here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[FlashDangerpants]

A legitimate owner wouldn't want for themselves what someone else was already using unless there was a good reason they were More entitled. Being entitled to make that decision does not entitle someone to make it unethically as you suggest. Move along folks, just another straw man.

So if you have important philosophising to do but someone else has better philosophy trousers than you do, then you should take their trousers away because you are the 'legitimate' owner of the things that they bought.

Ideas are not trousers and The Truth belongs to everyone.

You seem to have very little legitimate ownership of anything. So far you own a universe but none of its contents. Perhaps you should just get a job and earn money so you can own something the usual way.

[Age]

"advocate" did you answer my questions?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673541 time=1697492324 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673523 time=1697489486 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673516 time=1697488119 user_id=11800]

So if you have important philosophising to do but someone else has better philosophy trousers than you do, then you should take their trousers away because you are the 'legitimate' owner of the things that they bought.
[/quote]

Ideas are not trousers and The Truth belongs to everyone.
[/quote]
You seem to have very little legitimate ownership of anything. So far you own a universe but none of its contents. Perhaps you should just get a job and earn money so you can own something the usual way.
[/quote]

OP was explicitly about legitimacy, not actual control.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=673544 time=1697492964 user_id=16237]
"advocate" did you answer my questions?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?
[/quote]

Your manner of speaking is fractured and way too general. It seems impossible to say anything in a way that gets anywhere with you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ideas are not trousers and The Truth belongs to everyone.

You seem to have very little legitimate ownership of anything. So far you own a universe but none of its contents. Perhaps you should just get a job and earn money so you can own something the usual way.

OP was explicitly about legitimacy, not actual control.

The OP was about how fucking awesome you think you are. That, along with your generalised sense of resentment because everyone recognises you as the grunting halfwit of a fucknut that you are, represent your only actual topics of conversation.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673560 time=1697497947 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673553 time=1697495835 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673541 time=1697492324 user_id=11800]

You seem to have very little legitimate ownership of anything. So far you own a universe but none of its contents. Perhaps you should just get a job and earn money so you can own something the usual way.
[/quote]

OP was explicitly about legitimacy, not actual control.
[/quote]
The OP was about how fucking awesome you think you are. That, along with your generalised sense of resentment because everyone recognises you as the grunting halfwit of a fucknut that you are, represent your only actual topics of conversation.
[/quote]

I still have the best philosophy that has ever existed. What do you have?

[FlashDangerpants]

OP was explicitly about legitimacy, not actual control.

The OP was about how fucking awesome you think you are. That, along with your generalised sense of resentment because everyone recognises you as the grunting halfwit of a fucknut that you are, represent your only actual topics of conversation.

I still have the best philosophy that has ever existed. What do you have?

Two things I have which you prominently lack are:
1. Competence in the field of philosophy.
2. Sufficient sanity to know that I am only competent.



You really should be in conversation with a mental health professional about this stuff. Hopefully you do all of your acting up on the internet because it offers some sort of release from the grind of the daily. But if your behaviour here is indicative of how you act IRL, your life must be horrible and the lives of everyone who has to put up with you must be miserable.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673567 time=1697502160 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673566 time=1697501146 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673560 time=1697497947 user_id=11800]

The OP was about how fucking awesome you think you are. That, along with your generalised sense of resentment because everyone recognises you as the grunting halfwit of a fucknut that you are, represent your only actual topics of conversation.
[/quote]

I still have the best philosophy that has ever existed. What do you have?
[/quote]
Two things I have which you prominently lack are:
1. Competence in the field of philosophy.
2. Sufficient sanity to know that I am only competent.



You really should be in conversation with a mental health professional about this stuff. Hopefully you do all of your acting up on the internet because it offers some sort of release from the grind of the daily. But if your behaviour here is indicative of how you act IRL, your life must be horrible and the lives of everyone who has to put up with you must be miserable.
[/quote]

Competence at Academic Philosophy is worth exactly as much as the paper it's printed on..

