To live in thought is to perceive finitely
To live in sense is to perceive infinitely
Provide 2 reliable sources that back this up with evidence please.
You speak funny. Hegel was onto this, but not quite there. My source is intuition. I have yet to find 1 reliable source outside of my own intuition. This is because of relativity and the way you may interpret this may or may not be for you. Note the title of my blog is “Messages to Myself, Internal Guidance”. The scope of perception is the only way to view things in a finite way. We prefer this in order to play our game, otherwise all is self evident and simple. We create complexity and contradiction to paint philosophical states of mind to wander through. It is ever changing and we are only frustrated if we are unable to see philosophy as art, rather than something we can actually “figure out”. Thanks for stopping by!
Philosophy is a tool that should be applied to life in order to be productive and logical. Also I do speak funny as that is my intended blogging style, implemented for humorous effect. Furthermore please don’t impress something as a fact without the tangible evidence, otherwise no matter how much “intuition” you have, a logically non-feasible idea can not be shown as true. Perception is finite because you can’t perceive a dinosaur eating you, whereas thought is more likely to be “more infinite” because you can perceive such impossible experiences in your mind. Furthermore senses go directly to your brain so any time you perceive you are actually just thinking about the stimuli.
Your intellect was unable to connect the fact that my blog title is “messages to myself”, yet you are telling me what I should or should not write… lacking sense my friend. Read Hegel and learn more about intuition. Then use it!
When you vocalise any thought it is subject to criticism. Furthermore you’re using a different version of “sense” here which is a different concept entirely. Hegel was not onto anything of the sort and you misinterpreted him as well as cherry picked your evidence. Finally using an ad hominem fallacy is, well, fallacious.
Lastly you said that they are messages to yourself but when someone agrees you are happy to accept their opinion. This is called close mindedness.
Also anyone with any “intuition” as you call it would love to hear new possibilities and question their own theories, making you arrogant.
Your not seeing that you came to my website requesting that I provide you with things as if I were in need of selling you something. Then you arrogantly tell me how to post as if I were on your common program.
When you put anything on the internet it is subject to criticism. And you should actually realise when you yourself are being arrogant because you are sure of your own opinion and unable to accept you haven’t got the whole story.
Such a righteous stand. I know you have a common behavior but it is very different to my own. I approach things a bit more politely if I am not on my page because I am walking into their place of diligent collections. I will stand my ground respectively that since I know my words may not apply to others in this subjective reality, I do not impose them as truths for digestion. This is my attempt to interpret what I can sense when I silent my mind. I have a different mission and different mode of operation than you. We serve different purposes and I do not go on your page to enforce any code of thought where you create what you like. You are attempting to limit my story by boxing it in references and evidence. Those things are old and my interest is beyond that. Is it OK with you if I continue to post these vague things that could be interpreted in infinite ways by others? What is it you are asking me to do exactly?
1. It’s not a righteous stand because self- righteous means sure of ones own opinion whereas I am trying to make you reconsider your own using both sides.
2. I only seem impolite because that is how you perceive my analytical attitude.
3. reality isn’t subjective, perception is.
4. Without your mind you can sense nothing, all senses are processed in the mind.
5. If you actually listened to what I was saying by now you’d not be misunderstanding I realising I’m not trying to push anything on you but encouraging rational explanation.
6. Evidence is not old, it’s the scientific method and why don’t you ask someone if they trust you or a philosopher on what philosophy is?
7. I’m asking you to look at things from multiple perspectives, to consider other possibilities and to realise you don’t know everything.
You do not understand my story and who I am. That is expected, but I have been many places and lived many ways of life. I have very rich and intense experiences with others and I focused on empathy and the art of perspective traveling the entire time. I know that you can read forever about how to ride a bike, but you will never be able to ride the bike until you stop thinking about it and take the next step. I am telling you that your process bores me. You do not have to agree with mine. These are “Messages to Myself, Internal Guidance”. I do not state them as fact, but as relevant to me for my journey… Out of curiosity though.. are you a set theory or fuzzy logic kind of thinker, if you go by academia?
