Shall I Post My Philosophy Work On Here?

[mimi]

If they're stupid questions....shouldn't you be able to answer them easily ?

[soon]

the questions aren't meaningful enough?

[extralegs2020]

If they're stupid questions....shouldn't you be able to answer them easily ?

I just did.

[soon]

you might have answered the opposite of what was asked.

[Blurt]

He's not bright enough, Soon, to recognize an intellectual snare laid before him by someone whose intelligence he refuses to accept even though it far outshines his own.

[Blurt]

So why are you asking stupid questions??!!

Here's another stupid question: did you write the following words?

The claims of the empiricists in reference to synthetic a priori knowledge is that such propositions are simply empirical propositions that have been mistaken for something else. That is, God and angels are made of physical substances that we can see.

[Berry Sweet]

Extralamers will never see it. He's stuck in his own bubble and he believes his own illusions of grandeur (he makes it up as he goes). Lamers could never comprehend actual reality. You can't reason with a mentally ill person.

[extralegs2020]

Extralamers will never see it. He's stuck in his own bubble and he believes his own illusions of grandeur (he makes it up as he goes). Lamers could never comprehend actual reality. You can't reason with a mentally ill person.

Do you people want to have me committed?

[extralegs2020]

So why are you asking stupid questions??!!

Here's another stupid question: did you write the following words?

The claims of the empiricists in reference to synthetic a priori knowledge is that such propositions are simply empirical propositions that have been mistaken for something else. That is, God and angels are made of physical substances that we can see.

Yes.
It means that empiricists don't, and can't, make rationalist claims. They can only make empirical claims.
It is clear what I am saying: They are claiming that all we can ever know is this physical universe. People see God, see angels and hear voices and smell the foul odour of daemons. If you can see and hear it, it must be a physical thing. It has only been mistaken for something metaphysical.
I was clear from the very beginning.
What part of that do you not understand?
And why are you bugging me with your stupidity?
And why do I have to sit here and explain everything to you like a two year old?
You weary me.

[mimi]

So why are you asking stupid questions??!!

Here's another stupid question: did you write the following words?

The claims of the empiricists in reference to synthetic a priori knowledge is that such propositions are simply empirical propositions that have been mistaken for something else. That is, God and angels are made of physical substances that we can see.

Yes.
It means that empiricists don't, and can't, make rationalist claims. They can only make empiricist claims.
It is clear what I am saying: They are claiming that all we can ever know is this physical universe. People see God, see angels and hear voices and smell the foul odour of daemons. If you can see and hear it, it must be a physical thing. It has only been mistaken for something metaphysical.
I was clear from the very beginning.
What part of that do you not understand?
And why are you bugging me with your stupidity?
And why do I have to sit here and explain everything to you like a two year old?
You weary me.

How do we know what other people see. They can tell us, but they can't show us.

[extralegs2020]

How do we know what other people see. They can tell us, but they can't show us.

They CLAIM to see God.
Problem is, nobody else sees what they do, not the same things.
It's like having a dream (or an acid trip) that no one else has had.

[evs]

Some of us believe them. Some have trouble believing because they’ve never had the same dream:)) the fact that they also never dropped acid is not a factor to them. They just won’t believe anything that they can’t replicate.

[evs]

Flat earth movement comes to mind. Another group who doesn’t believe unless they saw it with their own eyes. Am I wrong?

[Blurt]

Flat Earthers... empiricists par excellence! Yeah, okay.

Please, Evvies.

Like other religious cultists, Flat Earthers discount any evidence that doesn't fit their mental model of geophysical reality.

[evs]

Like other religious cultists as well as atheists, Flat Earthers discount any evidence that doesn't fit their mental model of geophysical reality.

Fify

[mimi]

It's one thing to discount evidence....but are you discounting anything when there is no evidence ?

[evs]

I think it comes down to what constitutes evidence and to whom. Aren’t all those things that science cannot explain (e.g. miraculous recoveries, ppl with inexplicable abilities, etc.) evidence that there is a divine force out there that our senses and reasoning just don’t get?

[extralegs2020]

I think it comes down to what constitutes evidence and to whom. Aren’t all those things that science cannot explain (e.g. miraculous recoveries, ppl with inexplicable abilities, etc.) evidence that there is a divine force out there that our senses and reasoning just don’t get?

No.
Actually, it is only evidence that there are things science can't explain, like miraculous recoveries, and people with inexplicable abilities.
Someone will always find an alternative explanation for such things.
It always leads to a deadlock. There is no way out of this dilemma.
It is unresolvable.
It has always been so. There is no reason to believe it will ever be resolved in the future.

[evs]

Good point. But we can live with unresolvable.

[extralegs2020]

Yes.
I can.

[Mad Serb]

EL and irina, I don't follow this topic closely, but a word of advice - if you want your philosophical writings to be taken seriously you need to use phrase "...that which..." more often.

[soon]

perhaps mishmash is a better word for it.

[Beam Reach]

If they're stupid questions....shouldn't you be able to answer them easily ?

[soon]

hodgepodge is probably more accurate.

[Mad Serb]

[soon]

[evs]

EL and irina, I don't follow this topic closely, but a word of advice - if you want your philosophical writings to be taken seriously you need to use phrase "...that which..." more often.

I don’t get it.

[Mad Serb]

Schopenhauer: "...or it assumes and establishes a relation of music as a representation to that which of its essence..."

Leibniz: "“God will always do the best, … a man shall always do … that which appears to him to be the best.”

Christopher Hitchens: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Anselm: "....that which nothing greater can be thought"

.
.
.

[Mad Serb]

.

[evs]

I still don’t get it. The style is the woman herself. Why would I change my style?