GENIUS FORUMS

Sisyphus, anyone?

Sorry, I'm not feeling the power God here, you false disciples!

Why, thank you Diebert. Yes, we shall see whether or not this Dionysian wine has yet refined your palate. Remember: start with small sips and never, ever, ever swallow - and only spit into the bucket.

Much older than I am now, and nevertheless not old enough.

Qualifying the knowing with the term psychological doesn't diminish that it can in fact be known. The simple act of defining something proves A=A in each and every moment. Still, as fundamental a conception as A=A is, it does not transcend consciousness; it is merely an artifact of it. I think the ...

Logic relies precisely on the assumption that a thing is what it is (A=A). Do you believe it's impossible to know that A=A, and that at best one can only assume it? Well, my earlier reply (which has now been deleted from the annals of the genius asylum by the appointed lunatic admin) was actually a...

That's right, Bobo. As if it were the space where everything happens.

Naturally, it's a misnomer on the order of ascribing to Nietzsche the philosophic essence of Nazi ideology.

One need only understand Marx's fundamental observations in order to understand that vultural Marxism has nothing to do with Marx's thinking. From The German Ideology: In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we...

We might consider "enlightenment" in terms of the Nietzschean Will to Power. In the "enlightened", causal subjective/objective relations (egoism) arise and fall away all the time as self-overcoming. To seek an "enlightenment" through the death of ego as though ego were ...

Needless to say, both of these betray deep Christian roots and are doubtless interrelated, just like Leyla's glib analytical style betrays her Marxist and $cilon roots. Yes, luckily I escaped Christian indoctrination, so I don't suffer from the delusion of an inherently existing infinitude of nothi...

PS: You're in "good", but not unknown, company, though. (: Here's another quote, but this time on why A does not equal A, to prove it: I will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very concrete form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposit...

It's not possible, Diebert, to have a rational discussion with someone who cannot comprehend A=A and goes on to assert ad nauseum from that incomprehensibility and the false premises proceeding from it that only causality exists. This only, in all your "wisdom", have you managed to demonst...

Just to complicate matters, here's a quote of Weininger's logic, reason and argumentation constituting a thought process on the subject in question, with a different emphasis than when I first quoted it: If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doi...

Things are never "what they are" because it would break the logic of A not being able to be anything that is not A. And "what it is" does not equal just "it". Why, Diebert; are you attempting to disprove A=A while proving it at the same time? Why all the "quotatio...

Quoting doesn't replace the logic, reason and argumentation on how your thought process might have went, Leyla. It wasn't meant to. I quoted you to demonstrate that saying something was said when it wasn't doesn't replace the logic, reason and argumentation on how the thought process of the thing s...

Well, I'm not going to argue about what you said when I can just quote it: j: We may not know what all the causes of something are, but we can know that all those causes make it what it is. D: Causes will make it seem. And other causes make "what it is" as reflection. They are not the same...

Seeming means just some likeness, not the being, the existence itself. There can be no comparison, especially because finite things will not be there to be found. If it's understood why they won't be found, it's also clear why they can never be themselves in any way. Only if you assert that "b...

Its a dumb question to begin with.

Yes, which explains why you repeatedly ask it.

jellyfish wrote: A=A is no more a description of logic than the taste of chocolate. It is merely a convenient way of indicating the process of reasoning. Weininger's point in that quote was that one cannot reason about reasoning. One must accept the validity of one's reasoning without any prior reas...

... existing causality has necessarily remained exactly as it is regardless of the fact that your vision is blurred by something else. Yes, only causality is but cannot be compared, even with itself. Like with your quote: it doesn't allow to be denied because even to determine "remaining"...

Something jupiviv quoted in the recent past springs to mind: If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doing I would have to make use of logic, i.e., of exactly this proposition. If at some point I did not comply with it, that would mean that my ded...

They are quotation marks, I was just quoting Seeker's way of phrasing. And no, things are never as their being because that reflection is a logical action and tells something about your logic, your reason and cognition itself. It's doesn't tell you much about something existing. Causality exists. T...

But they exists in those descriptions as language is just reflecting the same process of recognition, of cognition. That's why things are never "as they are". They are how you are happen to discern them, subjectively, with hopefully enough relation to truth and reason. Of course, the deba...

Sorry, forgot something:

Experience is it. That's all there is.

Without cause and effect (aka causality)?