“I have this experience therefore art must be infinite” way to dodge the question.
I don’t understand you but I realise bullshit when I see it.
Also that analogy is bullshit. I could just as easily say “until you stop painting your inner self you will never use thought to become better.”
Also in regards to your last question you’re going to need to elaborate. “If you go by academia” shows a real lack of knowledge of how logic works and what logic is. It’s not academia, it’s an objective method of finding the truth.
You have a need for others to agree with you. Why is that? I am not selling you my method. You will find things and I will find other things. You are trying to get me on your program but what I am seeking is not on your program. I do not think you are less relevant due to our different ways of interpretation and I am not inclined to sell you on my program at all. I do not have the seemingly insecure behavior that most people have with their ideas of reality which require them to sell it as the truth for all. What is true to one may not be true to another and this goes very deep with relativity. I am exploring things beyond what fits in a box for mass digestion.
Do I have a need? Are you claiming omniscience because it seems like it.
I have a need to search for truth. And no matter how many times you say it, you are the one who doesn’t want disagreement otherwise you would not condemn me for trying to help you reach new perspective and actually learn what relative means.
Language is what is relative, not logic.
You aren’t obliged to listen to me. You’re obliged to be rational.
Rational relative to… Set Theory, Fuzzy Logic, Academia, Common Knowledge, Intuition, Emotion, Alchemy…? What is rational is relative to how you approach reality which is subjective for us.
You still don’t understand the word relative.
How you approach reality is different for a person but the mode of operating rationally remains the same- to make decisions using knowledge and logic to come up with productive decisions.
That is implying that rationality must agree with productivity. What if you wanted to test the “less is more” way of life and productivity was not necessary to achieve that? That is relativity. I am questioning the application of things. I am trying to explain to you that we are running different programs because we have different goals/values. I am not saying you are wrong, but I can not approach my goal in the way you approach your goal and still expect to find something purely through myself. This is my internal journey, not my research journey.
Please define relativity for me then.
Also I can see that your last sentence has validity.
You will not understand my perspective because I will fail to convey the sense for you. You will not understand the foundation of “state of mind” lending relativity to the application of perception unless you exercise the practice. No matter how much you wish to understand, it is to be sensed first. But it is not your journey to understand mine. You serve a different purpose than I.
And I suppose you know all this because the art deity told you?
No, you used logic to do that. And then you condemned it.
You still don’t know what relativity means. Also senses are made in the brain. Thought and understanding are different things. You have no purpose and you are deluding yourself to think art is going to make you the perfect being.
So you are saying that you want to be a perfect being? Because that is a heavy statement coming from you that has never been brought up by me. What threatens you about what I am doing?
Senses are interpreted in the brain. I am not condemning anything, but restructuring the parent/child relationship between them.
I think you are very insecure. If I were in the same room as you perhaps I would get a sense otherwise, but until then, I can only think you are insecure. Logic is cool. We need it. There is no way not to use it. But it is relative.
1. This is all very assumey of you.
2. I never said that, but surely everyone should strive for perfection.
3. Nothing threatens me, it’s called helping someone when they’re wrong.
4. Senses are interpreted in the brain. Fact.
5. “There’s not a way to use logic” look up “how to use logic” on google. It’s an essential tool for achieving truth.
6. Everyone is insecure, that is why I challenge my own perspective, it’s a virtue.
7. You still lack sense of what is relative.
Aha! If I lack sense of what is relative, my thoughts can lead me to so many useless places, right? It would be more and more complex to make it make sense over time. I would need more and more words in order to “make sense” when the point is “receiving sense”. Hard to explain, because we are attempting to make sense with words still…
1. What? XD that’s the biggest bullshit I ever heard.
2. Lacking sense of what is relative makes you an idiot not a philosopher.
3. That’s why we have colloquialisms! Thought is infinite and we don’t need to describe our thoughts with words whereas perception of words is finite. So you are telling me I’m right? :/ no fun.
4. why don’t you draw me a pretty picture to explain it?
