morality, drugs, existence

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

haha why would you think i care that you are claiming my statements to be assertions? it is only a compliment to me, that you are interpreting confidence where there was none.

furthermore, you are still harping on about one statement, 'there is no truth'. all you want to prove is that it is a paradoxical statement. how much longer can you stick with this argument, especially after i conceded victory to you!! seriously, your picture suggests you are elderly. i actually feel nothing but pity for you.

Don't feel pity for me. I am old...but I am mature enough to discuss issues like these without the nonsense your immaturity requires.

So... are you saying that you retract the statement?

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
So...along with thinking there is no REALITY except what humans know and sense...now you are saying the "right/wrong" approach does not meet with your sense of reality.

And you call my arguments "simplistic!"

yes. also, the fact that you state that as some sort of sarcasm, thinking that actually you have 'caught him out', only further proves the simplicity. how can you sit on a discussion forum, and simply say 'there is a reality. there is a right and wrong.' and with nothing more than that simplicity, you start attacking us. hahahahahaa.

Kinda letting the heat get to you, CM. Calm down..you will make more sense.

"Simplicity" is the wrong word for what we were discussing. Go back to "simplistic." And try to keep up.

Quote:

Quote:
Some of the philosophers you quote so often here, Fresco, would probably thrash you for bringing stuff like this to a forum like A2K.

If you had any sense of pride or dignity, you'd probably thrash yourself.(Please do not misconstrue my meaning there.)

i'm sorry, i may have misconstrued so please help me. it looks to me like an old man (you, judging by your pic) just revealed his desire for physical abuse to another person (fresco).

Yup...you have misconstrued. Always willing to help.

Quote:

this leads me to believe that you are a bitter old man who is hoping to inflict some pain back on the world before leaving it in the same pathetic ignorance that you were born with.

Me bitter??? No way. I am one of the most content people with whom you will ever interact, CM.

And really..."pathetic ignorance that you were born with" actually is funnier than you meant it to be.

Do you think before you post?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...see what happens when you indulge answering an idiot that fantasises himself as a rebel in philosophy...I warned you. There are some people in this world that are bounded forever to not grasp the most elementary ideas, no matter how simple...the best you can do when confronted with their annoying attention seeking presence is to cross the road n walk.

I appreciate the warning, Fil...truly. But I have a well-developed, off-beat sense of humor. And toying with people like him is a gas!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

...what can I say..I can only envy your infinite patience...good to you.
...maybe I ought to start practising some golf n read less nonsense. Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

And the other genius doesn't even know the difference between "simplicity" and "simplistic."

They are a barrel of laughs.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...yeah simpletons always fashion themselves as simple...(when in reality simplicity takes a life time of filtering noise out)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

ahh i love this conversation. keeps getting better and better. a simplistic argument is defined as such, because too much simplicity has been used in arriving at the conclusion of the argument. or not enough complexity. i understand if you think a simplistic argument has some special contextual meaning in addition to having the quality of 'simplicity'. however, i never said they had the same meaning. again, you are trying to pick apart my words and find specific verbal 'errors', only defined as such by you.

i am saying that this is your simplistic argument, which has the quality of simplicity:(paraphrased)
"there is an absolute reality. there is absolute truths and falsehoods. there is absolute right and wrong. all these things are absolutely true because i experience them as such, as do millions of other humans."

i am not saying this argument is entirely simplistic, because there is a great deal of science, logic and reason which can prove that argument to be absolutely correct. i am saying that it could be seen as simplistic, when more complex issues and perspectives are included. one more complex issue is the fact that all human experience is a subjective, involuntary condition of consciousness. therefore all 'logic' is an involuntary result of one single continuous process (consciousness), which cannot be verified, proven or explained by any human today (without considerable debate, as is being proven in this thread.)

the illusion of volition in consciousness is the feeling that "I exist" which is the most primordial aspect of awareness. but when investigated with extreme honesty, the feeling that "I exist" has no true identity or existence as such.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

how are you toying with me? i started the thread ahhahaha. this thread is my game.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

ahh i love this conversation. keeps getting better and better.

Great. We are both enjoying it. We could become friends. Very Happy

Quote:

a simplistic argument is defined as such, because too much simplicity has been used in arriving at the conclusion of the argument. or not enough complexity. i understand if you think a simplistic argument has some special contextual meaning in addition to having the quality of 'simplicity'. however, i never said they had the same meaning. again, you are trying to pick apart my words and find specific verbal 'errors', only defined as such by you.

I do not have to pick anything apart, CM...you writing is horrible...the kind of thing one might expect of a grammar school student. If you are a grammar school student with enough balls to mix it up here, I commend you. If you are older than thirteen, however, you really ought to consider remedial work.

In any case...you WERE mixing up "simplicity" and "simplistic." The former often can be used as a compliment to an argument...simple, elegant arguments are often the best form of arguments. An argument described as "simplistic" is meant to degrade...which is what Fresco was doing.

Grow up. Learn to own up to mistakes rather than try these end runs.

And if you want to actually discuss the issues...do that rather than trying to insult and I will discuss them with you.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

how are you toying with me? i started the thread ahhahaha. this thread is my game.

