Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Nov 22, 2011.
This statement above couldn't have been made without taking some philosophy for granted first.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It doesn't matter what philosophy tells me, physical reality is the thing that hurts when it hits you!
What would you, in your own words, describe as:
1) Physical reality
2) Philosophical reality
You can't talk about feeling hurt unless you have some kind of philosophy (however rudimentary).
I need a philosophy to feel physical pain? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your incorrect statement that physical "reality" trumps philosophical "reality".
If that is your interpretation of what I said you suck as a translator. I say obviously circular things like that to weed out the good readers from the bad. It works quite well IMO.
My main point is reality is reality. Your point seems to be that physical reality and philosophical reality are two different universes in which physics is bigger.
The word "nothing" which you consistently undermine with the logistics of your mind moving the wrong existing information into incorrect places. A word which is more closely related to the "physics" of change than it ever could be philosophy of change.
Oh would you look at that I appear to be contradicting my main point again. To weak eyes.
On what level?
Whatever one comes up with philosophically can be shown to be incorrect if it's contradicted by physical reality.
In other words you're not capable of writing what you mean.
Ooh! Tautologies! Is this part of "logistics"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Could you please write that in English?
And this please.
Not at all. You're just rambling inanely. As usual.
You haven't demonstrated that your assertion is correct and even if it correct, why it is not simply a false dichotomy or just trivially true.
You can't physically demonstrated that the axiom "from nothing, nothing comes" when using the logical definition of nothingness. All you can do is try and define nothingness as "empty-space" (which is not nothingness, logically speaking) and then say something comes from nothing (that isn't actually logically nothing). But this just makes all the more apparent why philosophy and metaphysics are important. You can't do physical science with certain philosophical and metaphysical points of view.
Your definition of "physical reality" (would you be so kind and describe what you think it means to you?) will most likely open up your can of metaphysical and philosophical points of view.
Btw, have you read Alex Rosenberg's new book "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions"? Brilliant read, I think you will enjoy it.
Then it wouldn't be classified under philosophical reality either then would it?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry I cant find an exact interpretation in english for the type of stupid I use to counteract yourse. (me saying you are a special kind of stupid)
Is your brain transfering electric potentials from one place to another?
I appologize for the sarcasm and hyperbole I spew to counter your purposefully misleading statements.
I thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore.:bawl:. So glad you decided against that notion.
Sure. You have a very hard time comprehending what Nihilism "means". Have no idea what it looks like. And therefore have no idea how to counteract it.
Alright I'll slow down for ya.
In physics "nothing" is an all encompassing "OBJECT". Which means if the object is capable of motion it is also capable of change. Nothing "EVERCHANGES", for example.
In philosophy nothing is not an object it is the act of sitting on your arse and doing absolutely nothing. Now reality might be changing, but philosophical reality remains at a complete standstill.
This is an example of the furthest divergence you can possibly represent between Physical and Philosophical "reality".
Now which one is better and why? Philosophical change or physical change?
Nothing changes, only people.
Ah, so now YOU are claiming there's a difference between physical "reality" and a philosophical one.
Physical reality: that which is measurable and tangible.
Philosophy never goes against actual reality?
Never uses a "what if" as a start point?
Ah, your delusion showing through again.
And this is shows...?
Oh, you failed again to read, or understand, what I wrote.
Changing the topic?
So now YOU are also claiming that physical reality isn't philosophical reality?
It is quite impossible to go against reality...
Delusion or illusion?
That you like to answer rhetoric with inquisitions...
You haven't written anything valid.
Validating what appears to you to be inane. But for the sake of change sure.
What firdroirich said.... He seems to comprehend with or without the comma.
Nope. Try again.
Each is subject to the other, But they are objectively the same reality. Two different ways of describing the same event.
Your evolutionarily comparing an alligator and a crocodile while swimming in the same river.
Does the first not include and surpass the second?
Which doesn't answer my question.
Philosophy per se doesn't always conform to actuality.
Sure you can delude yourself into a false reality. It doesn't make it feel any less "real" and in fact can feel more real than what is actually happening. The fact still remains that it is not.
"In philosophy nothing is not an object it is the act of sitting on your arse and doing absolutely nothing. Now reality might be changing, but philosophical reality remains at a complete standstill. "
Then asked a question. I left any interpretations to the so called master.
Um, "delusion" isn't required for philosophical inquiry.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Yeah, but that's wrong.
So you're contending that sitting doing nothing somehow "includes and surpasses" a changing reality?
How does that work?
It is obviously a possible side effect...
No point. Just wondering I this conversation actually feels "genuine" to you.
Let's try an analogy...
"Nothing" relates to evolution. Physical/philosophical relates to alligator/crocodile. Reality is represented by the river we are all in.
um no..., but if you removed "sitting" and "doing" you might be onto something irrelevant from what I was actually "inquiring". See this is why I ask questions sometimes. I was saying physical reality is included in philosophical reality therefore philosophical reality has more to offer.
One just includes the universe. The other has the universe and defines rules for life changing it.
So is an erection.
What's your point?
It feels like I'm conversing with an incoherent idiot. But that's normal when you're involved.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bwahahaha. Except for being actual reality, of course.
I see few words and even fewer words deriving your conclusions. Other than the reality bit being circular and the phallic jokes entertaining.
Of course there's no explanation of how I got my conclusions.
I'm doing exactly what you're doing.
And there are no "phallic jokes".
Maybe, as usual, you're not actually reading what I write.
Separate names with a comma.