You need to think of logic like the = symbol. Perception is superfluous, the truth is semantic.
That word arrogant . I do not think it means what you think it means.
You are imposing on me… I am standing my ground… arrogantly? Maybe I do not understand what it means…
You are impressing that no one has right to criticise any views you put onto a public interface and that you are certain of your views. That is the definition of arrogance.
Ugh… you want me to play your game, but you do not see it as a game. You are convinced that a certain way of logic and reason is the way. I do not see it that way. I am questioning the application, questioning the goal. Where do I find my answers outside of myself? Why should I be limited to be in agreement with others who have been taught in mass? I am going a different way than you and you want me to conform to your box, your method that I find to loop in circles of context and relativity. You can figure it out in infinite ways, call it different names, group it in different categories of emitters, effectors, etc. This is art to me. You can change the application for better or worse. I am opposing certainty itself. I challenge the set theory definition logic and I encourage a fuzzy logic potential based approach.
I’m not convinced it’s the truth but I’m convinced it’s the way to the truth because it is and if you don’t realise that you have no idea what it is in the first place, which is kind of sad.
“Where do I find answers outside of myself” philosophy. Which you’re still using to try and take down.
“Why should I be limited to agree with others who have been taught in mass” let’s see to be correct, the truth exists independently of whether you believe in it or not so feel free to keep being self righteous and I’ll stop helping you.
Don’t call it a “way” because it’s not. Art is not a way to life- it is not a verb. There is no conspiracy box. You don’t know what relativity means. These loops only show we don’t have the full story. Logic itself never loops and it’s objective so it’s the best tool we have.
Also you have this false dichotomy of logic vs art. They are not mutually exclusive z
Logic conforms to what is valued by the perspective using it. Their logic will always be relative and every time the perspective is able to flip the coin, the logic must loop back and be re-applied.
I can not say that anything is really mutually exclusive, but I have to use words to convey a sense. I say very vague things, but I could write a book to support each one. Not that I am claiming any of it as a concrete truth for all to apply in their life, but that it was relevant in order to convey a sense, or a state of mind in perfect context to that moment. I am a creative director. I see words as colors. People give these colors meanings in order to make pictures to interpret, but the colors could mean anything else if we make it so. You can change the words if the words are lacking. I think all these words are limiting our perception. What if we had no language? How would that change our thought process? Can words truly make sense or is it a trap? Also, when I use the word sense, I am usually meaning a sense of reality, not just the five senses. I practice adjusting my state of mind to increase my abilities relative to what I am doing. I can do things and sense things quickly and my thought process is mainly thankful in hindsight. I do not have things figured out and I do not know everything. That is why I am defending my process of learning. I do not think anybody has much of anything figured out. I think we are like children and any more objective perspective would just think we were so adorable with our little thoughts.
Logic is not relative because it exists independent of if you speak. that shows lack of understanding of what you speak. If we had no language we’d make another.
You also are proposing we all just stop using logic so what we all just paint pictures? Eh I don’t think that’s efficient or very infinite especially considering I can’t ask you to paint infinite.
You aren’t defending a process of learning you have a baseless argument.
Objective isn’t a perspective, it’s detaching from perspective to observe non biased.
Your sense is based on your thought which is still what you are trying to imply shouldn’t be used
Logic is completely relative. What is logical to one may not be logical to another… logically thinking of course haha!
The problem with objective is that if you are completely objective, how do you consider conscious?
What I think is efficient is that I can sense things before I can deduce them in thought. I can swerve away from deer at the last second without any thought, but in hindsight see all the calculations required to achieve a no kill drive home. I can sense danger before it comes, I can sense the moods of others without needing to see or hear them and so on. I think that our senses are way more powerful than our thoughts. I think that frequencies communicate with each other at every intersecting point which means at any given moment there are countless data transfers going on between your own frequency and all other frequencies. I think our thought process is slow and if we want to evolve, not through technology but a true internal evolution of the self, I think it will be achieved through sense more than thought. It will be a state of mind more than a statement. Is it starting to make sense? I know my blog is not well explained, but that is because I did not need to explain it to myself. I do not get many people stopping by as interested as you are. I am not seeking that, but I will entertain you as long as you like.