My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."

[Atla]

Well it goes further, all Western thinking and philosophy including yours is dualistic thinking based, which is an illegitimate assumption at the base.

That dualism is called ontology, the distinction between inner/metaphorical and outer/physical and it is central to any rational mode of thought.

That distinction is central to any rational mode of thought, but it's not ontology. Leads us to a quite different ontology. But there's also more to this, dualistic thinking is just a special case of the more general/fundamental nondual thinking in more than one way.
We are lead to a whole different underlying layer of philosophy. Now granted this insight isn't commonly reached, I think I only ever saw like 2 other guys on philosophy forums who had it well-integrated.
Overall it's still basic stuff imo, before we try to venture off into the la-la land of extradimensional philosophical speculations. But may not be necessary for an instrumentalist skeleton of philosophy as I noted earlier, as it doesn't have much implications for everyday life, everyday philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

Well it goes further, all Western thinking and philosophy including yours is dualistic thinking based, which is an illegitimate assumption at the base.

That dualism is called ontology, the distinction between inner/metaphorical and outer/physical and it is central to any rational mode of thought.

That distinction is central to any rational mode of thought, but it's not ontology. Leads us to a quite different ontology. But there's also more to this, dualistic thinking is just a special case of the more general/fundamental nondual thinking in more than one way.
We are lead to a whole different underlying layer of philosophy. Now granted this insight isn't commonly reached, I think I only ever saw like 2 other guys on philosophy forums who had it well-integrated.
Overall it's still basic stuff imo, before we try to venture off into the la-la land of extradimensional philosophical speculations. But may not be necessary for an instrumentalist skeleton of philosophy as I noted earlier, as it doesn't have much implications for everyday life, everyday philosophy.

Atla, I'm afraid your thinking here shows that you are not the rightful Chief Executive Officer of the Universe.

[Age]

"advocate" did you answer my questions?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Your manner of speaking is fractured and way too general.

If you REALLY can NOT UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you', "advocate", then if 'I' was 'you', then 'i' would CONSIDER just how 'best' 'your' CLAIM to be REALLY IS. Also, 'I' would do 'this' INSTEAD of the OBVIOUS ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION here.

'you' SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM some of the MOST OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'things' "advocate", in this forum, and FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to even just ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN the Wrongness of 'your CLAIMS' are POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

It seems impossible to say anything in a way that gets anywhere with you.

This is BECAUSE unlike 'you' 'I' AM ABLE to back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

What 'we' HAVE here is the 'self-recognized' and so-called "best philosopher" is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING some of the MOST SIMPLEST and BASIC of QUESTIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, if one is NOT ABLE TO ELABORATE ON nor CLARIFY 'its' OWN CLAIMS, the 'that INABILITY' in and of itself PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just how much of a USELESS human being that 'that one' REALLY is, let alone how UNWORTHY of ANY 'self-proclaimed' and 'self-awarded' "best philosopher award' that 'that one' has bestowed upon 'itself'.

The REALLY 'sad thing' here "advocate" is that what 'you' are ALLUDING TO, and wanting to GET AT, IS IRREFUTABLY True, which OBVIOUSLY NO one here could legitimately REJECT. However, 'you' CONTINUALLY FAIL here BECAUSE 'you' can NOT even define the words 'you' USE here.

I gave 'you' THE CHANCE to START, but 'you' could NOT even BEGIN.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=673592 time=1697524708 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673554 time=1697495901 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=673544 time=1697492964 user_id=16237]
"advocate" did you answer my questions?

If yes, then WHERE?

But if no, then WHY NOT?
[/quote]

Your manner of speaking is fractured and way too general.[/quote]

If you REALLY can NOT UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you', "advocate", then if 'I' was 'you', then 'i' would CONSIDER just how 'best' 'your' CLAIM to be REALLY IS. Also, 'I' would do 'this' INSTEAD of the OBVIOUS ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION here.

