What is philosophy?

[Age]

Oh my, you seem to have made a rash and hasty ASSUMPTION... I've given my answer to the question this thread poses in other threads posing the exact same question.

Why did you NOT do it in this thread?

Here's an example from three years ago

How could a 'thing', besides a human being, "ask questions"?

So, to 'you', the way 'what philosophy is', which works for you is; the behavior of ONLY when you are asking those questions, which you are not entirely sure yet how to verify.

When 'what' you are not yet entirely sure how to verify? If you or that person are talking about the 'answer' to some question, then I suggest you say so.

Also, if you are not yet entirely sure how to recognize a correct answer, in SOME circumstances, then when in WHICH circumstances does this asking questions of which you are not yet entirely sure how to verify the answer to or do not yet even know how to even recognize a correct answer to are a part of 'what philosophy is', and 'what philosophy is not'?

Once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question though, that question is no longer philosophical, it becomes a question for science, or economics, or history or something.

WHY EXACTLY do you BELIEVE this is SO?

And, if you do NOT YET KNOW HOW to arrive at CORRECT ANSWERS for ALL QUESTIONS, then you REALLY have some MORE DISCOVERING and LEARNING ahead of you.

Whether you see that as promotion or demotion is a matter of perspective.

EVERY way you SEE ANY thing is a matter of perspective, OBVIOUSLY.

'Absolutely EVERY thing being relative to the observer' supports this FACT.

So an example would be all the time that Aristotle and friends spent arguing about what the universe is made out of. You might say the atomists won that one, but really it would be more accurate to say that a philosopher (Bacon I suppose) came up with a whole new way of looking at such questions, which then became a matter for scientists like Galileo.

Talk about going OFF TANGENT and being Truly NOT COGENT AT ALL.

So add a "yet" on the end of "Philosophy asks the questions that science cannot" and you sort of have a decent start I think.

LOL
LOL
LOL

"science" NOR "philosophy" are 'things' that could even ASK QUESTIONS, to begin with.

The only real error is that so many people here seem to be linking philosophy only to science. There are plenty of philosophical question that are not, and could never be scientific, such as "what makes killing people wrong?".

Well that is probably the WEAKEST explanation for 'what philosophy is' that I have been a WITNESS TO.

By the way, were they the EXACT WORDS that that person used?

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?

[Lacewing]

just ONE ASSUMPTION, and A BELIEF, can COMPLETELY and UTTERLY PREVENT and STOP FULLY one from discovering, learning, and understanding MORE and/or ANEW.

That describes you.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

Dude, you just today tried to claim that you have a unique take on what "hypothesis" means based on which dictionary you chose to copy and paste a definition from. So fuck you. I like Isiah Berlin's way of describing what philosophy is, I agree with him, and the desciption I gave was my paraphrasing of his explanation highlighting the bits I like best. I didn't steal it from the Oxford English Dictionary and pretend that makes me unique.

[Lacewing]

A summary... as to why Age expects proof of others, but provides none, himself.

without evidence you are REALLY SAYING NOTHING AT ALL. Without PROOF what you are, essentially, saying and doing here is; Egotistically, CLAIMING that 'you' understand MORE than 'I' do, and that 'you' are BETTER than 'I' am.

i do NOT provide NOR show the proof. i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".

I have ALREADY made it CLEAR that I am using the people in this forum as test subjects, so as to obtain and gather the ACTUAL PROOF I NEED in order to back up and support what I will write and CLAIM, somewhere else.

As HAS ALREADY been PROVED True I do NOT SHARE 'proofs' with those who BELIEVE otherwise.

You have NOT YET proved ONE of your CLAIMS here in this thread. In fact you REFUSE to even LOOK AT and DISCUSS them, after you just say them and write them down. And this is BECAUSE you can NOT prove them.

I made note of these recent statements because I guessed they might come in handy in allowing Age to demonstrate in his own words, the self-indulgent hypocrisy and absurdity of his claims and excuses.

[Age]

just ONE ASSUMPTION, and A BELIEF, can COMPLETELY and UTTERLY PREVENT and STOP FULLY one from discovering, learning, and understanding MORE and/or ANEW.

That describes you.

And HERE is ANOTHER ONE who MAKES CLAIMS but does NOT PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, which would back up and support their CLAIM/S.

What ASSUMPTION and/or what BELIEF do you think or BELIEVe I have, which is PREVENTING and STOPPING me from discovering, learning, and understanding MORE and/or ANEW.

AND, what is the MORE or ANEW, which you think or BELIEVE I could discover, learn, and understand.

The FACT that you can NOT provide absolutely ANY thing, and so WILL NOT, is MORE PROOF of ANOTHER ONE MAKING CLAIMS that they CAN NOT SUBSTANTIATE.

