- Except in chaos, effort towards a visualized purpose will be rewarded.
- To know yourself means know your intentions.
- Where there is a way, there is a will.
- A circle is the straightest line.
- words are meant to be brought together, but meaning is in their separation.
none of them are well-written and some of them are just plain incorrect.
which ones are incorrect and why…
not all effort is rewarded.
the second one…do i really have to explain why that’s incorrect? really? there’s not, NOT, a will for every way. maybe you don’t understand what the words “way” and “will” meant in the original cliche. the original cliche means that if you want badly enough to do something, you’ll find a way to do it (also technically incorrect, but at least it has some value as an encouraging cliche, a value which yours doesn’t have). what you’re saying is that if there’s a way to do something, someone will want badly enough to do it. why do you think that? there’s a way for me to do the banana dance right now, but I don’t have the will to do it. There’s the way, there’s not the will. It’s not there. there’s a way for me to masturbate while making monkey noises and wearing women’s clothing, but I don’t have any will to do that. there’s a way for countless things to be done, and many of those things NOBODY has any will to do. so what are you talking about?
philosophy doesn’t really mean “make vague, unjustified statements that you think sound nice.”
it means something else.
Wow, harsh. I thought it was everything the “observer” thought to be justified and correct, not the opinion of others which is purely subjective.
Excuse me but what would you know of philosophy?
Reading doesn’t mean “not thinking”.
jesus christ, ILP has turned into the gibberish club.
Seriously jesus, what have you produced that is of any value?
Not really anything, isnt that correct?
if you have, please point me to your most philosophical post.
I have only seen you chant with the crowd.
In any case philosophy requires reflection, thought.
If Flannel Jesus finds my statements to be so incomprehensible and vague, he is probably somewhat challenged intellectually. The statements are very well understandable and not at all nonsensical, though indeed not at all well written (as the title suggests).
is that what your response is? you can’t defend your own posts, so you say “Well naaaa you can’t do any better”? that’s what you think is the best response here? i guess that means I already proved my point.
How old are you?
Are you really unaware that you have not made a specific challenge?
What could I respond to, except to your ridiculously meaningless way of imposing yourself here?
You mean a specific challenge to what you posted? I made 2 in fact. They’re up there.
2 specific challenges. are you unaware that i posted this?
I did not say that all effort is rewarded, but that effort, in the absence of chaos is rewarded. Cleary, this is not all effort.
No, you got me wrong.
By way I mean a trajectory, say, from a to b. It implies a goal, as well as the method of attainment of b from a.
to conceive of such a trajectory and to employ such a method, a will is required.
There can not be a way to anything if there has not before been a will.
Otherwise it is not a way to anything, so, not a way.
so you say that all your “aphorisms” are not vague but are really clear, and yet you also explicitly say that you’re using the words in different ways that they’re normally used and expect people to understand them…you see something wrong there? these are, in fact, vague statements, and the one about ways and wills seems to be either tautological or incorrect still. so it’s either meaningless or wrong. why don’t you make a real thread for each one of these statements explaining what you mean by these words and why it’s true? that might be a good idea. make one about why all effort is rewarded in the absence of chaos. do you really expect people to just say “oh yeah, that’s clearly true, what a wise fellow mr FC is”? nobody’s going to say that, because what you’re talking about is VAGUE.
if way implies a goal, and if you have a goal you obviously have a will to achieve that goal…if you define those words like that, then obviously for every way there’s a will, that’s just tautological, true by definition, and therefore meaningless. if that’s really what you meant, then it was pointless to say. of course when most people say “way” a goal is not implied, so you’re using these words in non-standard ways and expecting people to understand it…making vague statements and then explaining them to be tautologically true is the opposite of philosophy, it’s just speaking gibberish and relaying absolutely 0 information to anybody.
i know i’m insulting, and part of me wants to say sorry, and part of me would like to go back in time and be more civil about my criticism, but another part of me is just like “Threads like this are bastardizing philosophy and there’s no room to say anything but negative, insulting things about this bologna.”
so, yes, my suggestion is that if you think any of these statements have any relevant meaning to them at all, you should make a thread for them each and explain why they’re true and what they mean.
No need to apologize - youve misunderstood me, that is fine.
I think you misunderstand the concept of definition. According you your criticism, all exact, for example mathematical definitions would be meaningless.
i know it’s fine that i’ve misunderstood you, it’d be nearly impossible to do anything else
Seeing your peculiar understanding of definitions, by which all correct definitions are disqualified, I can understand where you have trouble.
i don’t see anybody else in this thread expressing their understanding of your profound aphorisms.