1.give your subject a name
a.support with details like Nature’s Time is Cubic and perpetual. Linear Time is wrong and suicidal.
b.show your subject has been tested like, Evil educators suppress
student free speech right
to debate Cubic Creation.
Evil students don’t object.
c.give a little story to your details like, 80/infinity translates into 0/0.
(true fact thanks dr.satanical)
2.when naming your subject don’t put belief into it like Pinchoism = True…(Math’s in favour of it!) (that is a lie thanks pincho),
try with a observing conversation with the other philosopher like besides even if the guardians of destiny are just the jury who do you claim to be the judge us ourselves or what the spiders and at the average age of 21 people don’t do much so what good is heaven for them at that age if they’re already BORED.
a.that way they understand you.
b.that way your respecting their peice of work.
c.makes you get good props.
3.if at any point in their theory they state the following
a. odds = 1/1000… That’s the answer, not a question.
b.My theory has absolute answers. That is why it is a good theory. You can’t argue against the mathematics. Odds are in favour of my theory being true.
c.do not believe them because they are making selfish comments
and want more attention then they already have.
im just a genius trying to smoothen the path of the other so called “philosophers” when really i’ve been showing my work for quite some time and no offense anyone thanks for being on this fun website.
too right about both things. at least, analytic philosophy worships the idea of Reason/Rationality in the sense that it assumes that anything that is true can be rationally discovered. personally, i don’t see why that would be the case.
completely agree with your second point about reason and faith - and i wish that more people realised that. just think about descartes - he needed to turn to his faith in God to prove the existence of the external world…
My piece of philosophy has been tested like, Powerful farmers seduce chicken access to Blockbuster library and related media. Powerful chickens don’t fall for it.
Harry the Chicken has two legs but frequently rents four movies. It ends up being the same thing.
i presume you’re talking about philosophy being a cult, cuz if you mean the second bit then your question can’t really be answered using reasoning alone!!!
Normal reasoning. One can reason one’s way to the unreasonable.
If one analyses and reduces and stirs and bakes then analyses and reduces one more one eventually realises that the rationalist faith in language is just the same (logically) as faith in God, Moses and so on…
Soph,
Glad I’ve got someone who agrees with me, but don’t make a habit out of it…
i think it eventually boils down to different definitions of what is rational: we might say that big assumptions/jumps in reasoning/leaps of faith are inherent at least somewhere in each rational argument; but those who think that reason is completely distinct from faith might not see the leaps as leaps but as valid rational inferences. in other words, it depends on what assumptions you can include in a rational argument for it to still be called rational… just a thought.
More simply - one can only validate an argument by use of another argument, one needs a leap of faith to simply take certain things for granted otherwise the reasoning process is endless (and hence absurd and therefore contradictory…)
yes but then there are people like me those without faith,or hope,or love,or reason just another philosopher stating good facts no matter how dull at the least he or she could be.
yeah, definitely, that’s what we were both saying before; but what i mean now is that the crux of the discussion is the concept of what rationality IS. we think that, because certain things may be taken for granted, or assumed, in rational argument, that the argument is not purely rational; but someone who did NOT think that faith comes into play in rational argument might simply classify the assumption as a rational one, and that’s that.
Very funny, Ad.