So, YOUR CLAIM here that; "That describes you", could ACTUALLY hold FAR MORE Truth than is FIRST REALIZED.

[Age]

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?

Dude, you just today tried to claim that you have a unique take on what "hypothesis" means based on which dictionary you chose to copy and paste a definition from.

I NEVER "tried to claim" ANY such thing AT ALL.

Now, you have just made ANOTHER CLAIM, and now BACK IT UP, or you are SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

Also, you OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what occurred earlier.

But considering the FACT that you RARELY read what I ACTUALLY WRITE, it might be MORE LIKELY that you have just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what ACTUALLY OCCURRED, and so are now JUST ASSUMING.

What ACTUALLY OCCURRED is; someone said that if can demonstrate a distinction between the 'hypothesis' word and another word, then they WOULD "amend their hypothesis".

Absolutely NOTHING like what you TRIED TO CLAIM here EVER OCCURRED. Okay?

So fuck you.

As they say, 'The Truth HURTS'. Which can become VERY APPARENT sometimes.

I like Isiah Berlin's way of describing what philosophy is, I agree with him, and the desciption I gave was my paraphrasing of his explanation highlighting the bits I like best.

And the OBVIOUSLY FAULTS and FLAWS in that description I have ALREADY MADE KNOWN.

I didn't steal it from the Oxford English Dictionary and pretend that makes me unique.

And I NEVER did what you are TRYING TO CLAIM here, EITHER.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

Dude, you just today tried to claim that you have a unique take on what "hypothesis" means based on which dictionary you chose to copy and paste a definition from.

I NEVER "tried to claim" ANY such thing AT ALL.

Now, you have just made ANOTHER CLAIM, and now BACK IT UP, or you are SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

Also, you OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what occurred earlier.

But considering the FACT that you RARELY read what I ACTUALLY WRITE, it might be MORE LIKELY that you have just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what ACTUALLY OCCURRED, and so are now JUST ASSUMING.

What ACTUALLY OCCURRED is; someone said that if can demonstrate a distinction between the 'hypothesis' word and another word, then they WOULD "amend their hypothesis".

Absolutely NOTHING like what you TRIED TO CLAIM here EVER OCCURRED. Okay?

So fuck you.

As they say, 'The Truth HURTS'. Which can become VERY APPARENT sometimes.

I like Isiah Berlin's way of describing what philosophy is, I agree with him, and the desciption I gave was my paraphrasing of his explanation highlighting the bits I like best.

And the OBVIOUSLY FAULTS and FLAWS in that description I have ALREADY MADE KNOWN.

I didn't steal it from the Oxford English Dictionary and pretend that makes me unique.

And I NEVER did what you are TRYING TO CLAIM here, EITHER.

Yeah you did.

OF COURSE. WHERE do you get YOUR DEFINITIONS from, EXACTLY?

Do you just MAKE THEM UP?

So "what a 'hypothesis' is, to me" means the same as "what the dictionary tells me 'hypothesis' is" and the same as "That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to everyone who can read a dictionary"

But WHICH dictionary are you referring to?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD.

[Age]

A summary... as to why Age expects proof of others, but provides none, himself.

without evidence you are REALLY SAYING NOTHING AT ALL. Without PROOF what you are, essentially, saying and doing here is; Egotistically, CLAIMING that 'you' understand MORE than 'I' do, and that 'you' are BETTER than 'I' am.

i do NOT provide NOR show the proof. i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".

I have ALREADY made it CLEAR that I am using the people in this forum as test subjects, so as to obtain and gather the ACTUAL PROOF I NEED in order to back up and support what I will write and CLAIM, somewhere else.

As HAS ALREADY been PROVED True I do NOT SHARE 'proofs' with those who BELIEVE otherwise.

You have NOT YET proved ONE of your CLAIMS here in this thread. In fact you REFUSE to even LOOK AT and DISCUSS them, after you just say them and write them down. And this is BECAUSE you can NOT prove them.

I made note of these recent statements because I guessed they might come in handy in allowing Age to demonstrate in his own words, the self-indulgent hypocrisy and absurdity of his claims and excuses.

And THANK YOU SO MUCH for spending SO MUCH TIME on LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT 'me'.

It is becoming VERY CLEAR that 'you' here, in this forum, are, literally, BECOMING OBSESSED with and about the 'me'.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, MORE CLAIMS are being made, but NO ACTUAL supporting 'evidence' nor 'proof' for THE CLAIM is PROVIDED.

What 'you' INDIVIDUALLY SEE in WORDS, and I KEEP REMINDING 'you' is YOUR INTERPRETATION ONLY.

Now, IF ANY one WANTS to Truly DELVE INTO the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE ABOVE, and DISCUSS them, then PLEASE let us PROCEED.

