|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 9, 2021 23:42:26 GMT
If all is One then all is connected, this means even the most obscure phenomenon are connect to further obscure phenomenon. Under these terms a form of universal equivocation occurs.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 20, 2021 20:03:31 GMT
No. Two things connected are not one. Because the sentence begins with "two things". And connection between things requires some similarity between then. A and B must have properties that allow connection. The connection becomes a third thing in its own right. A connection MAY unite two things completely if its broad enough but in most cases A and B only share a small part of their properties. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 20, 2021 20:11:53 GMT
I already proved to you that your philosophy came from a eastern cereal box And if that wasn't good enough for you then you will have to gets get over that one because im not going to play name that thing with you and go over different philosophy views just to chase chickens for you. And do you know what the deffinition of necessitate is? Because you use that word so ignorantly that im guessing you have mistook it for another word. "and western Christian and neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union)." "Western Neo-Platonism is an essential element of both Christian contemplation and mysticism, and of Western esotericism and modern spirituality, especially Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, Universalism and Perennialis<<<" It has roots in western philosophy as well thus all philosophies. You are wrong again. But you ignored my question: which philosophy says all things are the repetition of a common source? Which philosophy is "repetition" rooted in? "Necessitates" is that which must be. You have yet to prove me wrong. You keep asking me that to waste my time I already showed you how your entire philosophy is a molested piggyback version of an Eastern philosophy and you're just using anything's possible to avoid the conversation and keep directing it back to me and for pointless things at that. I can clearly see you're not open to changing your philosophy and you're just grabbing at straws right now so I will end the conversation here because i can't see anything productive coming out of this.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 21, 2021 1:45:27 GMT
No. Two things connected are not one. Because the sentence begins with "two things". And connection between things requires some similarity between then. A and B must have properties that allow connection. The connection becomes a third thing in its own right. A connection MAY unite two things completely if its broad enough but in most cases A and B only share a small part of their properties. Connection is unity, for two or more things to be connected is for the many to act as one. The similarities which allow for connection observe the multiple things to act as one through these similarities. To say the connection is a third phenomenon is to make it as distinctly seperate from the two phenomena. This causes a contradiction as a connection cannot be seperate from a phenomenon for it is part of the phenomena. Similarities allow for unity. For A and B to share even a small amount of properties is to allow for A and B to effect eachother thus act as one. What defines whether the similarities are broad enough other than subjective opinion? One thing to effect another is to show a relationship between the two or more as one.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 21, 2021 1:47:21 GMT
"and western Christian and neo-Platonic traditions (henosis, mystical union)." "Western Neo-Platonism is an essential element of both Christian contemplation and mysticism, and of Western esotericism and modern spirituality, especially Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, Universalism and Perennialis<<<" It has roots in western philosophy as well thus all philosophies. You are wrong again. But you ignored my question: which philosophy says all things are the repetition of a common source? Which philosophy is "repetition" rooted in? "Necessitates" is that which must be. You have yet to prove me wrong. You keep asking me that to waste my time I already showed you how your entire philosophy is a molested piggyback version of an Eastern philosophy and you're just using anything's possible to avoid the conversation and keep directing it back to me and for pointless things at that. I can clearly see you're not open to changing your philosophy and you're just grabbing at straws right now so I will end the conversation here because i can't see anything productive coming out of this. You are just backing out as you have no recourse and cannot answer my question. The question of changing philosophies is a projection on your part. You claim eastern philosophy yet your sources show western philosophy as well. It is a combination of eastern and western philosophy and moves beyond it as it is not limited to either source. You have yet to point out where "repetition" is grounded in these philosophies and to provide an adequate argument where all things are grounded in multiplicity.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 23, 2021 11:18:09 GMT
I think the issue is that you want to play semantics but that's not true philosophy it's definitely modern-day philosophy though which modern-day philosophy is a bunch of middle-aged white guys with master's degrees circle jerking trying to memorize as much literature as possible from philosophers of the past
As opposed to philosophers from back in the day that Actually went out to Discover Life for themselves and building true wisdom so then when they speak they speak from personal experience and not semantics and what they read.