Haha. No. That is people’s perceptions. One of those people are using logic wrong. The . Truth. Exists. Independently.
You need to take into account that you are being subjective when taking into account decisions of society EG if you claimed your laws were right you forget to be objective.
This is not dichotomous. It is not one or the other. Logic and emotion simultaneously exist and if you think otherwise that goes to show how little you know.
Deduction is different to calculation and no you deduced you would hit that deer so you dodged it, again showing you know not what you speak of.
Your blog isn’t well explained because it’s fallacious not because you can’t explain it.
actually Research definitions like logic and deduction and relative please? This one time?
Earlier in my blog I explain my opposition to definitions. I prefer things to have potentials rather than definitions. I am not creating laws for others. I am communicating with myself. I am not implying that anything in this blog needs to apply to you or anybody. This is experimental. It is not complete. The point is to experiment with different operating systems which means compatibility will be an issue. I am not using the provided applications. I am not saying you should do as I do. I am not saying that I am sure to find some great truth for all. Maybe I am selfish, but I am searching for something that applies to me, not everyone. I am not trying to figure things out. I am trying to develop a starting point to approach reality. One that is different than what is being sold because none exists that satisfies our perception as of yet. You are saying that I can’t. I am saying that as much as I may fail, I will continue on, and I may never be able to convey what I learn to others anyways. I am not satisfied with the methods, the boxes, the words, the values, the goals, the intent, etc. I am empowered to re-create. If that is arrogant, then so be it. It does not change my choice and I do not impose my choice on others.
But you are messaging me right now so you will conform to the definitions of society, otherwise you are not able to communicate. Otherwise you just sound retarded. Furthermore society’s idea of logic in your argument makes it sound like bullshit, which it is.
You are empowered to do anything you want, freedom of speech. you aren’t empowered to argue a point fallaciously however, and people who state fiction as fact are truly repulsive.
Yes, I must attempt to speak in a way that is compatible with your operating system. You are saying that I claim fiction as fact, when I am saying to forget the idea of facts and see potentials instead. In your language, you seem to be operating more on set theory and I seem to be operating more on fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic may sound retarded to a person running set theory, but make no mistake, fuzzy logic is not retarded in comparison to set theory. I am bored easily with traditional ways. It is easy for me to comprehend what you are saying, but I would rather challenge it. I am the kind of person who would read the entire text book on the first day of class and then have to sit through weeks of redundancy.
I am not repulsed when I see fiction stated as fact, I am intrigued about the story that would generate that effect. Repulsion would limit your ability to see another perspective… but you keep saying that I am the one who is unable to see your perspective. Please understand that I do. Please also understand that I know that we are all sending messages to ourselves when we speak to others. I am aware that every word I project is primarily for myself. Look at your words.
Fuzzy logic isn’t a real thing it’s called failing to be rational.
Since when did bullshit become a perspective? I see things from truthful honest perspectives not from fiction. Also you don’t know the difference between a potential -something that could happen, and fiction – something that has not. No they aren’t mutually exclusive but one is a possibility the other is bullshit.
It’s pretty funny to see you saying “look at your words” when the entire time that’s what I’ve been asking you to do, so yeah.
Forgetting facts doesn’t make you knowledgable or interesting, it makes you an idiot by it’s very definition.
You are not running on fuzzy logic, you are running on imagination, which is admirable when you don’t state it like a fact because then it becomes a delusion.
You are using set theory logic to describe my affiliation with fuzzy logic. Your admiration of my imagination is dependent on that I do not challenge your reality?
