Nnno, I still didn't respond to anything you said about trolling and I'm not going to.
And no, that's not what you were saying, and no, please don't equate your inability to respond to any of my arguments with my failure to provide any, a quick scan of this topic shows that that's not the case.
Anyway, bed time for me. Got my maths A level at 9.
lol, there's an exception to every rule I supposeQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Philosophy is useless if there is no concrete way to apply it to the world around you.
I have an exercize for all of you to do.
1) Take a blank piece of paper.
2) Write the words "This paper is here" in the middle of the paper.
3) Move the paper about your room in various ways and postures until the statement on the paper becomes false.
4) Don't give up! There is a way to do this.
I admit I haven't explained very well but I know what I mean.
These conditions could apply to science, mathematics, religion and any other subject you can name under the sun. They exist because they do produce results in a concrete way when they are applied. With philosophy the entire point is to improve your mind. Thoughts of someones mind may not be concrete in the world around them but in the end it's the only thing that will produce results, the way it functions.Quote:
Philosophy is useless if there is no concrete way to apply it to the world around you.
If you write here is the bit of paper and move it around and try to point out that it is a false statement. You aren't necessarily going to prove the statement wrong by that kind of foolishness. The only way is to use a more sophisticated understanding of philosophy. The result is that you have a more broad overview of the possibilities within that situation. This gives you a way in which to solve problems you may not have considered possible by applying the solutions either in an esoteric or more concrete way.
Next you're probably going to ask me how to do it. I'll save us the trouble of that much. Where the ink doesn't meet the paper. That's not where the ink is so the paper wouldn't be where the ink is. So the statement is false.
Next you're probably going to say but where the ink is, that's where the paper is. You'd have to cover the entire paper in ink. Otherwise the paper is slightly not where the ink is so it's still wrong. If you covered the entire paper in ink, you could no longer have the message written. That's the most obvious way to prove it wrong if that's the goal. The other obvious way to do it is add to the end of the message. 'On the moon'. So the message becomes 'the paper is here on the moon'. That would make it false. This is demonstrating both the concrete way and the more esoteric way. Both are valid and have their uses. But not everything that can be seen as concrete counts and not everything that cannot be seen can be counted. That reminds me of someones signature on this forum I forget who it was.
If the rules are that you can only move the paper around in varies ways. The only thing to do is tear it up so the paper becomes in two different places. Then stating that the message is only on one half of the paper and does not include the other half. This uses the concrete actions and esoteric approaches of philosophy in the mind at once to disprove the statement.
The philosophy is
The thread has moved from it to it's proclaimed owner
Who said to use ink? Who said that the statement applied to any part of the paper that the message wasn't written on? You obviously didn't do the exercize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
That's a totally unbalanced and spiteful thoughtless response considering everything I wrote about it. It doesn't matter if you use ink or not that's not the point of what I said. I made it more precise by pointing out all the paper itself is not where all the ink is. So it goes without saying the statement is false in that way. You can add that it does not apply to the paper where it's not written. But you didn't say that in the first place did you.Quote:
Who said to use ink? Who said that the statement applied to any part of the paper that the message wasn't written on? You obviously didn't do the exercize.
It's obvious the message refers to the paper. I did the exercise in more than one way. You are just upset because I solved it in a way you did not anticipate. And so now you want to make up new rules to counter the solution. That's ok because I can keep beating you anyway.
You did nothing to disprove me, and I didn't change any 'rules'. If you rip the paper in half and the words are written on only one half, they no longer apply to the other half. Its pretty simple. If they are no longer the same single piece of paper, then the statement "this paper is here" will not apply to any other pieces of paper. Keep trying though.
I ate the paper.
lol Xei
That's you making up new rules about it. What I said is still true. At the time you wrote the message the paper it was only 1 piece and referred to that paper. That paper does not change identity it remains the same paper the message is referring to. If you rip it in half it must be where both pieces are since the message is 'the paper is here'. Yet if it's only written on one piece and not the other it becomes a false statement about the paper which is now in a different place to the message.Quote:
If you rip the paper in half and the words are written on only one half, they no longer apply to the other half.
But this is becoming boring. I'd rather go into something more significant and less petty.
Fold the paper into an arrow?
I tend to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Beautiful answerQuote:
Fold the paper into an arrow?
Minervas Phoenix, is your philosophy basically saying there is no beginning or end?
Oh god how do I explain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Nice one Xei, you actually got a straight, honest answer :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba
That was.. a music video. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Are you referring to the common philosophy, that all is the same? All is made of energy and what makes things look different is an illusion?Quote:
I know it may be very difficult for you to think outside of your box. Try and realize that I don't disagree with the fact that is a brick. I know it's a brick.
