• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

JoeMorgue said:
Of course you do. Because you're the wise old philosopher talking down to the naive little 'ole student, benovolently sharing your wisdom with someone unenlightened who needs to open their third eye and ask themselves "Why do we call them Apple Jacks if they don't taste like apples?"
Click to expand...

There’s no talking down to you up there, Joe.
 
RedStapler

What I don't understand is this :

I asked you :

I have read it, what is it that I did not understand from what you said?
Click to expand...

Your reply

You have simply repeated your claims. I don't think it's worthwhile discussing this with you. As I said: It's your problem, not anyone else's.
Click to expand...


I fail to understand why are you still addressing my replies to others. If you think it isn't worthwhile ?
 
MohamedTaqi said:
That field is called : Metalogic

Just like Metaphysics is about what is beyond physics, Metalogic is of what is beyond logic....etc.
Click to expand...

You owe me 20 dollars. In metaeconomics.

I'm going to report you to the Mods for breaching the meta-user agreement.

I can deadlift more than Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson in meta-weightlifting.

You can't just put the word "meta" in front of something so it doesn't have to make sense. You're not an episode of Rick and Morty.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Agains "It's all valid just because that's what philospohers do" is a bad argument. Although I'm sure that type of bad argument is a "valid philosophy" as well.

So here's a question I won't get an answer to. What can philosophy not do? What restrictions or structure or guidelines or guidences does it have to follow?
Click to expand...
Well none, obviously, but so what?

Pretty much the same goes for science. But the useful bits get picked from the noise.

Philosophy has a lot more noise than science (some which are, as far as I can tell, actual gibberish), but then that is the nature of it. That doesn't mean there aren't useful parts.

Because right now this is just a bunch of people playing Calvinball because they started losing at Poker.
Click to expand...
Don't be so hard on yourself Joe.
 
RedStapler said:
Nope. Why should I?
Click to expand...

Then you should simply stick to your previous point that discussing these matters with me isn't worthwhile, and we are good friends. :D

RedStapler said:
Hence the "start" for a begging the question.

How about you tell me directly what you think?

Throwing 3 names in front of my feet? Like "Here, 3 names, now you go and figure out what I wanted to say. It's a good exercise for you non-philosophisizing pleb"

Stop your "I have read philosophy books therefore everything I say has to be considered thoughtful and wise"

We already have a David Mo for that. :D
Click to expand...


In no comment or reply in this thread did I claim to be wise. That is dishonest of you.

And I highly recommend to write a valid formal argument , and see where it leads, just to get your point, because you don't seem to have a point, if I am not mistaken.
 
Okay so we need meta-logic to explain logic.

When we figure out meta-logic do have to make up a new, lower epistimology to explain it?

Answer, yes apparently it's called patalogic, a branch of pataphysics.

Where does it end? Wouldn't we then have to make up something to explain pataphysics? And then something to explain the thing that explained pataphysics? Turtles all the way down or just until we get to God?

What is the goddamn point of all this? I mean I know what the point is, but I want to hear our philosophers explain to me what they are willing to admit the point is.
 
MohamedTaqi said:
In no comment or reply in this thread did I claim to be wise. That is dishonest of you.

And I highly recommend to write a valid formal argument , and see where it leads, just to get your point, because you don't seem to have a point, if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Really? Bickering about an obvious exaggeration and ignoring everying else?

I am not sure right now if you are destined to be a great philosopher or if you suck heavily at it.:confused:

MohamedTaqi said:
And I highly recommend to write a valid formal argument , and see where it leads, just to get your point, because you don't seem to have a point, if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...

No, it's you who has no point.:rolleyes: Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
These are indeed good questions.

How many of them have philosophers found the answers to in the thousands of years they have been 'probing' them, and what were those answers?
Click to expand...

Sideroxylon said:
None
Click to expand...
Thanks. That was my impression.

So what exactly is the point of it, then, if it never actually achieves anything? Is it just a hobby, a way to while away the time when you've reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? A form of intellectual exercise, the mental equivalent of doing pushups? A way to fool yourself into thinking you have good reasons for doing the things you want to do? An excuse to argue with people on the internet when you're bored because you can't go out?
 
Really? Bickering about an obvious exaggeration and ignoring everying else?

I am not sure right now if you are destined to be a great philosopher or if you suck heavily at it
Click to expand...

It is not worthwhile to enter in a discussion with me, you said it yourself.
 
Okay so we need meta-logic to explain logic.

When we figure out meta-logic do have to make up a new, lower epistimology to explain it?

Answer, yes apparently it's called patalogic, a branch of pataphysics.

Where does it end? Wouldn't we then have to make up something to explain pataphysics? And then something to explain the thing that explained pataphysics? Turtles all the way down or just until we get to God?

What is the goddamn point of all this? I mean I know what the point is, but I want to hear our philosophers explain to me what they are willing to admit the point is.
Click to expand...


All I said is that there is something called "meta-logic" in philosophy, check it out.
 
Pixel42 said:
Thanks. That was my impression.

So what exactly is the point of it, then, if it never actually achieves anything? Is it just a hobby, a way to while away the time when you've reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? A form of intellectual exercise, the mental equivalent of doing pushups? A way to fool yourself into thinking you have good reasons for doing the things you want to do? An excuse to argue with people on the internet when you're bored because you can't go out?
Click to expand...

The point is you can always reject an answer you don't want to hear by pretending the question hasn't been answered yet.

"The discussion is still going, therefore I haven't been proven wrong yet."
 
MohamedTaqi said:
It is not worthwhile to enter in a discussion with me, you said it yourself.
Click to expand...

MohamedTaqi said:
In no comment or reply in this thread did I claim to be wise. That is dishonest of you.
Click to expand...

Above is the quote I was answering to. At least quote the stuff you want to refer to. :rolleyes:

But oh well, yes, I have said multiple times that it is totally worthless to engage your childish ramblings. You deliver proof with every post you make.
 
Last edited:
MohamedTaqi said:
Philosophy does not allow for self-contradiction. Philosophers revise their claims when they detect a contradiction or formal / informal fallacy.
Click to expand...

Says who? Who's making these rules? Why isn't "Contraditionaration" just another valid philosophy?

Here. Prove to me, without using non-contraditions because things can't prove themselves, that contraditions can't happen.

You're gonna hem and haw and go "That's different" but you won't' be able to explain why.

Glib, fake friendliness is not an answer.
 
Pixel42 said:
Thanks. That was my impression.

So what exactly is the point of it, then, if it never actually achieves anything? Is it just a hobby, a way to while away the time when you've reached the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? A form of intellectual exercise, the mental equivalent of doing pushups? A way to fool yourself into thinking you have good reasons for doing the things you want to do? An excuse to argue with people on the internet when you're bored because you can't go out?
Click to expand...

Is that part of the reason philosophy took hold among the Ancient Greeks? What did they achieve?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Says who? Who's making these rules? Why isn't "Contraditionaration" just another valid philosophy?
Click to expand...
Doesn't the boundary of any discipline come down to "the opinion of the majority of the establishment within the discipline". There are endless books trying to define the boundary of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom