This might seem to contradict what I said before. However, the fundamental flaw of modern philosophy is an excess rather than a lack. (‘Rather’, as there can be no excess without a lack or vice versa. For instance, having too much time means you have too little to do, and having too much to do means you have too little time.)
You don’t sound very certain. What if you’re fully conscious in deep sleep, you just have zero memory of it? And when you do have memory of your dreams, doesn’t that mean sleep and consciousness are not opposites? You have probable cause for your uncertainty.
He just wants friends for karma… unless he’s being purposely absurd about that.
In which case I don’t disagree with him or you that such a thing is absurd, which I did say. So you’re not disagreeing with me.
Does he really think it is absurd, though? …sometimes I’m not quite sure.
…but that isn’t quite the same as doing it for show, is it? …assuming it is actually happening. if someone is encouraging you to do something, and they’re not saying “do this or I’m not going to love you,” but instead are actually just encouraging you towards your full potential to grow as a person…. then if you respond cooperatively… is that doing it for show?
What, because of the word ‘probably’? 
Well, I actually meant to write ‘most probably’, but then I forgot, and afterwards I didn’t bother.
Sure, that’s a possibility, but it’s somewhat far-fetched and brain scans suggest otherwise.
Yes, very good, sleep and consciousness are not mutually exclusive… Then again, I said deep sleep:
And the firm believer wins again! 
You understand certainty and philosophy are mutually exclusive, right?
Well.., there are incidents of people considered brain dead, who, after regaining consciousness, remembered things that happened while they were considered brain dead.
I am not certain about that. Perhaps you could put it in the form of a deductive argument? Even then, I suppose I could smuggle in a little doubt on pain of rationality.
Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.
“and they’re not saying “do this or I’m not going to love you”
But:
John 3:18
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
There are a documented cases if you wish to look into them.
that doesn’t say “believe in me or I won’t love you”
Jesus was actually present when he is speaking those words. What is the name or character or essence they are rejecting?
They aren’t being rejected, they are rejecting. They condemned themselves.
1 Like
Premiss 1: Philosophy is not wisdom, just love of wisdom.
Premiss 2: Wisdom here means certainty regarding the truth, reality, etc.
Conclusion: Philosophy and certainty are mutually exclusive.
Note: Of course one might be wise concerning certain things (no pun intended) and not wise concerning other things. In that case, one may be a philosopher regarding the latter, but not regarding the former.
…define mutually exclusive.
I don’t, as I don’t have any reason to take you seriously, I’m afraid.
It isn’t about me. It is about your own lack of curiosity.
Right.
Did you call wisdom certainty about truth/reality?
How can you then say philosophy excludes certainty, and vice versa?
where it started:
By acknowledging that philosophy is not wisdom, but only the love of wisdom…
And what is the answer??
1 Like
give me your take on this:
hit the up arrow for a more reader-friendly version