What is your justification for thinking?

@Lustig Andrei,

No, not obtuse. I am well aware of the reasons for setting up this thread. I simply choose to answer the question and disregard all satire involved. It's cute, but that's about it.

0 Replies

Holy pomposity, Batman!

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Son, there ain't absolutely nuthin' serious about this thread. At least, not intentionally.

I hope son is colloquial. I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Son, there ain't absolutely nuthin' serious about this thread. At least, not intentionally.

I hope son is colloquial. I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.

You'd have to be pushing 100 to achieve that distinction. I was born Dec. 26, 1938.

You do the math.

1 Reply

0 Replies

thinking is a thing move alone, so kind of proof that everything is true so superior reality which explain and justify how anything is relatively free from being a thing reality when superior reality of everything exist
so anything can know everything existence without contributing really as a thing

1 Reply

@imans,

imans wrote:

thinking is a thing move alone, so kind of proof that everything is true so superior reality which explain and justify how anything is relatively free from being a thing reality when superior reality of everything exist
so anything can know everything existence without contributing really as a thing

Now, if you could just give us the English translation of that, we'd be grateful.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Son, there ain't absolutely nuthin' serious about this thread. At least, not intentionally.

I hope son is colloquial. I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.

You'd have to be pushing 100 to achieve that distinction. I was born Dec. 26, 1938.

You do the math.

Twelve year old boys have been known to spawn babies, so it is possible.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

a thing cannot b translated otherwise it wont b true and if the thing does not exist then mentionning smthg is totally of lies will
while translation is a kind relation to smthg else much more still then and clearly existing, which cant b but one itself so translating is to individuals

but the fact that you are claiming being a we reveal your lie in using translation mean for smthg else

2 Replies

@imans,

Jeeeeeesus....I honestly hope the sensation I am left with after trying to read your posts is not in the direct proportion of the sensation others may have after reading mine...at least use some ponctuation here and there, so we can try to make heads or tails of it...

0 Replies

@imans,

I'll stop criticising you, imans. Being functionally illiterate must be hard enough without people carping on it.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

who is the illiterate here?? and what do you mean by functionnally? so you seriously believe having a function or that you are really useful to anything

u prove the illiterate you are since completely in opposition with philosophy and philosphers nature of being while it is the exclusive base of your posts justification here

0 Replies

Screw the illiteracy, it's the incoherence which makes those posts unreadable.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

it is not you that can decide what coherence mean

co herent is literally pointing subjective relation of same, it is to truth abstract value character which is the reason of objective fact freedom and not ur kind of coherence crap in relating shapes of letters that mean nothing ultimately but always opposite facts

1 Reply

@imans,

I certainly can say what is and what is not coherent, expecially in my native language. Your most recent post just underlines that you are not posting coherent comments.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

what did you underline in ur most recent post? claiming subjectively that you are able to say what coherent is without proving it objectively while mentionning having a native language as if it means anything to coherence, is what confirm my point about u, how ur letters structure are related by opposites, u have no idea at all about sentence coherence

while the shape of my letters are the same then urs so definitely u r the incoherent here especially for philosophy forum posts

1 Reply

@imans,

Babbling about "ur [sic] letters structure" is a wonderful example of your incoherence. Apparently (and given your incoherence, it is difficult to be certain) you believe that your ipse dixit claims are established just by your having blurted them out. Once again, being a native speaker of this language, i can easily judge the coherence or what you write, and it is pathetically incoherent. Rant as you will, the fact remains that what you write not only is not established by any evidence (you've offered none), but it is not coherent in the language you attempt, and fail, to use.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I don't "blame" members for "inadequate" writing when it is simply because English is not their principal language--even though I hope they'll keep our Norwegian member, Cryacuz, as their standard. His English is superior to that of the VAST majority of educated Americans.
What annoys me is the obvious fact that few of us bother to read and edit our posts before clicking the "reply" button.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I'm not "blaming" this member for anything. I am asserting, on the basis of the patent evidence, that what the member writes is incoherent. Partly that's a result of poor language skills, but largely it's a result of babbling nonsense which sounds good but does not represent a coherent statement of logic.

2 Replies

What is your justification for thinking?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know