Nice try, but all of these “anti illusion” theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)
I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.
Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that position
And it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logically
I knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind
You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists, especially, ecmandu, because you named me, are the biggest worthless prices of shit in all of existence, by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived (yes, you used a universal in your reply to sihlloutte, and would be better if blowing his brains out.
Read your fucking post dude.
Ok you’re retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.
I think I’ve pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.
Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.
But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don’t want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You’d really benefit, and I offer it for free. It’s worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you’re riding on.
No don’t touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we’ve been waiting for. It’s that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili’s bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says ‘yes’, by god she’ll mean YES.
we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman’s therapy. Whatever you do, DON’T CALM HIM DOWN!
You guys are both funny (hilariously so, not haha)
So here’s the deal.
I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from women.
You’ll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence (and mine for sure) is just subjective.
Like I always say to you guys who think you’re these gritty postmodern badasses. If you took a mind like mine and gave it morals like yours, you’d rue the day you were ever born.
I may be compelled to misunderstand you here more than you are compelled to misunderstand me but it is ecmandu that nature may or may not be compelling me to debate.
I feel the point of wisdom is to understand that compelling and bypass it when such is possible, as something ‘compelling’ could appear as instinctual or a falling for such.
When silhouette argues that identity doesn’t exist in any way, but then uses identity to make his arguments, that’s pretty much it for me.
Silhouette, there isn’t a difference between contradiction and a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are inference contradictions, not explicit.
You hit upon the contradiction of your fallacy at the convergence point of the fallacy by stating you don’t exist. In this way, you are a direct contradiction (not implicit) of your fallacy.