Here is a fact for you. Try to digest. You have named no 'fact', have given no example that such a thing exists. But, and this is the important part, that does not prove there are no unicorns.
Uh, has it occured to you that this might not be a good section of the forum for you to visit? How silly of me, that would be too logical.
The dictionary is a useful tool. I wouldn't diss any tool, as surely it is the bearer who uses it to their own ends?
Do I have to read philosophy books written by others before I can espouse my own philosophy, surely not, lol
Again you are trying to push your agenda onto me. I suppose there is a possibility a beast in the image of a unicorn could exist. But unicorns related to terran horses is unlikely. Some would say that the only fact is that oneself exists. Like I said, I am not into introverted philosophies. Don't think I do not see the philosophical trap you wish to spring lol. You are just getting frustrated that I am not biting, and are trying to muscle me into it. A man trap doesn't work when the trapper is looking straight at it lol.
The self is an illusion, and does not exist. Your philosophy is the epitome of introverted thinking, which in no way is meant to imply you agree with those fools who say it is a fact that the self exists.
You are the one stating things, and in effect fixing down your ability to adapt to -and the possibility you could see from- alternate viewpoints. Honestly, don't clip your own wings, big mistake, in philosophy. Some believe the only thing that is certain is that oneself exists, that is their view. Respect it, but don't see any one viewpoint as th be all and end all., would be my advise. You seem very ready to aggressively impose your mental will/ideology on others. I learnt/developed the knowledge that this will ultimately be ones intellectual downfall. To be an effective human one must be able to adapt and empathise with other modes of thought. To discuss without proclaimation. To refrain from reverting to animalistic attack/insult when discussing subjects no matter how close to ones heart.
I am curious. How is it someone who appears to have great disdain for books and writings on philosophy, and seems to depend only on their own beliefs, would know what a 'mistake' is in philosophy? If you are not willing to consider the beliefs and writings of others, surely that is introverted thinking.
"Appears" is the operative word. I don't read philosophy because I don't want my philosophy to be overly moulded by anothers. I do however use (a book you appear to disdain yet insist on using the contents of) the dictionary when I come across a new word. Some words are philosophical appellations so of course I am exposed to the fundamentals of said words on looking up concise meanings. That is enough for me at this time. Time being of the essence. I have limited time so I have to pick and choose my reading material. I have found my present view/philosophy to hold up well enough. You seem to be the one who wants to fix down your ideas to something you have read. I simply choose to allow my philosophy to develop on a much more ground-roots basis. Using the exploration of words themselves as the basis, not some one elses inevitably biased book/view. Not to say I won't read philosophy in the future, or that I am diametrically opposed to the idea, or that if I did I would allow it to hoodwink me to one mode of thought. One belief is like religious practice. There are many religions. There are many areas of scientific endeavour, and theories to explain reality. Any individual has to pick and choose ones input, but why restrict your dialogue to one area? I have found discussing issues from any angle to be far more rewarding than a narrow venting. Please do not be offended, I simply wish to allow you to see through my eyes. What do you do?
Ahhh. Mix of religion and philosphy, now it makes sense. fair play to you, I wouldn't want to belittle your views. But one mode is too limiting for me. In fact I see specialisation as a weakness, generally. . .
Really? Wiki. Here. Here. Here. Then they weren't facts. When? Nope. It may have been believed to be fact, but it was in fact nothing but a belief. If it's not true it's not a fact. Simple. Also false. And I hated it, but I refuse to drink nearly everything else now. If it's not draught it's not Guinness, merely an acceptable substitute.
How does someone who believes themselves to be merely an illusion, enjoy beer? It must be an illusiory pleasure.
Interesting "philosophy". Time, being of the essence (why?) you don't "waste it" reading what has gone before. Doesn't that suggest the strong possibility that you're instead wasting it by reinventing the wheel? If you don't read philosophy then how do you know what's been considered previously? And, more importantly what's been considered and discarded - plus the reasons why it was discarded. The more you pick and choose what you read (i.e. get the fundamentals of) the more you restrict yourself, neh? Picking and choosing is a de facto narrowing and exclusion. Have you considered the possibility that the wider-read you are the more angles of approach you have? Just a thought...
Thinking the Earth was flat wasn't a fact, it was a belief. Nobody had proved the Earth was flat or round, so it was speculated. Now we can prove it, it is a fact. A fact is something that can be proven.
For me a fact is just true, whether we prove it or aliens prove it or even if no one proves it. It is the truth, the way, reality itself. . .
Actually, I think Universaldistress (what a name!) has an absolutely superb approach: it is realistic, within the scope of his/her current abilities and competences. Reality, no matter how meager and uninteresting, is always infinitely better than illusion, no matter how rich and interesting. I am fairly well-read, and this is what I realized. But going back to some more realistic standard is extremely difficult!