Until then 'you', "lacewing", have NOT PROVIDED absolutely ANY thing in regards to YOUR OWN ACTUAL INTERPRETATION, other than obviously your OWN CONCLUDED CLAIMS, which we CAN SEE. But because we have ABSOLUTELY NO 'thoughts' of YOURS, which you have USED to ARRIVE at YOUR CONCLUSION that "my words are self-indulgent hypocrisy and absurd".

NAME and LIST the ACTUAL words of mine, which, to 'you', are "self-indulgent and/or absurd".

Also, NAME and LIST the ACTUAL words of mine, which, lead 'you' to the ACCUSATION and CLAIM of "they are EXCUSES".

If you do NOT, then ONCE AGAIN, we have NOTHING TO LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Contrary to YOUR BELIEF "lacewing" the WORDS of mine above are NOT SAYING and NOT MEANING what 'you' have INTERPRETED.

When will 'you', human beings, FULLY UNDERSTAND that what 'you', individually, INTERPRET is NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth of things?

When you START LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING this FACT, then you will START speaking MORE OPENLY and MORE PEACEFULLY, ALSO.

I could ALSO PROVIDE a list of your own words "lacewing", and then just also say the EXACT SAME thing:

I made note of these recent statements because I guessed they might come in handy in allowing "lacewing" to demonstrate in its own words, the self-indulgent hypocrisy and absurdity of its claims and excuses.

In fact I could just say LOOK AT the words "lacewing" has written in this forum, and then you will SEE WHAT I AM SEEING.

ONLY when you PUT FORWARD the ACTUAL WORDS, themselves, which lead you to SEEING and/or BELIEVING that they are "self-indulgent hypocrisy", "absurdity", or "excuses", and the MOST IMPORTANT thing to GAINING UNDERSTANDING, in DISCUSSIONS, is ALSO CLEARLY express WHY those APPEAR, to you, to be "self-indulgent hypocrisy", "absurd", and/or "excuses", then, and ONLY then, do we have some 'thing' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS.

From 'my' perspective MY WORDS are NOT hypocrisy, NOT self-indulgent, NOT absurd, NOR are excuses. Although i ADMIT that they may APPEAR to be LIKE THAT, from "others" perspectives.

Is this UNDERSTOOD, this time?

[Age]

Dude, you just today tried to claim that you have a unique take on what "hypothesis" means based on which dictionary you chose to copy and paste a definition from.

I NEVER "tried to claim" ANY such thing AT ALL.

Now, you have just made ANOTHER CLAIM, and now BACK IT UP, or you are SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

Also, you OBVIOUSLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what occurred earlier.

But considering the FACT that you RARELY read what I ACTUALLY WRITE, it might be MORE LIKELY that you have just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what ACTUALLY OCCURRED, and so are now JUST ASSUMING.

What ACTUALLY OCCURRED is; someone said that if can demonstrate a distinction between the 'hypothesis' word and another word, then they WOULD "amend their hypothesis".

Absolutely NOTHING like what you TRIED TO CLAIM here EVER OCCURRED. Okay?

So fuck you.

As they say, 'The Truth HURTS'. Which can become VERY APPARENT sometimes.

I like Isiah Berlin's way of describing what philosophy is, I agree with him, and the desciption I gave was my paraphrasing of his explanation highlighting the bits I like best.

And the OBVIOUSLY FAULTS and FLAWS in that description I have ALREADY MADE KNOWN.

I didn't steal it from the Oxford English Dictionary and pretend that makes me unique.

And I NEVER did what you are TRYING TO CLAIM here, EITHER.

Yeah you did.

So "what a 'hypothesis' is, to me" means the same as "what the dictionary tells me 'hypothesis' is" and the same as "That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to everyone who can read a dictionary"

But WHICH dictionary are you referring to?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT dictionaries have DIFFERENT definitions, for the EXACT SAME WORD.

Talk about NOT UNDERSTANDING the WHOLE.

For ANOTHER TIME, when I write, 'to me', this is to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that what I am saying and writing is from MY PERSPECTIVE ONLY, and it is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY True, Right, NOR Correct.

I NEVER even INSINUATED that it is my OWN unique definition. To think or see this is TO ASSUME, or BELIEVE, otherwise.

LOOK, I do NOT write 'to me', as though what I am saying and writing is UNIQUE, 'to me ONLY'. That is the VERY LAST THING I am MEANING. I am just MAKING IT CLEAR, that 'this' is JUST MY VIEW ONLY, in the sense that; 'this view', which is what I am just ACTUALLY OBSERVING, and/or have just ACTUALLY OBSERVED, and although 'this' FACT CAN NOT BE REFUTED, 'the view', itself, however, COULD BE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. AND, if it is, then just EXPRESS WHY.

I say, 'to me', to make it KNOWN that I am OPEN to the FACT that that view could ACTUALLY BE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, and thus OPEN to the FACT that "others" views may be ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Incorrect or MORE True, Right, and/or Incorrect.

