All Problems are Rooted in Ideology and Intuition

[Eodnhoj7]

The problem is symbols and the problem is reason, and they must be negated. But if they are negated, reason as "measurement" occurs and we are left with a new rational process altogether.

Killing philosophy just results in philosophy resurrecting itself.

Why are symbols and reason a problem?
Why must they be negated?

It is the pragmatic thing to do.

[Logik]

It is the pragmatic thing to do.

Why do you want to be pragmatic?

[Eodnhoj7]

It is the pragmatic thing to do.

Why do you want to be pragmatic?

I don't.

[Logik]

It is the pragmatic thing to do.

Why do you want to be pragmatic?

I don't.

But you are being pragmatic.

Why be pragmatic?

[Eodnhoj7]

Why do you want to be pragmatic?

I don't.

But you are being pragmatic.

Why be pragmatic?

You tell me, I am the one pushing you off the cliff.

[Logik]

You tell me, I am the one pushing you off the cliff.

So you lied when you answered ?
You assumed my position instead of yours.

Why lie?
Why push me off the cliff?

[Eodnhoj7]

You tell me, I am the one pushing you off the cliff.

So you lied when you answered ?
You assumed my position instead of yours.

Why lie?
Why push me off the cliff?

I didn't lie about anything, a strict pragmatic approach is a lie that throws oneself off a cliff...I just figured I would give you a helping hand...but it seems you are still holding onto the ledge. Should I give you a hand or step on your fingers?

[Logik]

I didn't lie about anything, a strict pragmatic approach is a lie that throws oneself off a cliff...I just figured I would give you a helping hand...but it seems you are still holding onto the ledge. Should I give you a hand or step on your fingers?

You are mis-directing. You don't like the "Why?" spotlight on you.

Why do you want to push me off the cliff?

[Eodnhoj7]

I didn't lie about anything, a strict pragmatic approach is a lie that throws oneself off a cliff...I just figured I would give you a helping hand...but it seems you are still holding onto the ledge. Should I give you a hand or step on your fingers?

You are mis-directing. You don't like the "Why?" spotlight on you.

Why do you want to push me off the cliff?

Why project an ad-hominum...all you are doing is directing it at yourself. Why where you looking over a cliff? You don't want to see the bottom?

You are not relative enough.

[Logik]

Why project an ad-hominum...all you are doing is directing it at yourself. Why where you looking over a cliff? You don't want to see the bottom?

Am I projecting? You are the foundationalist. I wasn't looking over any cliffs - you brought the metaphor to the table.

Too bad you can't push a bird off a cliff.

I neither have nor need foundations.

You are not relative enough.

Why should I be "relative enough" ?

[Eodnhoj7]

Why project an ad-hominum...all you are doing is directing it at yourself. Why where you looking over a cliff? You don't want to see the bottom?

Am I projecting? You are the foundationalist. I wasn't looking over any cliffs - you brought the metaphor to the table.

Too bad you can't push a bird off a cliff.

I neither have nor need foundations.

Relativity is a foundation, and my question is less one of foundations but rather "origins".

Birds fall out of their nests all the time.

You are not relative enough.

Why should I be "relative enough" ?

So you are not a relativist?

[Logik]

Why project an ad-hominum...all you are doing is directing it at yourself. Why where you looking over a cliff? You don't want to see the bottom?

Am I projecting? You are the foundationalist. I wasn't looking over any cliffs - you brought the metaphor to the table.

Too bad you can't push a bird off a cliff.

I neither have nor need foundations.

Relativity is a foundation, and my question is less one of foundations but rather "origins".

Birds fall out of their nests all the time.

You are not relative enough.

Why should I be "relative enough" ?

So you are not a relativist?

I am Logik.

I don’t know what it means to be a “relativist”.

All ontological/metaphysical claims are bullshit.

[Eodnhoj7]

Am I projecting? You are the foundationalist. I wasn't looking over any cliffs - you brought the metaphor to the table.

Too bad you can't push a bird off a cliff.

I neither have nor need foundations.

Relativity is a foundation, and my question is less one of foundations but rather "origins".

Birds fall out of their nests all the time.




Why should I be "relative enough" ?

So you are not a relativist?

I am Logik.

I don’t know what it means to be a “relativist”.

All ontological/metaphysical claims are bullshit.

What a relativistic thing to say.

[Logik]

I am Logik.

I don’t know what it means to be a “relativist”.

All ontological/metaphysical claims are bullshit.

What a relativistic thing to say.

Is it?

How did you determine that?

[Eodnhoj7]

I am Logik.

I don’t know what it means to be a “relativist”.

All ontological/metaphysical claims are bullshit.

What a relativistic thing to say.

Is it?

How did you determine that?

Interpretation.