Can we start with I know that is a brick? Now to the next embarrassingly obvious observation. What is the brick made out of? Try and get to the core of what a brick is made out of.
If you are going to argue with me by trolling as seen by this post.
Please don't. Because the words Objective truth exist. If you are saying that words mean something is true.. that is wrong. Objective truth is the opposite of subjective truth, and according to your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong. This is the childish way I thought as a freshman.Quote:
Subjective truth <---Observe that. The words exist and you're saying such a thing doesn't exist. Even though you just mentioned the words. You still think it has no existence. It's good that you enjoy philosophy. Because you're going to need to think a lot harder than that to defeat what I know.
the point of that video is to express that anything you say. There is more than one point of view from which to look at it. When you ask a question stating your view, of my point of view. I cannot make it invalid. But neither can I support it.Quote:
Are you referring to the common philosophy, that all is the same? All is made of energy and what makes things look different is an illusion?
When you ask that question it is an instant indication you are not thinking outside the box of your current perspective structures enough to completely understand that part of my philosophy which you state.
If you do not like my answers. You can make up your own answers to suit you. There is no need to ask me for answers and then complain about trolling when you don't want to accept responsibility for receiving my answer to your questions.
Your classic my philosophy is wrong according to my philosophy response is just using my philosophy anyway. This makes you look even more silly trying to invalidate it when you are using it. Words do not have to be true if you are disproving something. Yet I was proving something that was true. The fact objective truth exists does not interfere with the co-existence and dependence of subjective truth on that objective truth. For without subjective truth objective truth could not exist either. That is how we prove both exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
So what stops me thinking of another view of your view? You see? Your philosophy disregards your philosophy, because your philosophy says that I can look at your philosophy in any way I want.Quote:
Please don't. Because the words Objective truth exist. If you are saying that words mean something is true.. that is wrong. Objective truth is the opposite of subjective truth, and according to your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong. This is the childish way I thought as a freshman.
This thread is just stating that everything has an infinite possiblities of how its looked at. Congratulations this is a philosophy called NOT BEING IGNORANT. Thats all you had to say your philosophy is about. Making it into some complex bullshit nobody can understand is called TROLLING.
__________________
No it doesn't because I can disregard that statement and disprove it. Simply because you can only look at the philosophy in the way that it's true not false. When you begin to say it's false you are not seeing the full expression of the philosophy. If you aren't seeing the full expression of it you are missing part of it and that is why it appears false to you.Quote:
Your philosophy disregards your philosophy, because your philosophy says that I can look at your philosophy in any way I want.
You sound frustrated. But you do not have to talk to me about it. I am not forcing it upon you. This is not trolling it's called freedom of thought.
This thread is just stating that everything has an infinite possiblities of how its looked at. Congratulations this is a philosophy called NOT BEING IGNORANT. Thats all you had to say your philosophy is about. Making it into some complex bullshit nobody can understand is called TROLLING.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
This sounds like a sort of religion.. you are telling me to blindly follow your philosophy.. nothing backs up your philosophy.. including your philosophy. Philosophy uses logic and reason.. there is no reason here.
__________________
Well it is all about not being ignorant. I don't see what your problem is.Quote:
This thread is just stating that everything has an infinite possiblities of how its looked at. Congratulations this is a philosophy called NOT BEING IGNORANT.
Freedom of thought my friend. I am not inhibiting you from any of your rights.Quote:
Making it into some complex bullshit nobody can understand is called TROLLING.
I am not pushing anything on you. If you do not understand what I say that does not mean it's not backed up. It just means you are not yet willing or capable of understanding it.Quote:
This sounds like a sort of religion.. you are telling me to blindly follow your philosophy.. nothing backs up your philosophy.. including your philosophy. Philosophy uses logic and reason.. there is no reason here.
__________________
Nobody in this thread understands it. So make a new philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
If nobody can understand a philosophy its not a philosophy its bullshit nobody can understand.
Is this where you were getting at? Because that is very easy to comprehend.Quote:
Every source has a branch, and every branch is it's source.
So, the source and branch are just interdependent concepts of one another.
Never separate, only seemingly so in one's mind.
In other words, I agree...
You can't speak for everyone. Even if nobody did understand it. This does not negate truth. I do not make philosophies up as much as I discover known and provable laws that can be depended on and practiced with results simultaneously in physical, emotional, and spiritual levels of a human beings experience.
First off is this your philosophy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Second explain to me how your philosophy be depended on and practiced with results simultaneously in physical, emotional, and spiritual levels of a human beings experience?Quote:
Every source has a branch, and every branch is it's source.
So, the source and branch are just interdependent concepts of one another.
Never separate, only seemingly so in one's mind.
In other words, I agree...