The VERY REASON WHY I add the words, 'to you', when I ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is so that what ANSWERS are PROVIDED are CLEARLY that one's VIEW, and NOT just what they BELIEVE is thee One and ONLY true, Right, and/or Correct VIEW ONLY.

See, 'you', human beings, have a VERY STRONG TENDENCY to express 'your own view' of things as though it is thee One and ONLY ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct view of things. Which I find EXTREMELY AMUSING to WATCH and OBSERVE, by the way.

[Lacewing]

And THANK YOU SO MUCH for spending SO MUCH TIME on LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT 'me'.

You have demonstrated yourself to be a fool and a liar, and it is fascinating to see how absurd you'll become to save face. But yes, it grows boring after poking at it for awhile. You've previously said that you want people to challenge you... but you rarely acknowledge that anyone other than yourself sees any truth... and that makes you pretty disgusting.

[FlashDangerpants]

LOOK, I do NOT write 'to me', as though what I am saying and writing is UNIQUE, 'to me ONLY'. That is the VERY LAST THING I am MEANING. I am just MAKING IT CLEAR, that 'this' is JUST MY VIEW ONLY, in the sense that; 'this view', which is what I am just ACTUALLY OBSERVING, and/or have just ACTUALLY OBSERVED, and although 'this' FACT CAN NOT BE REFUTED, 'the view', itself, however, COULD BE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. AND, if it is, then just EXPRESS WHY.

Then there's nothing wrong with "Philosophy" meaning the same thing "TO ME" that it MEANS to Isiah Berlin then. And you SHOULD just admit that this was a bad and STUPID thing to write...

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.

[Age]

And THANK YOU SO MUCH for spending SO MUCH TIME on LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT 'me'.

You have demonstrated yourself to be a fool and a liar,

AND, here is ANOTHER CLAIM presented with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which to back up and support THIS CLAIM.

WHERE have I DEMONSTRATED "myself" to be a LIAR?

As for DEMONSTRATING that 'me' "myself" am A FOOL, to 'you', then I ACCEPT this, TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLY.

and it is fascinating to see how absurd you'll become to save face.

REALLY?

Would you care to SHARE, EXACTLY WHERE you think or BELIEVE I have "saved face"? Or, would you prefer to keep that HIDDEN AS WELL?

But yes, it grows boring after poking at it for awhile. You've previously said that you want people to challenge you... but you rarely acknowledge that anyone other than yourself sees any truth... and that makes you pretty disgusting.

LOL Are you STILL STUCK in this ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of YOURS that "I RARELY ACKNOWLEDGE that anyone other than "myself" sees ANY truth?

I have SPECIFICALLY talked about how Truth is laid out HERE, in front of EVERY one to SEE, and ACKNOWLEDGE, and that the ACTUAL Truth of things is ACTUALLY being OBSERVED by EVERY body.

That I do NOT ACKNOWLEDGE this ENOUGH for you Truly an UNREASONABLE REQUEST.

And, considering the FACT that I have NEVER even thought, let alone NEVER even mentioned ANY thing like; NO one "else" other then "myself" SEES ANY truth is the MOST ABSURD and OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM going. Especially considering what I ACTUALLY KNOW and HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED.

And YES I have PREVIOUSLY SAID that I WANT, and LOVE, people CHALLENGING 'me', and that this is how I GROW and THRIVE.

You ALSO CLAIM that you "poking at 'it' for a while" "grows boring", so then I SUGGEST INFORMING 'us' of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, so then 'we', at least, KNOW what you are TALKING ABOUT and GOING ON ABOUT, EXACTLY, or just STOP doing what "bores you".

[Age]

LOOK, I do NOT write 'to me', as though what I am saying and writing is UNIQUE, 'to me ONLY'. That is the VERY LAST THING I am MEANING. I am just MAKING IT CLEAR, that 'this' is JUST MY VIEW ONLY, in the sense that; 'this view', which is what I am just ACTUALLY OBSERVING, and/or have just ACTUALLY OBSERVED, and although 'this' FACT CAN NOT BE REFUTED, 'the view', itself, however, COULD BE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. AND, if it is, then just EXPRESS WHY.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

LOOK, I do NOT write 'to me', as though what I am saying and writing is UNIQUE, 'to me ONLY'. That is the VERY LAST THING I am MEANING. I am just MAKING IT CLEAR, that 'this' is JUST MY VIEW ONLY, in the sense that; 'this view', which is what I am just ACTUALLY OBSERVING, and/or have just ACTUALLY OBSERVED, and although 'this' FACT CAN NOT BE REFUTED, 'the view', itself, however, COULD BE False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. AND, if it is, then just EXPRESS WHY.

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.

[theory]

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