|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 11, 2022 10:39:43 GMT
Philosophers don't only use those useless words as reality, the truth, really real, the absoluteness, the unlimately, the forms, the ideas, the concepts, sense, the primal cause, the perpetual mobile, to exist, the meaning, etc, they also care about those words and like to sweep those devalued words in a delicately tender way. They like their routine.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 13, 2022 22:09:04 GMT
Philosophers don't only use those useless words as reality, the truth, really real, the absoluteness, the unlimately, the forms, the ideas, the concepts, sense, the primal cause, the perpetual mobile, to exist, the meaning, etc, they also care about those words and like to sweep those devalued words in a delicately tender way. They like their routine. To devalue words using words is to paradoxically put a value on words. Dually to compare philosophers to janitors means philosophy cleans up all of science's shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 14, 2022 5:09:18 GMT
Philosophers don't only use those useless words as reality, the truth, really real, the absoluteness, the unlimately, the forms, the ideas, the concepts, sense, the primal cause, the perpetual mobile, to exist, the meaning, etc, they also care about those words and like to sweep those devalued words in a delicately tender way. They like their routine. To devalue words using words is to paradoxically put a value on words. Dually to compare philosophers to janitors means philosophy cleans up all of science's shit. Tries to clean up, but while doing it, it is where it is now (and will always be) - in sh*t. Actually, I could not type at all. You can read the text as you wish. If there's no math, there's nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 15, 2022 23:24:57 GMT
To devalue words using words is to paradoxically put a value on words. Dually to compare philosophers to janitors means philosophy cleans up all of science's shit. Tries to clean up, but while doing it, it is where it is now (and will always be) - in sh*t. Actually, I could not type at all. You can read the text as you wish. If there's no math, there's nothing. [br. Yet you made a statement without math. In arguing for math you are using resources which exist beyond math. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 16, 2022 14:42:49 GMT
Tries to clean up, but while doing it, it is where it is now (and will always be) - in sh*t. Actually, I could not type at all. You can read the text as you wish. If there's no math, there's nothing. [br. Yet you made a statement without math. In arguing for math you are using resources which exist beyond math. who said I said something? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 16, 2022 23:14:04 GMT
[br. Yet you made a statement without math. In arguing for math you are using resources which exist beyond math. who said I said something? The op did...... |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 17, 2022 7:27:25 GMT
who said I said something? The op did...... It's you who see those symbols. I can't say what you see is exactly what I wanted to do. And even if I did something it doesn't require that I did exactly what I wanted to do. That's why you don't see that it was me or that was my op. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 19, 2022 0:15:15 GMT
It's you who see those symbols. I can't say what you see is exactly what I wanted to do. And even if I did something it doesn't require that I did exactly what I wanted to do. That's why you don't see that it was me or that was my op. Yet what you wrote was seen, if it is seen it exists. Your ambiguity is your own fault as you wrote the words with the intent to transmit meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 21, 2022 17:23:46 GMT
It's you who see those symbols. I can't say what you see is exactly what I wanted to do. And even if I did something it doesn't require that I did exactly what I wanted to do. That's why you don't see that it was me or that was my op. Yet what you wrote was seen, if it is seen it exists. Your ambiguity is your own fault as you wrote the words with the intent to transmit meaning. You're appealing it to some "unwritten rules". No, it doesn't mean what I've written is exactly what I've written. You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 21, 2022 23:55:47 GMT
Yet what you wrote was seen, if it is seen it exists. Your ambiguity is your own fault as you wrote the words with the intent to transmit meaning. You're appealing it to some "unwritten rules". No, it doesn't mean what I've written is exactly what I've written. You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law. If what you written doesn't mean what you written then you are agreeing with my law of non contradiction stance, thus your arguments are bunk. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 22, 2022 7:16:49 GMT
You're appealing it to some "unwritten rules". No, it doesn't mean what I've written is exactly what I've written. You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law. If what you written doesn't mean what you written then you are agreeing with my law of non contradiction stance, thus your arguments are bunk. Telling "You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law" doesn't imply: a) it is exactly as you understand it; b) falsery of my own statement contradict to each other: (false → false) → true; c) by "you" I might refer to someone else, and that another "you" might have got his own law... Anyway, you understanding of the law cannot be confirm by my comment, and you know it better, than me. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 23, 2022 23:16:47 GMT
If what you written doesn't mean what you written then you are agreeing with my law of non contradiction stance, thus your arguments are bunk. Telling "You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law" doesn't imply: a) it is exactly as you understand it; b) falsery of my own statement contradict to each other: (false → false) → true; c) by "you" I might refer to someone else, and that another "you" might have got his own law... Anyway, you understanding of the law cannot be confirm by my comment, and you know it better, than me. If your meaning of words does not mean anything to others, and all words must convey meaning to others, then P=-P as that is the format of your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 8:20:01 GMT
Telling "You said it yourself in your previous posts about the non-contradiction law" doesn't imply: a) it is exactly as you understand it; b) falsery of my own statement contradict to each other: (false → false) → true; c) by "you" I might refer to someone else, and that another "you" might have got his own law... Anyway, you understanding of the law cannot be confirm by my comment, and you know it better, than me. If your meaning of words does not mean anything to others, and all words must convey meaning to others, then P=-P as that is the format of your argument. §∆_ What have I said by this? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 24, 2022 23:16:18 GMT
If your meaning of words does not mean anything to others, and all words must convey meaning to others, then P=-P as that is the format of your argument. §∆_ What have I said by this? The symbols point to itself (the set), it means itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 25, 2022 20:36:40 GMT
§∆_ What have I said by this? The symbols point to itself (the set), it means itself. No |
|