Fuzzy logic doesn’t exist. Logic by it’s definition always finds truths. Also how do you not challenge reality? Your whole argument is based on things that aren’t real! ^.^
The fact you believe that those 2 terms even apply to philosophy when they are computing terms I’ll never know. It just proves your ignorance of even the basics of what logic is- for someone so interested in learning you obviously don’t do your research
So you do not compute what fuzzy logic computes? You do not see how to use it and apply it in practice where it has not yet been applied? Most people are simply consumers. They are looking to be sold what and how to think. They insist that I am selling them a product and they insist that I modify it to suit their consumption. They are bothered when I do my own thing if it threatens the relevance of what they have invested in. Everything is free here my friend. Take what you like. Leave what repulses you. It has to be relevant to your operating system at the end of the day.
I don’t know how to apply “binary with numbers between 1 and 0” no. But I could see the appliance of your “special” definition of it but that doesn’t mean it has any use. For example statues are great for breaking but it’s not useful.
Also you misinterpret what people are doing. You STILL believe they are trying to conspire against you when all they are doing is finding the truth, which is what any intelligent thinker would do.
They aren’t bothered, they’re intrigued and you should be flattered.
You still don’t even understand the basic terms of logic, relative, programming, sense, philosophy or art or how to apply them yet you are trying to, thus you obviously need help.
Though I don’t feel I myself can gain any useful perspective from it since you’re just pretending to be an artist as an excuse to be fallacious.
In fact there’s no such thing as fuzzy logic outside computing where it talks about there being grey areas in computing. Are you trying to say some logic is grey? Because that is bullshit by the definition of logic.
You can’t even apply fuzzy logic outside of the application it has been presented to you in? You are strict with your boxes. You are very set theory.
No such thing as either of those. Try again Mr. Moron.
You can go around making ideas but the reason no one has turned fuzzy logic into a thing is because it doesn’t exist and never can.
I take no offense in your beliefs. Your behavior is appalling and you are not aware of that. You are not content. You are not secure. Why would I listen to somebody so tormented by offense to behave as you do? When you are not so aware of your self, you are not aware of the very thing that makes logic relative.
Behaviour is relative m8
Sarcasm is fun, I don’t take offence I treat everyone like shit don’t take it personally.
And that’s an ad hominem fallacy.
Why don’t you just google now “is logic relative” and look it up, I can wait eons.
Because it still isn’t. It never will be and anyone who says it is knows nothing about it. Which is probably why I called you a moron.
Hey… I applaud you… I just noticed on your blog that you do focus on your dependency problems and insecurity. You are self aware. Please know that you will find things to be logical based on dependency. If you change the dependencies you change what is logical. And what is with the name calling man haha! You are a nut, but it is funny.
Logic is never relative and until you become aware of that you can never be la artista.
I did a google search for your consumption and found this compelling argument from somebody who seems to speak your language. Read here: Logic is relative. For you to even read the statements above there has to be a language context you rmind uses to make sense of the symbols. You understand that someone in a less developed tribe wont know what the hell you talk about when you pose the symbols. Predicate Calculous is limited to languages that are structured like ours.
Western Philosophy Logic works in symbols too, but the system is outdated and flawed. Consider that a=a doesn’t say anything about the world and is false. The ‘a’ on the left is not the same ‘a’ on the right, the ‘=’ symbol is only stating that for any thing ‘a’ there is another thing ‘a’ that shares its same characteristics, but this is impossible. There are no two John deeres around, there is only one. When you say that John=John you divide him and create a second ‘John’ with similar characteristics. Therein you violate your first rule, that which is is and cannot both be and not be at the same time. Now you can say that John is similar to Joe, but that is as close as you get.
Another flaw of symbolic logic is its dependance on proving false statements by means of the law of contradiction. It foolishly says that ‘a’ cannot both be ‘a’ and ‘not a’ at the same time. The contradiction, according to modern logic, is a sure sign that there is a mistake somewhere in the argument. But reality is made up of contradictions. By all means, positively charged particles and negatively charged particles should not bond at all if the law of contradiction was true for how could it be that particles are both positively charged and not be positively charged (negatively charged)? The combination of both, a neutral particle, is a sign that contradictions work. But that is just particles. If you look at a plate, it is round. Therefore, the plate cannot both be round and any other shape at the same time, but that is BS. You rotate the plate slightly, you have an oval shape, you turn it on its side, it is suddenly cigar shaped, you break it into pieces and the plate a hundred different shapes. Look at your own monitor. It is a collage of shapes.