'you' SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM some of the MOST OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'things' "advocate", in this forum, and FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to even just ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN the Wrongness of 'your CLAIMS' are POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

[quote=Advocate post_id=673554 time=1697495901 user_id=15238]
It seems impossible to say anything in a way that gets anywhere with you.
[/quote]

This is BECAUSE unlike 'you' 'I' AM ABLE to back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

What 'we' HAVE here is the 'self-recognized' and so-called "best philosopher" is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING some of the MOST SIMPLEST and BASIC of QUESTIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, if one is NOT ABLE TO ELABORATE ON nor CLARIFY 'its' OWN CLAIMS, the 'that INABILITY' in and of itself PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just how much of a USELESS human being that 'that one' REALLY is, let alone how UNWORTHY of ANY 'self-proclaimed' and 'self-awarded' "best philosopher award' that 'that one' has bestowed upon 'itself'.
[/quote]

You're just wrong.

[Age]

Your manner of speaking is fractured and way too general.

If you REALLY can NOT UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you', "advocate", then if 'I' was 'you', then 'i' would CONSIDER just how 'best' 'your' CLAIM to be REALLY IS. Also, 'I' would do 'this' INSTEAD of the OBVIOUS ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION here.

'you' SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM some of the MOST OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'things' "advocate", in this forum, and FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to even just ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN the Wrongness of 'your CLAIMS' are POINTED OUT and SHOWN.

It seems impossible to say anything in a way that gets anywhere with you.

This is BECAUSE unlike 'you' 'I' AM ABLE to back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

What 'we' HAVE here is the 'self-recognized' and so-called "best philosopher" is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING some of the MOST SIMPLEST and BASIC of QUESTIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, if one is NOT ABLE TO ELABORATE ON nor CLARIFY 'its' OWN CLAIMS, the 'that INABILITY' in and of itself PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just how much of a USELESS human being that 'that one' REALLY is, let alone how UNWORTHY of ANY 'self-proclaimed' and 'self-awarded' "best philosopher award' that 'that one' has bestowed upon 'itself'.

You're just wrong.

LOL ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

I ASKED you some QUESTIONS, you FAILED to ANSWER those QUESTIONS. So, WHERE and WHEN could I be, supposedly, WRONG ABOUT 'this'?

[FlashDangerpants]

I still have the best philosophy that has ever existed. What do you have?

Two things I have which you prominently lack are:
1. Competence in the field of philosophy.
2. Sufficient sanity to know that I am only competent.



You really should be in conversation with a mental health professional about this stuff. Hopefully you do all of your acting up on the internet because it offers some sort of release from the grind of the daily. But if your behaviour here is indicative of how you act IRL, your life must be horrible and the lives of everyone who has to put up with you must be miserable.

Competence at Academic Philosophy is worth exactly as much as the paper it's printed on..

My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."

I see now. You are the king of philosophy-proper and that makes you the owner-proper of universe-proper.

[Iwannaplato]

My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."

First, your OP is a very incomplete argument. It is primarily a batch of assertions. Then, any number of people have pointed out that you don't even meet your own idiosyncratic criteria for ownership. Your being the best philosopher has not been remotely demonstrated and the majority of your philosophizings is starting thread with pithy OPs that are assertions. That is, opinions. You expect people to refute what you haven't justified. Though they often do spent the time to do this, anyway. You're contradictions around ownership have been pointed out. You own thing/people that others own.

You seem to think that the best philosopher is someone, you, who hasn't convinced anyone of anything, who confuses assertions with arguments, who draws conclusions on very limited information - I mean, if you could be the best philosopher in the world and no one knows about your or respects your conclusions, then there could be any number of people like you who you haven't heard of - who is one of the many declaring victory and greatness types.

If you have to keep telling people you are the best, you aren't,