> then consider themselves wiser Nonono, they ARE wiser, they ARE wiser for understanding that these frameworks are not quantized or quantifiable and instead a

> then consider themselves wiser Nonono, they ARE wiser, they ARE wiser for understanding that these frameworks are not quantized or quantifiable and instead are gradients with undefined boundaries over which lines on the sand are dejure undefinable. That realization MAKES them wiser and it makes anyone whom understands it wiser, yes. > Is anything real? The sum of modern philosophy might state that "That's up to you to decide" :) > This is such a dumb sentence. No it is not, you are just in disagreement with it, because you mentally would prefer your handhanded and have certainty on a realm where certainty is hard to come-by. That's an understandable, empathizable behavior, most people tend to abhor uncertainty > you're a AFDUNOIAFNDMLOISABFID, because you can't define it. I mean, I could be, apparently the world is defined by you, so it could be left up to you to decide (?), you'd be surprised of how people with different wild and exotic mental disturbances get day to day. I would recommend you to read up on it, it is very interesting * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGTXnxFj414 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGTXnxFj414 > You can't presume that concepts have merit because they are represented by language. If you were to argue with some Linguists, they might say that the opposite is true, that language itself is what anchors concepts onto "existence". One very interesting situation, is that apparently the very conception or at least verbalization and therefore social anchoring of concepts like "colors", is itself dependent on language evolving * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine-dark_sea_(Homer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine-dark_sea_(Homer) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_...