Re: metaphysics is...
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:13 pm
It's spontaneous. It does not require prior experience.
Have you not already understood that there is no clarity to be found in any answers?
Answers lead to more questions.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
It's spontaneous. It does not require prior experience.
Have you not already understood that there is no clarity to be found in any answers?
Are you 100% ABSOLUTELY SURE of this?
LOL I have ALREADY found that LOTS OF CLARITY is obtained in, and from, Truthful answers.
And questions lead to more answers. But so what?
How would I know if I wasn't?
I learned it.
From society.
No, I am not, but people who believe in "syhtnesis" believe they are.
I have total clarity on my lack of clarity.
I don't obtain any clarity. I don't even pursue it.
Why do you ask?
I do NOT care.
And did you learn 'it' from prior experience or just spontaneously from NOTHING?
And was that from prior experience of society?
Okay.
The self-contradiction does NOT need to highlighted anymore here.
This was EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.
Because you seemed to be making a Truly useless point before.
I don't care either, but you asked. Not me.
No, I won't answer. Because I don't know what you want to know.
Have you ever learned anything from nothing?
Is there any other kind?
It's not a self-contradiction. It's a self-affirmation.
Then why did you ask the question?
So what?
But that was not what I do NOT care about. I did NOT ask in relation to what I do NOT care about.
I will tell you what it is that I want to KNOW. I want to KNOW your Honest answers to my clarifying questions posed to you.
So, just like 'I', 'you', and EVERY other human being, we gain our ideas, synthesize, from prior experience, which even 'you', "skepdick" now appear to AGREE with.
Is there any other kind?[/quote]
And, a VERY SELF-CONTRADICTORY self-affirmation one as well.
To make SURE that you PROVIDED the ACTUAL PROOF all by "yourself".
So, that it became HIGHLIGHTED and MORE OBVIOUS that you made a useless point. Which it is NOW.
The honest answer to your clarifying question was "I don't know what you want to know".
I can't give you any answers to questions you don't understand.
So you haven't learned ANYTHING from NOTHING?
When it's fully understood you, Age, will stop asking clarifying questions.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:11 pm And, when this is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then 'you', human beings, will STOP being prejudiced, and thus STOP ridiculing and humiliating each "other", and then 'you' will be heading closer to START living in a Truly 'peaceful world'. (But this is off topic, in a sense).
I asked because I couldn't.
Self-contradiction is impossible. In principle or in practice.
Considering you are still asking the question, no wonder you don't understand.
Why do you need me to provide proof for the obvious?
Why do you feel the need to highlight the obvious?
Nothing and everything.
I provided you with this KNOWLEDGE in my next response in that post.
WHY did you just not say this last time?
You can give ANY thing you like my questions.
Is it even POSSIBLE to learn some 'thing' from NO 'thing'?
Yes when 'it' is fully understood by 'you', human beings, more than likely will I will stop asking 'you' (as many) clarifying questions regarding 'it'.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:19 pmWhen it's fully understood you, Age, will stop asking clarifying questions.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:11 pm And, when this is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then 'you', human beings, will STOP being prejudiced, and thus STOP ridiculing and humiliating each "other", and then 'you' will be heading closer to START living in a Truly 'peaceful world'. (But this is off topic, in a sense).
Well telling people ANY thing other than what they BELIEVE is true, right, and/or correct, I have found, is a completely useless and worthless task, so I am trying something else.
So, do you AGREE that you synthesize ALL of your ideas from your past experiences of society?
If 'you' BELIEVE that this is ABSOLUTELY True, then 'you' could NEVER contradict "your" OWN 'self', correct?
But I am OBVIOUSLY NOT "still asking 'the' question" here in what YOU quoted here, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN.
So, that I do NOT accused of leading/directing ANY thing, including subjects, here.
Probably the same reason you felt the need to highlight the obvious?
Now this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of a human brain SHOWING its True ABILITY.
You didn't You provided the information you thought I need, not the information I actually need.
I did. I used different words to say the same things.
It's tedious correcting all your misconceptions.
And I asked "How would I know if I wasn't?"
The reason is obvious in the very question.
They are probably also wondering why you don't know the difference between me and you.
Sure. Anything, but answers.
Are you 100% absolutely sure that you are asking me this question?
I don't know.
Then stop asking me questions.
Spare me your beliefs, tell me what you want.
How do I get you to see that we see it?
I didn't synthesise ANY ideas. If it requires past experience it's not synthesis.
Despite all your "clarifying" questions you keep arriving at the wrong conclusions.
Why are you asking me this question when I already told you the answer?
Obviously.
It's just a word. I am more than any words.
Contradictions do not exist.
Nobody is accusing you of anything.
We know how it works.
How would you even assert the probability of our reasons being the same, and then continue to ask me for my reasons?
Change is happening whether it's needed or not.
But I DID inform you of what I WANT TO KNOW.
How EXACTLY is asking me; "How would I know if I wasn't?" the same thing as informing me, "Your question was incoherent"?
It's tedious correcting all your misconceptions.[/quote]
And I asked "How would I know if I wasn't?"[/quote]
The reason is obvious in the very question.
If this is what 'you' think, then will you inform "them" of WHY 'you' ASSUME that they are wondering WHY 'I', supposedly, do NOT know the difference between 'me' and 'you'?
But;
Yes, if there is a 'me' responding. The question to 'you' is also HERE for ALL to SEE.
Your response OBVIOUSLY does NOT 'logically' follow from what I ACTUALLY said.
What do you propose here are my "beliefs"?
By PROVING 'it'.
So, 'you' do NOT synthesize ANY ideas, correct?
Will you give examples?
LOL Your REFUSAL to answers says MORE about 'you' than 'me'.
We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
So, to 'you', the one known as "skepdick" here, the term, " "your" 'self' ", could NEVER be self-contradictory nor a contradiction of terms, correct?
You completely MISSED the point, AGAIN.
'Who' knows how 'it' works? And what is 'it'?
To see if it was the same, or NOT.
VERY, VERY True. Thank you for HIGHLIGHTING the MISTAKE I MADE.
You can't even recognise that what we are engaging is Metaphysics?