Ahhh...more "logic" of the CM sort.

CM...on the issue of whether or not I am toying with you...the question of who started this thread does not play any part.

Jeez. I thought you were better than this. If I had known you were this easy, I probably would have stayed out of it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/202/bogv.jpg

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Frank Apisa

Glad you've got a sense of humor, Fresco. After looking at this cartoon, I felt a kinship with you I have not been able to muster previously.

I truly thank you for it...and since I feel what I feel, I'd like to take this moment to apologize for the insulting comments I've sent your way over the years. Anger or frustration can be a bitch.

Things will probably get heated again...and I may lash out in retaliation, but for the moment, no matter how you intended it, I am delighting in that cartoon.

It captures more of me than you might think.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Most courteous of you, thanks.

I understand that as we all get older we tend to use forums such as this for recreational purposes, but any of us on philosophy threads needs to realize the range and depth of some of the issues, the answers to which are often counter-intuitive and resist everyday language. This is why I implore those who wish to indulge in philosophical discussion to read widely to familiarize themselves with the paths already trodden in this challenging terrain, lest their recourse to inappropriate or repetitive (lay) contributions be seen by bona fide travellers as baggage impeding interesting exploration.

As you know, I belong to a local philosophy group (many of whom are your age), and we take turns in producing short referenced papers on topics for rigorous discussion. In this way we try to keep abreast of developments in the field. Last week for example, we discussed the demise of the law of the excluded middle in logic with the advent of quantum physics. None of us is either a practicing philosopher or scientist but at the end of the discussion we
certainly had a clearer understanding of the limits of logic.

I hope this post indicates to you why your contributions may not be well received.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Most courteous of you, thanks.

Thank you in return, Fresco.

Quote:

I understand that as we all get older we tend to use forums such as this for recreational purposes, but any of us on philosophy threads needs to realize the range and depth of some of the issues, the answers to which are often counter-intuitive and resist everyday language. This is why I implore those who wish to indulge in philosophical discussion to read widely to familiarize themselves with the paths already trodden in this challenging terrain, lest their recourse to inappropriate or repetitive (lay) contributions be seen by bona fide travellers as baggage impeding interesting exploration.

As you know, I belong to a local philosophy group (many of whom are your age), and we take turns in producing short referenced papers on topics for rigorous discussion. In this way we try to keep abreast of developments in the field. Last week for example, we discussed the demise of the law of the excluded middle in logic with the advent of quantum physics. None of us is either a practicing philosopher or scientist but at the end of the discussion we
certainly had a clearer understanding of the limits of logic.

I hope this post indicates to you why your contributions may not be well received.

That may all be, Fresco, but I truly never worry about any of my contributions being “well received.” They are "well offered" despite their reception. And I offer them because I see value in them. If others do not…so be it.

Many of the things I offer are not that contentious.

Allow me to digress just a bit: In another thread I offered: “If there is the possibility of a GOD, there is the possibility of intelligent design.” I offered it in commentary directed at an inference that intelligent design was impossible.

The remark was decidedly NOT well received.

But it is almost a tautology…it says nothing other than serving as a warning not to go over the line of “it is impossible.”

I did not say there was a GOD; I did not even say there was the possibility of a GOD…I just offered a hypothetical of sorts suggesting the obvious…”if there is the possibility of a GOD, there is the possibility of intelligent design.” The implication of the comment is that unless you are arguing that there is no possibility of a GOD…you cannot reasonably be arguing that intelligent design is impossible.

I even added that IF intelligent design occurred…it almost certainly was designed in a way that comports with what science is discovering now about how we got from single cell organisms to Homo Sapiens and the others.

Intelligent design can also come from something other than a GOD. This universe of ours could be the creation of a non-GOD being of an infinitely larger universe of which our universe is just a speck in an experiment being conducted in a lab vessel.

Most likely it is random…but the warning was appropriate.

Yeah, my contribution was not well received…but in some respects, it was more on point than some of the other remarks that were being “well received.”

So it is here, Fresco. The naïve comments MAY BE closer to the truth than some of the stuff you are offering.

Existence is a very mysterious thing…and what people “knew” in the past is often shown to be wrong. What people “know” now, may be shown to be wrong in the future.

I stand by my tautology offered here: What IS…IS. That is the REALITY. And that REALITY MAY NOT be what you are guessing it to be...it MAY not be as exclusive as you seem to be insisting it is.

Me…I'd prefer not to guess. I acknowledge I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not have to pick anything apart, CM...you writing is horrible...

wrong english. when your primary aim in this post is to prove my bad english, try using it correctly yourself.

Quote:

If you are a grammar school student with enough balls to mix it up here, I commend you. If you are older than thirteen, however, you really ought to consider remedial work.

every argument you have made about my supposed 'poor english' has been wrong. you certainly are picking apart my words in an attempt to find errors. just like this post, again, your ONLY POINT is to prove that i don't know the difference between simplistic and simplicity:

Quote:

In any case...you WERE mixing up "simplicity" and "simplistic." The former often can be used as a compliment to an argument...simple, elegant arguments are often the best form of arguments. An argument described as "simplistic" is meant to degrade...which is what Fresco was doing.

