY thing like that.

I also have NEVER even tried to claim what you still seem to BELIEVE that I have.

As of today you have written 7218 posts. Nobody has read them all. When I said I don't read most of what you write, I was telling you that I can't be bothered reading most of the posts you present. When I reply, I have read the whole post.

Well, now that you have FINALLY CLEARED this up I now KNOW differently.

And, I could NOT be bothered to go back to check and see thee ACTUAL WORDS that you had used. I REALLY do NOT care.

As for whether I need to read all your posts ... why would anyone bother? There is no variety to your output, you are largely just repeating the same few phrases on endless loop. Nobody needs to keep up to date on the 7 a day habit you have of demanding CLAriFYInG QuEStionS

I ONLY ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. I do NOT DEMAND them. As has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN, above.

If you are INCAPABLE of ANSWERING them, then so be it. I REALLY do NOT care.

[Age]

If you think about it, low IQ + autism + schizophrenia must be pretty tough..
Having to listen all day long to "thee One", the autistic God in Age's head.

But i do NOT "have to". I can do like what 'you' do, and NOT listen to ANY thing AT ALL, other than thy 'self'. And, unlike 'you' i do NOT BELIEVE what thy 'self' SAYS.

Having to listen to the exact same really, really dumb divine revelations, proclaimed in the exact same tone, for the 4283th time.

Yet here 'you' are spending so much time LOOKING AT and READING the words under the label "age", and so it is 'you' who is REALLY HAVING TO listen to the EXACT SAME things, but which you also PROCLAIM are REALLY, and REALLY, 'dumb', but will NEVER say EXACTLY what IS REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you, and if you EVER did, then you will NEVER EXPLAIN WHY 'that' is REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you.

As you will PROVE 'me' Correct, ONCE MORE.

[Atla]

If you think about it, low IQ + autism + schizophrenia must be pretty tough..
Having to listen all day long to "thee One", the autistic God in Age's head.

But i do NOT "have to". I can do like what 'you' do, and NOT listen to ANY thing AT ALL, other than thy 'self'. And, unlike 'you' i do NOT BELIEVE what thy 'self' SAYS.

Having to listen to the exact same really, really dumb divine revelations, proclaimed in the exact same tone, for the 4283th time.

Yet here 'you' are spending so much time LOOKING AT and READING the words under the label "age", and so it is 'you' who is REALLY HAVING TO listen to the EXACT SAME things, but which you also PROCLAIM are REALLY, and REALLY, 'dumb', but will NEVER say EXACTLY what IS REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you, and if you EVER did, then you will NEVER EXPLAIN WHY 'that' is REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you.

As you will PROVE 'me' Correct, ONCE MORE.

Yep, must be tough

[Age]

If you think about it, low IQ + autism + schizophrenia must be pretty tough..
Having to listen all day long to "thee One", the autistic God in Age's head.

But i do NOT "have to". I can do like what 'you' do, and NOT listen to ANY thing AT ALL, other than thy 'self'. And, unlike 'you' i do NOT BELIEVE what thy 'self' SAYS.

Having to listen to the exact same really, really dumb divine revelations, proclaimed in the exact same tone, for the 4283th time.

Yet here 'you' are spending so much time LOOKING AT and READING the words under the label "age", and so it is 'you' who is REALLY HAVING TO listen to the EXACT SAME things, but which you also PROCLAIM are REALLY, and REALLY, 'dumb', but will NEVER say EXACTLY what IS REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you, and if you EVER did, then you will NEVER EXPLAIN WHY 'that' is REALLY, REALLY DUMB, to you.

As you will PROVE 'me' Correct, ONCE MORE.

Yep, must be tough

Okay.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you can't understand the simple principle that if you can take a definition of "hypothesis" from any reputable source you like, such as a dictionary, then I can take a definition of "philosophy" from any reputable source I like, such as one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers, then what can you ever really be expected to get the hang of?

I have NEVER said that you COULD NOT.

You seem to STILL be under some VERY DEEP ILLUSION that I have said some thing that implies that what you did was wrong in someway. For your information AGAIN; I have NEVER even alluded to that, let alone said absolutely ANY thing like that.

I also have NEVER even tried to claim what you still seem to BELIEVE that I have.

You have, here, again, is the quote.

By making no effort to think about the whole, you failed to get the point entirely. This is normal for you.

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

Don't bullshit me Age.

[Age]

If you can't understand the simple principle that if you can take a definition of "hypothesis" from any reputable source you like, such as a dictionary, then I can take a definition of "philosophy" from any reputable source I like, such as one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers, then what can you ever really be expected to get the hang of?

I have NEVER said that you COULD NOT.

You seem to STILL be under some VERY DEEP ILLUSION that I have said some thing that implies that what you did was wrong in someway. For your information AGAIN; I have NEVER even alluded to that, let alone said absolutely ANY thing like that.

I also have NEVER even tried to claim what you still seem to BELIEVE that I have.

You have, here, again, is the quote.

By making no effort to think about the whole, you failed to get the point entirely. This is normal for you.

The WHOLE is you TAKE some one "else" VIEW of 'what philosophy is', and USE THAT VIEW. This is BECAUSE you can NOT form a VIEW on YOUR OWN.

Or, correct me if I am WRONG here. By telling us what YOUR OWN VIEW is of 'what philosophy is'. That is; IF YOU CAN?

Don't bullshit me Age.

WHAT???

I am NOT "bullshitting" 'you', "flashdangerpants".

There is absolutely NOTHING in ANY of 'that', which even ALLUDES to 'me' THINKING that you could NOT do what you did OR that doing what you did was WRONG in ANY way, shape, or form. Let alone SAYING that you could NOT do that or that it was WRONG to do 'that' what you did.

Will you PLEASE put forward the ACTUAL WORDS that I used, which has led 'you' on to ASSUMING that I have been saying that you could NOT do, what you ACTUALLY DID, or that what you ACTUALLY DID DO is somehow WRONG, in some way?

If you do NOT PROVIDE ANY thing, then I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue WHY you are SEEING and THINKING what you are here.

When, and IF, you EVER even TRY to FIND and REPEAT those ACTUAL WORDS OF MINE, which you BELIEVE are here that has led you to ASSUME what you are here, then you WILL SEE that they do NOT even exist.

So, either you can PROVE me WRONG here, by just writing and REPEATING "those words", or if you do NOT write "those words" down, then this, itself, PROVES me RIGHT, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in what I have ACTUALLY SAID, ANYWAY.

I would also like to add here that IF ANY one "else" can PROVIDE "those words" of mine, which has led "flashdangerpants" to ASSUME what they have here, then PLEASE REPEAT them and BRING THEM FORWARD for ALL of 'us' to LOOK AT.