Philosophy undermines truth

[attofishpi]

And you don't seem to care one bit how you brush up against others. Fucking psychopathy at its finest! Grow a fucking conscience or get the fuck away from me, asshole!!

Is there ANY 'psychopathy' in this response of 'yours' here, "gary childress"?

I apologize, Age. Yes. There was psychopathy in my response. It seems to drive me crazy when I see someone on a forum making sweeping generalizations like "you adult humans..." as though s/he's blaming everyone but her/himself for the way the world is--literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now". And when someone posts something like "in the days when this was written..." as though that person refuses to make the more rational step of directly addressing the person(s) present (perhaps thinking s/he is tarnishing his or her interlocutor(s) posthumously to a future audience), then that drives me crazy too. It doesn't seem very fair toward one's interlocutors to me, rather underhanded in some way (or perhaps 'passive/aggressive' would be the right term). However, I suppose I just need to accept those things when they manifest themselves in others. Maybe you have your reasons. What do I know?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think it's common knowledge now on the forum that he\she is autistic.

[attofishpi]

So, here we all are participating in some form of the possible activities under philosophy.

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of reality (pretty much just thinking)...?

Does this mean you are going to stop thinking?

[Age]

And you don't seem to care one bit how you brush up against others. Fucking psychopathy at its finest! Grow a fucking conscience or get the fuck away from me, asshole!!

Is there ANY 'psychopathy' in this response of 'yours' here, "gary childress"?

I apologize, Age.

There is NO need to apologize, well NOT for me NOR to me anyway

Yes. There was psychopathy in my response. It seems to drive me crazy when I see someone on a forum making sweeping generalizations like "you adult humans..." as though s/he's blaming everyone but her/himself for the way the world is--literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now".

But considering that I was NOT saying NOR meaning 'this' here, WHY 'you' are seemingly being 'driven crazy' now, must be for some OTHER reason.

And when someone posts something like "in the days when this was written..." as though that person refuses to make the more rational step of directly addressing the person(s) present (perhaps thinking s/he is tarnishing his or her interlocutor(s) posthumously to a future audience), then that drives me crazy too.

Okay.

When you say 'things' like, 'drives me crazy', are 'you' BLAMING some OTHER 'thing' for the way that 'you', currently, are, or are feeling?

It doesn't seem very fair toward one's interlocutors to me, rather underhanded in some way (or perhaps 'passive/aggressive' would be the right term). However, I suppose I just need to accept those things when they manifest themselves in others. Maybe you have your reasons. What do I know?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here we have the PERFECT example of WHY these people, back then, took SO LONG to come to a much BETTER understanding of "themselves".

This one even STATES, out aloud, 'Maybe you have your reasons.' And then even ASKS "its" OWN 'self", 'What do I know?'

BUT NEVER ONCE thought to just ASK "the other" absolutely ANY CLARIFYING QUESTION AT ALL here.

This is WHY True and FULL understanding of "each other" and ultimately "themselves" took SO LONG for the human being, back in the days when this was being written.

[Gary Childress]

Yes. There was psychopathy in my response. It seems to drive me crazy when I see someone on a forum making sweeping generalizations like "you adult humans..." as though s/he's blaming everyone but her/himself for the way the world is--literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now".

But considering that I was NOT saying NOR meaning 'this' here, WHY 'you' are seemingly being 'driven crazy' now, must be for some OTHER reason.

Then What were/are you saying or meaning?

[Age]

So, here we all are participating in some form of the possible activities under philosophy.

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?[/quote]

But the premise, which 'you' CLAIM here about 'you refusing to practice philosophy' is NOT difficult to understand AT ALL. Obviously 'you' can CLAIM absolutely ANY 'thing' in written words, but which are ACTUALLY NOT True AT ALL', is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT AT ALL difficult to understand, EITHER.

Just like the Fact that 'you REFUSE to define words here for us to LOOK AT and SEE' is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT difficult AT ALL to understand AS WELL.

So, when 'you' CLAIM that 'you' REJECT 'philosophy' and REFUSE to practice 'philosophy' absolutely NO one KNOWS what 'you' are actually referring to, EXACTLY, because 'you', literally, do NOT even KNOW what 'it' IS that 'you' are talking ABOUT and CLAIMING here.

Furthermore, when 'you' make 'that CLAIM, all we can REALLY gon and go off is our OWN personal INTERPRETATION OF, and personal DEFINITION FOR, the 'philosophy' word. Which, from my perspective, 'you', "skepdick", CERTAINLY DO NOT practice 'philosophy' AT ALL.

SO, take this as a GREAT LESSON in regards to words MEAN DIFFERENT 'things' to DIFFERENT, and/or ALL, people. which ultimately MEANS that 'you' REJECTING and REFUSING to 'practice philosophy', to me, IS VERY OBVIOUS as well as SHOWING just how VERY STUPID one can REALLY BE here

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

LOL

'you' made the original CLAIM here, which 'you' could NEVER back up, support, NOR prove true BECAUSE 'you' would, FIRST, HAVE TO define the 'philosophy'word, and by your OWN admission 'you' are NOT even CAPABLE of doing just 'this'.

By the way, I COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY AGREE WITH 'you' that 'you' REJECT and REFUSE TO have ANY 'love-of-wisdom', and of BECOMING ANY MORE WISER here.

