3 ms·

>You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. >I know how to think for myself and ma

>You aren't going to convince me that what I am saying is false, because I am not susceptible to persuasion by argument. >I know how to think for myself and make up my own mind - give me the information I require. Spare me the arguments. I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Then why talk? You are pointless to 'communicate' with. One way streets lead nowhere. It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed, particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change.

ukj 7y ago
>I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Your ad-hominem has been noted. >Then why talk? Why not? > You are pointless to 'communicate' with. In the words of Wittgenstein "Languages are used to obtain certain ends within communities. Two people participating in two different language-games cannot be said to communicate in any relevant way." So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. >You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. Logic is Metaphysics. I'd like to see you do Philosophy without logic. > So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed. Category theory is Mathematics. Mathematics is logic. Your claim of "destruction" is contradicted for a second time. Is there anything I can say to convince you that you are wrong? >particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change. This is a lie. I will change my mind upon the presentation of the information required to change it. It's called a Bayesian update. If Philosophy is the pursuit of Truth, why are you telling lies about me? But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. >It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >Your ad-hominem has been noted. You brought your character in as a substantive point to argue. I was not avoiding anything. If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. >Why not? If you wish to talk to an empty wall do so, but I am free in my rights to challenge the use and social value of communicating with a closed book. >So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Less than half of the purpose of communicating here can be described and it is too lengthy and mundane to be bothered with. The other half of the purpose of communicating here is yet to be discovered. How does the purpose of the argument assist the conversation with someone who does not wish to share arguments? >Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. So what have we been doing then? I mean really? I misspoke on the metaphysical assertion, what I mean is a problem of belief. There is more to a self than philosophy can describe. You can have a philosophical position that all philosophies become equifinal, presumably, I do not really care but limiting your analysis of the idea of the 'self' to just what a philosophy, logic and categories, ect can argue is a limited perspective. When Christianity left as the guiding belief structure, the modern 'self' has been left as a ground-up built belief that an internal describable entity exists. Modern psychotherapy and individualistic work very perilously hangs on that entity as a healing or generative function and it can be argued very easily that it is not recursion or logic or a category. It remains elusive and it is possible to break people's internal representation of their 'self', their belief it exists or their belief in it's structure. It was not a lie that 'you will not change your mind', there was no intent to deceive. That is the most information I had at the time with which to make a judgement. This is the second time you have made a dishonest interpretation of my text, it's disappointing to see. >But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? Who can say that I am or not? Are you me, am I you? For you to perceive the text that I write there is some representation of my actions and self inside your perceptions and self. The difference between internal and external is a fundamental sociological problem, I seek not to answer it. >I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. So you take no responsibility for spamming this thread with your proselytizing? The simple act of posting your opinion is proselytizing because you cannot control (in your view particularly) another's mind, for that word to have any meaning at all in this context. I seek the opportunity to make the arguments I believe are interesting and valid, someone who is closed off to that is a door I cannot open and explore. Also stop editing I've been trying to finish this for a while. >Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots. Big if.

ukj 7y ago

>I assume you think that of others too and not that you are a unique snowflake for having these qualities. Your ad-hominem has been noted. >Then why talk? Why not? > You are pointless to 'communicate' with. In the words of Wittgenstein "Languages are used to obtain certain ends within communities. Two people participating in two different language-games cannot be said to communicate in any relevant way." So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. >You are claiming a metaphysical position, not a philosophical one. Logic is Metaphysics. I'd like to see you do Philosophy without logic. > So yes the category of philosophy is destroyed. Category theory is Mathematics. Mathematics is logic. Your claim of "destruction" is contradicted for a second time. Is there anything I can say to convince you that you are wrong? >particularly emphasized by the fact you won't open your mind to discussion or change. This is a lie. I will change my mind upon the presentation of the information required to change it. It's called a Bayesian update. If Philosophy is the pursuit of Truth, why are you telling lies about me? But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. >It's a philosophical argument, like the ancient greeks shared... Were they idiots? Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots.

friendlybus 7y ago
>Your ad-hominem has been noted. You brought your character in as a substantive point to argue. I was not avoiding anything. If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. >Why not? If you wish to talk to an empty wall do so, but I am free in my rights to challenge the use and social value of communicating with a closed book. >So what language game are you playing and what is the common purpose for which you and I need to be communicating? Less than half of the purpose of communicating here can be described and it is too lengthy and mundane to be bothered with. The other half of the purpose of communicating here is yet to be discovered. How does the purpose of the argument assist the conversation with someone who does not wish to share arguments? >Until you reveal your intentions communication is indeed impossible. So what have we been doing then? I mean really? I misspoke on the metaphysical assertion, what I mean is a problem of belief. There is more to a self than philosophy can describe. You can have a philosophical position that all philosophies become equifinal, presumably, I do not really care but limiting your analysis of the idea of the 'self' to just what a philosophy, logic and categories, ect can argue is a limited perspective. When Christianity left as the guiding belief structure, the modern 'self' has been left as a ground-up built belief that an internal describable entity exists. Modern psychotherapy and individualistic work very perilously hangs on that entity as a healing or generative function and it can be argued very easily that it is not recursion or logic or a category. It remains elusive and it is possible to break people's internal representation of their 'self', their belief it exists or their belief in it's structure. It was not a lie that 'you will not change your mind', there was no intent to deceive. That is the most information I had at the time with which to make a judgement. This is the second time you have made a dishonest interpretation of my text, it's disappointing to see. >But the question that bothers me most: Why are you trying to change my mind? Who can say that I am or not? Are you me, am I you? For you to perceive the text that I write there is some representation of my actions and self inside your perceptions and self. The difference between internal and external is a fundamental sociological problem, I seek not to answer it. >I am not a fan of proselytism. It's not my job to change your mind - it's yours. So you take no responsibility for spamming this thread with your proselytizing? The simple act of posting your opinion is proselytizing because you cannot control (in your view particularly) another's mind, for that word to have any meaning at all in this context. I seek the opportunity to make the arguments I believe are interesting and valid, someone who is closed off to that is a door I cannot open and explore. Also stop editing I've been trying to finish this for a while. >Maybe. If they were only arguing for the sake of arguing, then indeed - they were idiots. Big if.