Grow up. Learn to own up to mistakes rather than try these end runs.

And if you want to actually discuss the issues...do that rather than trying to insult and I will discuss them with you.

until now, it was the 'paradoxical' statement 'there is no truth'. you keep repeating that its paradoxical. until you find another 'mistake'. ooooh i used the word simplicity to describe a simplistic argument. omg, another error! only if you are too stupid to understand english! as i explained in my previous post clearly, the word simplicity was used purposefully with full understanding of its meaning.

you can continue to repeat your pointless arguments, which are empty other than personal attacks on my use of english. i will sit and wait to prove you wrong with the utmost simplicity.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ahhh...more "logic" of the CM sort.

CM...on the issue of whether or not I am toying with you...the question of who started this thread does not play any part.

Jeez. I thought you were better than this. If I had known you were this easy, I probably would have stayed out of it.

ohhhh ok thanks. i thought that the question of you toying with me was just a random comment made by you. i didn't realise it was actually an encyclopedic truth, so again, my apologies.

let us summarise your arguments against me:
1. in a thread about philosophy, questioning reality, your argument is 'there is definitely a reality and a truth, because otherwise a verbal paradox exists'.
2. if somebody uses the word simplicity, while talking about something simplistic, it is proof of a misunderstanding of one or both words.
3. if i say 'i am toying with somebody', it is categorically true. conversely, if the person to whom i said it replies that he is also 'playing a game', this is categorically false.

thank you sir, for your wise comments. i know i will try my best to improve my english, and understand your 3 flawless arguments better. i am going now to google 'how to be more like frank apisa'. bye!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What IS…IS. That is the REALITY. And that REALITY MAY NOT be what you are guessing it to be...it MAY not be as exclusive as you seem to be insisting it is.

nothing is. what is, is nothing. reality is nothing, reality and nothing are both meaningless words, none of which capture any absolute truth or reality.

nobody here is 'guessing' it to be anything other than you, who is trying to define it. nobody here thinks its 'exclusive' other than you.

0 Replies

Getting your attention was easy.

Now I cement ownership.

Everything after that will be a piece of cake.

Normally I don't bother with amateurs, but I hope you keep posting. I will enjoy the laughs. You are fun.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

getting anyone's attention is easy, because 'control' over 'attention' is an illusion. the intellect guides attention in an involuntary, constant process. assuming ownership over that process is the delusion through which all your comments come from.

i will keep posting as long as i feel that some tiny percentage of what i am trying to communicate is being understood. my current opinion is that you and fil are at a similar level i was a while ago. thinking that you personally understand the highest truths just because you may have intelligent understandings of all the human sciences, religions and general knowledge.

because that is the only difference between us. you are claiming to know something for sure: that there is a reality, or a truth, or a god. i am claiming that there can never be true or certain knowledge of anything, because 'nothingness' is primary, and somethingness/knowledge is secondary to the nothingness.

even in your own 'experience', nothingness happens in deep sleep. so your own existence is made up of alternating 'nothingness' and 'somethingness'. therefore, there is no way for any human to be sure that the somethingness is more primary/real/true than the nothingness.

will only respond from now on to direct arguments to what i am saying. no more of your childish delusions and personal attacks on me will be replied to. bitch.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

I guess you think that what you just wrote makes sense. It seems to me it doesn’t…and appears to be mostly projection at work.

Let’s see if I can show you why I feel that way...beginning by taking a look at your charges for me:

You begin the charges by claiming that I claim “…(to) personally understand the highest truths” because I further claim to “have intelligent understandings of all the human sciences, religions and general knowledge.”

And you claim that you know nothing.

Your are new here, CM…or you would see what a joke that is. I almost certainly acknowledge that "I do NOT know" more than anyone else in this forum. I clearly acknowledge that I do not know any of the “higher truths”…and the only thing I have claimed to know here in this thread is that “Whatever actually IS…IS.”

It is a tautology, CM. The REALITY is that WHATEVER IS…IS.

You on the other hand claim that nothing can be known…yet you list all sorts of things as truths. Here is a list of some truths that you know…just from this single posting:

You know that control over attention is an illusion…

…that intellect guides attention in an involuntary, constant process…

…that there can never be true or certain knowledge of anything!!!...

…that nothingness is primary…

…that somethingness is secondary…

…and that there is no way for any human to be sure that somethingness is more primary than nothingness.

And that is just in this one posting.

You've got things backwards, CM…you are the one who thinks you know the truths…and I am the person acknowledging that I do not know.

By the way, have you ever wondered how you know for certain that your primary assertion (that nothing can be known with certainty) is certain???

I doubt it, because you apparently are not able to see just how illogical your “logic” actually is.

You seem to me to be delusional...with a grandiose opinion of yourself. You apparently think you have broken though some great intellectual or spiritual barrier….and are now preparing to “share it" with the lesser beings in of this world.”

Many people go through that stage. Don’t worry…most grow out of it as they become adults. More than likely you will also.

Quote:

i will keep posting as long as i feel that some tiny percentage of what i am trying to communicate is being understood.

Do that, CM. I’ll be here for ya!

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know