This can be seen in your methods communicating where in you post sporadically multiple times childishly and in a weird Alice in Wonderland rhyming game format to attempt make your questions or statements cement eligible and difficult to answer when is all you did was write the lyrics to A pseudo Eminem/ Machine Gun Kelly song
As opposed to a mature person which would post the question in a easy to understand manner so that the question could hopefully be answered but instead you do this childish repeating the same word to death until the person reading it has their eyes cross.
So I don't care 2 play the "witch philosophy did x" as you continually avoid proving any of your fallacious Cracker Jack box Eastern New Age philosophical Concepts
But you have yet the ground any of them in reality other than with a nice fluffy phrase The only thing you have done is pile up a very large amount of data that leans towards a mild case of schizophrenia do to your inability to ground any of your statements in physical reality but without seeing you in person a proper psychological evaluation can't really be done and at this point is just speculation.
So like I said because you can't ground and prove any of your statements whatsoever then there is no point in me continuing this conversation with you because it's pointless you have shown a slight case of insanity as you hold tight to your fluffy Concepts that mean nothing fundamentally and I will move on to other conversations with adults and actually have a productive conversation that doesn't involve using the same word 50 times in one post.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 23, 2021 11:46:25 GMT
I think the issue is that you want to play semantics but that's not true philosophy it's definitely modern-day philosophy though which modern-day philosophy is a bunch of middle-aged white guys with master's degrees circle jerking trying to memorize as much literature as possible from philosophers of the past As opposed to philosophers from back in the day that Actually went out to Discover Life for themselves and building true wisdom so then when they speak they speak from personal experience and not semantics and what they read. This can be seen in your methods communicating where in you post sporadically multiple times childishly and in a weird Alice in Wonderland rhyming game format to attempt make your questions or statements cement eligible and difficult to answer when is all you did was write the lyrics to A pseudo Eminem/ Machine Gun Kelly song As opposed to a mature person which would post the question in a easy to understand manner so that the question could hopefully be answered but instead you do this childish repeating the same word to death until the person reading it has their eyes cross. So I don't care 2 play the "witch philosophy did x" as you continually avoid proving any of your fallacious Cracker Jack box Eastern New Age philosophical Concepts But you have yet the ground any of them in reality other than with a nice fluffy phrase The only thing you have done is pile up a very large amount of data that leans towards a mild case of schizophrenia do to your inability to ground any of your statements in physical reality but without seeing you in person a proper psychological evaluation can't really be done and at this point is just speculation. So like I said because you can't ground and prove any of your statements whatsoever then there is no point in me continuing this conversation with you because it's pointless you have shown a slight case of insanity as you hold tight to your fluffy Concepts that mean nothing fundamentally and I will move on to other conversations with adults and actually have a productive conversation that doesn't involve using the same word 50 times in one post. I love your comment! It is perfect. But I must admit at the same time that it would be better if the participants get along with each other. I don't insist on someone's right or wrong, or on what the both are wrong. No, it's just I'd say it happens when for some reason people become angry, sad, happy, a little crazy, or completely apathy, and because of these things they might be deaf to someone's calls or pleas. What I want to say is that both of you are decent and very intelligent persons. Each of you've got many strong and impressive arguments. And that's why wherever who's right or who's wrong – there's no nicer than to know there are keenest and brightest mindset! I know now I sound like an average peacefulmaker, however from my life I've learned that sometimes just be kind and merciful to someone is possible to wake his better sides of the soul up.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 24, 2021 7:40:29 GMT
I think the issue is that you want to play semantics but that's not true philosophy it's definitely modern-day philosophy though which modern-day philosophy is a bunch of middle-aged white guys with master's degrees circle jerking trying to memorize as much literature as possible from philosophers of the past As opposed to philosophers from back in the day that Actually went out to Discover Life for themselves and building true wisdom so then when they speak they speak from personal experience and not semantics and what they read. This can be seen in your methods communicating where in you post sporadically multiple times childishly and in a weird Alice in Wonderland rhyming game format to attempt make your questions or statements cement eligible and difficult to answer when is all you did was write the lyrics to A pseudo Eminem/ Machine Gun Kelly song As opposed to a mature person which would post the question in a easy to understand manner so