Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 25, 2021 1:10:59 GMT
There is assurance when we try to argue about things we don't know. We see something as properly, as fundamental, as a measure of our being, of our intelect perfecly represented as pure, as non-identical to what we search and to what we mean.
There is a fundamental flaw in the meaning of the word we can only imagine, as a Image-God of our presence, and the presentification of latencies.
In that representation, in that formality which we attain the hole of form in meaning, we attain the formality.
There is a meaning in significance, and a structural form in all assurances.
In that mean, we found the meaning of the words, the truth of the spoken truth and identity.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 25, 2021 10:59:53 GMT
But words are almost always prone to ambiguity. Which is why so many have said something like:
If your philosophy is not based on geometry, then all it can be is sophistry.
And I have to add the next painful truth: In this era, if your philosophy is not under-pinned by the rigor required to compile a fully functional algorithm, then at most, its just a lesson in the formalities of language.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 25, 2021 12:44:36 GMT
There is no truth beyond what is essential. And in essence lies true philosophy. His reasoning is ethical, but the object can be anything.
|
|