[Age]

Thanks to Flannel Jesus for reminding me of this:

You're welcome. I've got the guy blocked but I still hope he can learn why that's a fallacy and internalise it.

To believe yourself the teaacher when you are the student is the epitome of stupidity.

Bonus points for blocking the guy who shows you your own misunderstanding.

Could BELIEVING that one is ALWAYS 'the teacher' and does NOT need to be 'a student', in order 'to learn' MORE, be a good sign of STUPIDITY as well?

Or do 'you', "skepdick", really BELIEVE that 'you' are 'the teacher' here, and maybe even BELIEVE ALWAYS?

[Age]

Is there ANY 'psychopathy' in this response of 'yours' here, "gary childress"?

I apologize, Age. Yes. There was psychopathy in my response. It seems to drive me crazy when I see someone on a forum making sweeping generalizations like "you adult humans..." as though s/he's blaming everyone but her/himself for the way the world is--literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now". And when someone posts something like "in the days when this was written..." as though that person refuses to make the more rational step of directly addressing the person(s) present (perhaps thinking s/he is tarnishing his or her interlocutor(s) posthumously to a future audience), then that drives me crazy too. It doesn't seem very fair toward one's interlocutors to me, rather underhanded in some way (or perhaps 'passive/aggressive' would be the right term). However, I suppose I just need to accept those things when they manifest themselves in others. Maybe you have your reasons. What do I know?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think it's common knowledge now on the forum that he\she is autistic.

Considering WHEN 'this rumour' was started, and by WHO, EXACTLY, being so-called 'common knowledge' here by 'now' would NOT be to surprising at all, considering.

Oh, and by the way, if 'you' are trying to imply ANY 'thing' here, by the words that 'you' CHOSE to USE here, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you were trying to imply here?

[Age]

So, here we all are participating in some form of the possible activities under philosophy.

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of reality (pretty much just thinking)...?

NO one will EVER KNOW from "skepdick's" perspective because "skepdick", itself, as 'it' has INFORMED us is NOT capable of defining words.

Does this mean you are going to stop thinking?

[attofishpi]

I think it's common knowledge now on the forum that he\she is autistic.

Considering WHEN 'this rumour' was started, and by WHO, EXACTLY, being so-called 'common knowledge' here by 'now' would NOT be to surprising at all, considering.

Oh, and by the way, if 'you' are trying to imply ANY 'thing' here, by the words that 'you' CHOSE to USE here, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you were trying to imply here?

It's IRREFUTABLE that I have NO idea (at THE time WHEN this WAS written).

[Age]

Yes. There was psychopathy in my response. It seems to drive me crazy when I see someone on a forum making sweeping generalizations like "you adult humans..." as though s/he's blaming everyone but her/himself for the way the world is--literally saying "if it weren't for you all, life would be wonderful for me right now".

But considering that I was NOT saying NOR meaning 'this' here, WHY 'you' are seemingly being 'driven crazy' now, must be for some OTHER reason.

Then What were/are you saying or meaning?

If it were NOT for adult human beings, then life would be much better for children, 'right now', when this is being written.

[Age]

I think it's common knowledge now on the forum that he\she is autistic.

Considering WHEN 'this rumour' was started, and by WHO, EXACTLY, being so-called 'common knowledge' here by 'now' would NOT be to surprising at all, considering.

Oh, and by the way, if 'you' are trying to imply ANY 'thing' here, by the words that 'you' CHOSE to USE here, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you were trying to imply here?

It's IRREFUTABLE that I have NO idea (at THE time WHEN this WAS written).

'you' have NO idea:
If 'you' were trying to imply some 'thing' or not? Or,

If 'you' are aware that 'you' were trying to imply some 'thing' 'you' just have NO idea what 'it' was that were trying to imply here?

[Skepdick]

Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of reality (pretty much just thinking)...?

Is it? If it were that seems like a fucking stupid activity altogether.

Nature and reality are synonymous terms so... Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of nature? What does that even mean?

Does this mean you are going to stop thinking?

Heck no!

I'm perfectly happy to do thinking - be it applying thinking to thinking; or applying thinking to reality. This activity doesn't require doing any philosophy.

Abstractly speaking - it's just function (self) application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_application

[Skepdick]

Just like the Fact that 'you REFUSE to define words here for us to LOOK AT and SEE' is ANOTHER premise, which is NOT difficult AT ALL to understand AS WELL.

But if I haven't defined my words how could you possibly know whether my words are true or false?

Fucking idiot

[attofishpi]

Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of reality (pretty much just thinking)...?

Is it? If it were that seems like a fucking stupid activity altogether.

Nature and reality are synonymous terms so... Isn't philosophy just thinking about the nature of nature? What does that even mean?

Does this mean you are going to stop thinking?

Heck no!

I'm perfectly happy to do thinking - be it applying thinking to thinking; or applying thinking to reality. This activity doesn't require doing any philosophy.

In that case don't start thinking about the reality of reality.

Abstractly speaking - it's just function (self) application.

Concretely speaking - your (self) application function appears to have a malfunction.

[Skepdick]

In that case don't start thinking about the reality of reality.

That would be a wasteful task indeed.

Concretely speaking - your (self) application function appears to have a malfunction.

Self-contradiction is a feature, not a bug.

Unrestricted expression/comprehension is not possible if we eliminate contradictions.