Even tautologies are faulty. They guarantee that certain statements will be true without proof from reality. Socrates is a man wont always be true.
In short, I think Wittgenstein was right in realizing that Logic was not the way to figure out truth. I think it is a communication tool and dependant on reality to be true.
Problems with that:
1. He’s stating that reality is relative rather than logic.
2. This is the opinion of one person on the internet and they admit it is an opinion.
3. You probably scrolled through tonnes of these just to find this one or searched why it IS relative. I can produce 10 on why it isn’t if you like. Cherry picking much.
Give me 2 reliable sources and a large sample size maybe.
Granted, it is not as easy to go against the flow. But nothing too substantial was ever found otherwise. You take the easy route of being a repeater, then have the arrogance to criticize those who are creators.
You have created nothing.
If I claim pink elephants live on Pluto am I creating?
We’ve already discussed the meaning of arrogance fudu
So, you are officially claiming that nothing can be created? Or that I should not try? What is your problem with me wanting more than research? I want to learn from life experience and intuition. If I fail then nothing will come of it. If I succeed its not like it matters anyway. This is just what I want to do.
I’m claiming you shouldn’t try to create something that cannot be created – which is in the objective reality in feasible. You can’t learn from something if you don’t know how to use it. Wisdom is a joint effort between thought and experience, the former you dismiss.
Your problem here is you’re expecting to just gain experience and then BANG epiphany. No, it doesn’t work like that. You need to carefully introspect and think about cause and effect.
“There is nothing substantial”
Google “is logic an absolute” the first result is a balanced essay by a philosopher with a doctorate
We call it the laws of logic because they are never relative like space or time
I’d also like to cite that Hegel who you lick the boots of also believed logic was absolute
Fuzzy logic did not exist back then, but I noticed him trying to applying it. He was not content with set theory.
It doesn’t exist now either.
He believed in a logical absolute and stop trying to merge your own opinions and call them someone else’s. His book “the science of logic” shows his strong belief that logic is objective
So in conclusion
1. You argue that logic is relative by using logic.
2. You use Hegel as evidence to say logic is subjective despite Hegel believing logic is objective.
3. You claim something infinite comes from something finite.
4.you argue against constructive criticism and end up trying to be butthurt on my blog.
5. You don’t understand arrogance and think you can use the term coherently
My interaction with people is usually very pleasant and constructive. You drove this your way and I found it very foreign to what I am used to. My concepts wont fit in your box right now. I am cool with that.
“My concepts won’t fit in your box right now”
“My concepts won’t fit”
sorry oh creator of all art
Enlighten me exactly how are these your concepts?
And it’s not really my box
It’s the box.
You aren’t cool with that because you know deep down your ideas are laughable. You get angry because to take off that clown costume is to admit you’re embarrassed
Why do you see me so grand? Why are you so hostile? What the hell is wrong with you haha??
1. A grandiose delusion is when you believe you are in some way better than others. You are not willing to accept any chance of being wrong. Therefore you are deluded.
2. That word hostile. I do not think it means what you think it means.
3. What is wrong with me is however hostile. Also you already know all about me apparently so you should be able to tell me. Meh.
4. Haha. HAHAHAHHAA. HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA. Laughing at ya own joke m8y. Kinda makes you look like a prick.
But just for the record my problem is that you won’t piss off when I’m just really bored of you by now.
Yet here you are, on my domain, with a strange need insisting that I listen to you… it is clear that you and I will have no respect for each other. If you are bored and you have a problem of me not pissing off… why do you not feel free enough to go away yourself? Have I trapped you in your own torment as long as I do not respect what you have to say?
Anyway, I have a lot of great stuff coming in the mail today for my house. I am almost completely non dependent on any utility service, reduced my bills tremendously, all the while my freelance business is booming, and I have been having sex like crazy!! I feel good my friend. My life is set and going in an amazing direction since I have been using more intuition rather than being tossed around by the left brain trying to analyzing the infinite variables. I hope you feel good as well. Now piss off my page Mr. Insecure / Hypocrite / Dependent. You really wasted much of my time with your mission to “help me out”.