that the question could hopefully be answered but instead you do this childish repeating the same word to death until the person reading it has their eyes cross. So I don't care 2 play the "witch philosophy did x" as you continually avoid proving any of your fallacious Cracker Jack box Eastern New Age philosophical Concepts But you have yet the ground any of them in reality other than with a nice fluffy phrase The only thing you have done is pile up a very large amount of data that leans towards a mild case of schizophrenia do to your inability to ground any of your statements in physical reality but without seeing you in person a proper psychological evaluation can't really be done and at this point is just speculation. So like I said because you can't ground and prove any of your statements whatsoever then there is no point in me continuing this conversation with you because it's pointless you have shown a slight case of insanity as you hold tight to your fluffy Concepts that mean nothing fundamentally and I will move on to other conversations with adults and actually have a productive conversation that doesn't involve using the same word 50 times in one post. I love your comment! It is perfect. But I must admit at the same time that it would be better if the participants get along with each other. I don't insist on someone's right or wrong, or on what the both are wrong. No, it's just I'd say it happens when for some reason people become angry, sad, happy, a little crazy, or completely apathy, and because of these things they might be deaf to someone's calls or pleas. What I want to say is that both of you are decent and very intelligent persons. Each of you've got many strong and impressive arguments. And that's why wherever who's right or who's wrong – there's no nicer than to know there are keenest and brightest mindset! I know now I sound like an average peacefulmaker, however from my life I've learned that sometimes just be kind and merciful to someone is possible to wake his better sides of the soul up. Neither one of us is "right" objectively because at the end of the day all that really matters is what you personally believe to be true and there's not a person alive that has an opinion that is more valid and should supersede your own opinion in your own personal life and vice versa . Hints why i wanted to drop the conversation because there's nothing to gain or lose . But bravo for Walking the Tightrope of neutrality so well
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2021 0:39:29 GMT
I think the issue is that you want to play semantics but that's not true philosophy it's definitely modern-day philosophy though which modern-day philosophy is a bunch of middle-aged white guys with master's degrees circle jerking trying to memorize as much literature as possible from philosophers of the past As opposed to philosophers from back in the day that Actually went out to Discover Life for themselves and building true wisdom so then when they speak they speak from personal experience and not semantics and what they read. This can be seen in your methods communicating where in you post sporadically multiple times childishly and in a weird Alice in Wonderland rhyming game format to attempt make your questions or statements cement eligible and difficult to answer when is all you did was write the lyrics to A pseudo Eminem/ Machine Gun Kelly song As opposed to a mature person which would post the question in a easy to understand manner so that the question could hopefully be answered but instead you do this childish repeating the same word to death until the person reading it has their eyes cross. So I don't care 2 play the "witch philosophy did x" as you continually avoid proving any of your fallacious Cracker Jack box Eastern New Age philosophical Concepts But you have yet the ground any of them in reality other than with a nice fluffy phrase The only thing you have done is pile up a very large amount of data that leans towards a mild case of schizophrenia do to your inability to ground any of your statements in physical reality but without seeing you in person a proper psychological evaluation can't really be done and at this point is just speculation. So like I said because you can't ground and prove any of your statements whatsoever then there is no point in me continuing this conversation with you because it's pointless you have shown a slight case of insanity as you hold tight to your fluffy Concepts that mean nothing fundamentally and I will move on to other conversations with adults and actually have a productive conversation that doesn't involve using the same word 50 times in one post. You reducing things to ad hominums only proves where you cannot continue the conversation. The unity of everything cannot be proven given proof would be a subset of everything thus showing a distinction between proof and everything else. This distinction would be an absence of unity. Dually the burden of proof lies on you that everything is multiplicity. This causes a contradiction given if proof for multiplicity is existent then everything is unified under one term. Your quest for proof, where proof is evidence and evidence is interpretation, is strictly subjective. No objective proof can be given without it be reduced to subjective interpretation thereby reducing this argument to strictly whether or not you are convinced. But given your opinionated stance, and it is opinionated, you are strictly stuck in your own perspective. Everything in language is reducible to semantics. If language describes reality then any semantics which results is a description of reality as well. Truth is reducible to semantics.
|
|