Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:32 pm
Are you able to given any guarantee that your question is correct given one can question "guarantee" and "correct"?
My questions are based on adopting your criteria. You made some statements, I have just drawn the consequences of your statements. This means that we are talking while adopting exactly the same criteria, same instruments, same language. As a consequence, if my questions are nonsense, your statements are nonsense as well, as they are based on the same criteria of my questions. If my questions make sense, we should consider what they say: they ask about your ability to give guarantee of what you said.
This means that, in both cases, the question about giving guarantee always wins with its ability to destroy.
This is an essential characteristic of philosophy: destruction is irresistible; nothing in philosophy, even philosophy itself, can resist to destruction. You cannot destroy destruction, because you cannot destroy a destroyed house. Think of me not like opposing to your building another building, but like throwing stones against your building: you cannot destroy my stones, because they are not a building, they are already destroyed, they are already the product, the result, of an already made self destruction.