LEAVE MY DOMAAAAAIN.
I could not give a shit what’s in your mail. Too long cba to read.
My entire life philosophy is not being a hypocrite, your argument like all your others are invalid
Everybody look at this guy. He is so mad that he can’t help but to come back to have the last word despite his non interest. He is so bothered by my rejection of his box or as he calls it “the box”. Of all the things he tries to figure out, he has nothing figured out of himself. He resides in an ivory tower constructed by the concepts of great philosophers. He carries a false sense of pride for his wearing of others original thoughts from the past. As other towers arise that are not part of his tower he will feel more and more threatened and insecure, fueling the energy for him to try to dismantle any new original construct. This is because he is dependent on preserving what gives him a sense of pride and authenticity. He is the status quo disguised as productivity. Productivity is for slaves. Ingenuity is for free men. He wants to be productively defining things and that is fine with me. I am not trying to sell him anything he does not want to buy. I just don’t want to be productively defining things. I want to be creatively designing things. Why can’t he just be cool with that haha?
Look man, the world holds both of us, yet I can exist contently with your existence, where you are tormented by mine. Looks like I get the better end of the deal. I hope you get over everything, especially yourself. Thanks for stopping by.
Was that too much? I actually like you. This is better than the usual compliments. You present a challenge. Ok, it is settled… We are friends! So what do you want to talk about next?
They aren’t infinite variables doe
I can find you a lot on why logic is objective rather than relative, but you can’t do the opposite
I am searching for things that you can’t do a google search on yet. Somebody has to find it first before it can be put on google. I am that guy.
Can’t find something that doesn’t exist.
Like, God doesn’t exist but people make posts about him.
Also there’s nothing wrong with broadening the search and allowing others to give you a lift.
Are you sure that you are broadening my search with your suggestions? Is it possible that you are actually asking for me to limit my methods in order to reach a more consumable result? If you come on my page with suggestions, you need to know exactly what I am doing. I do not owe research to you because I am not selling you anything. You owe research to me if you want to come to my state of mind and adjust my operating system based on… well it better be more than just based on what you want to achieve. It should be based on what I want to achieve because of the nature of this relationship. I would owe the same to you if I were to suggest or criticize on your page in order to make it more relatively ideal.
The truth isn’t about who owes what.
It’s about what is right.
You finally used relatively right, this conversation has definitely been worth it.
Essentially you see the deer and realise wow I’m going fast and it’s right there looks like it there is a high risk of hitting and if I hit I kill.
Thus you dodge.
Also you aren’t listening to anything I say are you because I’m trying to help you not get you to entertain me (though that certainly is a byproduct)
Introspection, look it up. You change with thought, if you don’t use your sense experiences you keep doing the same thing
Another point is that you avoided my argument entirely so you could keep your beliefs, which is a red herring fallacy.
I am at work right now, but I will love to continue this later.
If something is relative, how can it be finite? Hegel defends intuition relentlessly.
1. Who appointed Hegel as the judge of what is true?
2. You have no idea what relative means do you?
3. Nothing is finite, but some infinities are bigger than others.
You asked for references… then act indifferent when provided?
Could you sense the magnitude of what relativity implies?
You are telling me you can measure infinities as if they were finite?
Are you sure that you are focused on thought and learning, or is this a battle to you?
I asked for references then acted indifferent when you didn’t provide them. Also “can you sense the magnitude” is called begging the question, and is fallacious and implies you don’t know yourself.
Everything is infinite EG 0-1 the decimals are infinite.
I’m sure I am focused on helping you see from different perspectives and also selfishly gaining new perspectives myself. Only a fool pushes away constructive criticism, it’s vital to learning.
Also Id like to point out that in your response you used philosophy to criticise philosophy rather than your seemingly infinite “art”
No trackbacks yet.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 950 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.