The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

In life, the point of it is to collapse resource dependencies — make things so efficient that nobody has to do it again.

Philosophy is the same. This board should celebrate when it has no more threads… because that means we did our jobs right.

We live in a planned obsolescence economy…

This is the opposite of what we should strive for as philosophers.

Some people here, like iambiguous, rely on not having proofs against him, even though they are there, because it causes no reason for him to post again.

Money, and the money of philosophy is king for some people, they thrive off of bullshit.

True philosophy ends debates. Untrue “philosophers” will work on a system they think has perpetual adherents.

What comes to mind here is the Jewish messiah who is always coming but will never be born. The Mormon religion who has “latter day saints” when the latter days have never been set.

This is what iambiguous does. You answer his question and he ignores it.

Iambiguous doesn’t want philosophy to end. That’s not a true philosopher … it’s a troll. It’s someone who doesn’t want to put themselves out of a job because they did it so well.

I loathe iambiguous for this reason. No morals.

May iambiguous who thinks no being wants their consent violated is a joke, an existential contraption, have his consent violated for all time.

After a billion years of this, iambiguous will state, “I was wrong, very wrong”

There doesn’t need to be an all powerful god for the spirits to look at iambiguous and collectively say “this man is giving us permission to violate his consent!”

Iambiguous lives his entire life suckling mommies tits. Anyone familiar with him, knows that he projects upon everyone besides him as “kids”

That’s called projection iambiguous. You are the smallest kid on these boards!

Maybe you’ll grow up someday, I don’t know. Maybe everyone in earth will have to be your mommy for all time.

The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

This is true, because there has never been a philosophy, as functional through an eternal timelessness: for it carries it back toward infinite time, as it carries forward to an infinite timelessness:

Meno says,

"Any phenomenal awareness has a relative delay, between approximated presence between a past and present signification

The delay could vary between the relative minimum and the relative maximum diversion.

In that way the present can be infused with a future between memory and anticipation.

At maximum varience there could be near instantitational through milliseconds of near infinite varience.

The phenomenal degrade carries the awareness into a relative past of a future or a future relative.

Reabsorption of relative phenomena con-fused with past-future or future vast varience can account for it.

The travel through time can recognize only non phenomenal varience.

I want to focus, to some degree here, the philosophical parasite that iambiguous is.

Everyone knows that they don’t want their consent violated. This is a moral given.

Iambiguous speaks of “existential contraptions” without defining himself out of them, which CONTRADICTS his reason for posting … a contradiction he is using to fit in with females and makes trying to get laid.

Iambiguous is a dickhead. Pure and simple. Not a philosopher.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. :laughing:


Yes, it’s personal to you. You’re still thinking with your libido.

I know for a fact that it’s impossible to have sex with a human female without raping them (what they will think initially is consent). I don’t think with my libido anymore … but you still are. And that currently makes you scum.

I also find it very interesting that the two biggest trolls on this board, the two people who won’t debate, find a kinship with each other.

I smell a set-up. :laughing:

The two he deems trolls, are the two he wants to debate the most… huh! :confusion-shrug:

I’d debate Aegean as well! But he’s now only the third biggest troll.

I want to debate people who ad hom without argument to put them in their place because they deserve it !!!

Doors always open

The three he deems trolls, are the three he wants to debate the most. lol

The sole point of philosophy is to make sure that the right kind of questions are being asked

Putting someone in their place who ad homs you makes you no better than them if you do the same
Far better to only debate those who can provide valid arguments and do not use any ad hom at all

Because I want to show them for what they are.

Debate in the debate forms doesn’t imply ad homming

That’s only a part of it. The biggest part is answering.

Philosophy cannot answer questions in any absolute sense it can only ask them
There are no definitive answers simply because it is not a deductive discipline

That’s not true. Asking a question is the same as answering a question … “what’s the best question to ask?”

In the same way that we can ask the best questions, we can answer them in the best way.

Answering a question in the best way is not the same as providing a definitive answer to that question
As philosophical questions are open ended and so do not have easy definitive answers to them as such

They may have many answers or none at all and if they have many what method determines which is the best one
No such method actually exists and so all one has to go on then is the answer that one finds the most satisfactory

Sounds like a defective personal problem to me. :laughing:
So, let’s add a few more :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

That’s not true either.

Like I’ve stated many times on this board: nobody wants their consent violated.

That’s a definitive answer to “what does nobody want”

It’s not up to subjective OPINION!!