Is Jokerism a syllogism for Buddhism?

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?

Buddha wears women's makeup in the statues and cartoons and is smiling always. Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.

Jokerism is about saving people from their meaningless lives, symbolically with a smile. Buddhaism is very similar in its attitudes towards the western rat race and culture.

I'm not a buddhaist, I'm not a jokerist. I am a Trixiest. Which is better, getting punched in the face by batman, or getting the women to give you footmassages and bubble baths? Trixiesm simply teaches women to be in their rightful place, to give love, pleasure, and apple cider facials. Let's be honest, women are not good at thinking, unless they have some testosterone (Trixie has some testerone, she has V shaped hair evidence of testosterone) so women are not happy, men are not happy, nobody is happy, its best for everyone if they just give love and pleasure, and stop trying to make everyone miserable with their star trek autism.

Jokerism is very similar to buddhaism because in the cartoons he can't get it up for harley, displays and attitude of "I dont need no woman" buddhaism. I don't think he's gay, just has the hots for poison ivy, just as Buddhaists are not always gay, just have the hots for nature. To be honest, one time I was pinned to the wall by a magnificent stallion and I can't blame them.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

The behavioral dynamics I speak of revolve around egoism, selfishness, self preservation, hedonism, desire of power, nepotism, and so on. Still, nobody likes talking about those things where people instead wrap these subjects under morality or ethics because it makes them "feel good". It makes them "feel good" about themselves and the world around them even though it's all just a giant facade.

[Meno_]

And even Joker would have to admit if he was still here among us, that's if facades did not exist, they would need to be invented.

[Prismatic567]

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?

Buddha wears women's makeup in the statues and cartoons and is smiling always. Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.

A syllogism is a series of premises [major & minor] linked logically arrive at a conclusion.

An example of a syllogism;
P1 Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness.
P2 Buddhism is NOT about worshipping death and nothingness.
C3 Therefore Jokerism do not jive with Buddhism.

I am not a Buddhist nor religious but I believe Buddhism-proper is the most advanced non-theistic religion at present albeit a bit too advance from the majority.
The point is to be optimal at present, one has to adopt a religion that is aligned with one's state, conditions and inclinations.

However in the future, humanity would be better off without religions which currently are useful but has lots of other negatives.

[Arminius]

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?

Buddha wears women's makeup in the statues and cartoons and is smiling always. Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.

A syllogism is a series of premises [major & minor] linked logically arrive at a conclusion.

An example of a syllogism;
P1 Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness.
P2 Buddhism is NOT about worshipping death and nothingness.
C3 Therefore Jokerism do not jive with Buddhism.

Again: FALSE!

Your premises are false, thus your conclusion is also false.

My oh my! Boy oh boy!

[surreptitious57]

A syllogism is an axiomatic deductive system of logic like mathematics. It consists of two premises and a conclusion. The second premise
must be a logical consequence of the first premise. And the conclusion must be a logical consequence of the second premise. Syllogisms
like arguments can be valid or sound. A valid one is only true within itself but a sound one is true within itself and also objectively true

[Prismatic567]

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?

Buddha wears women's makeup in the statues and cartoons and is smiling always. Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.

A syllogism is a series of premises [major & minor] linked logically arrive at a conclusion.

An example of a syllogism;
P1 Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness.
P2 Buddhism is NOT about worshipping death and nothingness.
C3 Therefore Jokerism do not jive with Buddhism.

Again: FALSE!

Your premises are false, thus your conclusion is also false.

My oh my! Boy oh boy!

Note surreptitious57's comments on what is a syllogism.

My syllogism is deductively correct merely as an example of what a syllogism is. I did not state the premise P1 and conclusion are sound.

You should be mindful before jumping out of your chair to think you have found I committed a serious intellectual error.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And even Joker would have to admit if he was still here among us, that's if facades did not exist, they would need to be invented.

Who determines necessity and why? Necessities invented are just other forms of fabricated contraptions.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Meditating under a tree trying to gain so called enlightenment isn't exactly my thing Trixie. Ask Erik.

[Arminius]

Note surreptitious57's comments on what is a syllogism.

My syllogism is deductively correct merely as an example of what a syllogism is. I did not state the premise P1 and conclusion are sound.

You should be mindful before jumping out of your chair to think you have found I committed a serious intellectual error.

I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. Sorry. But stop trying to sell your religion. So, please, let me explain what I meant:

In the opening post is said:

Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.

You used this sentences as the two premises of your syllogism by negating the second sentence. A syllogism is part of logic. Logic without semantics is absolutely meaningless. You have been ignorant here again - as usual. But I know better than you that you have intentionally chosen that syllogism example, thus that you have used semantics (regardless whether you know this or not). It is not possible to use language without semantics. Thus it is also not possible to use logic without semantics. Even mathematics is meaningless without language, thus without semantics. Otherwise you could semantically change everything and nevertheless say that "it is true".

Each word has a meaning / importance (!), and semantics is the linguistical realm that deals with the meaning / importance and thus also the definition of each linguistical form (each phoneme, each morpheme, each lexeme, each word, each sentence, ..., even each text). Logic can be defined as "logical language". Regardless how abstract the explanations of "validity" are: without semantics "validity" just means nothing.

I am not saying that the form you used is false. I am saying that the content you used is false. Both depend on each other. So again: Without semantics logic is useless. And syllogism is part of logic.

Again: I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. So I could only interpret it in the way I did. And if you read the other posts here, then you will notice that all posters are referring to logic (including syllogism) only in a semantic way.

Now, look at the following two syllogism examples (based on your examples):

I)

"P1) Prismatic 567 is Putcer.
P2) Putcer is not Murreptitious 57.
C3) Therefore Prismatic 567 does not jive with Murreptitious 57."

II)

"P1) Prismatic 567 is Murreptitious 57.
P2) Murreptitious 57 is not Putcer.
C3) Therefore Prismatic 567 does not jive with Putcer."

What does that mean besides the formal aspect? I mean: Both syllogisms contradict each other. Which of those two syllogisms is true? Or is no one of the both true? Which of the premises and conclusions are true? Or is no one of the premises and conclusions true? According to you this all does not matter because of the purely formal aspect you want to be considered. Okay, but then there is no meaning at all in the statements, and you can claim whatever you want, regardless how nonsensical it is.

[Arminius]

Meditating under a tree trying to gain so called enlightenment isn't exactly my thing Trixie. Ask Erik.

Yes. I believe you. How would you define Jokerism (if at all)?

[Prismatic567]

I am not saying that the form you used is false. I am saying that the content you used is false. Both depend on each other. So again: Without semantics logic is useless. And syllogism is part of logic.

Again: I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. So I could only interpret it in the way I did. And if you read the other posts here, then you will notice that all posters are referring to logic (including syllogism) only in a semantic way.

Note the OP,

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?
...

In response to the above, I was merely giving an example what 'what is a syllogism' using the existing materials and not taking into account the truth of the contents.
Point is you did not follow the 'logic' of my post.

Note the following are can be independent by themselves;

1. Philosophy
2. Logic
3. Semantics
4. Mathematics
5. Science
6. Others

Logic and semantics are merely tools of philosophy in seeking wisdom to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.

[Arminius]

I am not saying that the form you used is false. I am saying that the content you used is false. Both depend on each other. So again: Without semantics logic is useless. And syllogism is part of logic.

Again: I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. So I could only interpret it in the way I did. And if you read the other posts here, then you will notice that all posters are referring to logic (including syllogism) only in a semantic way.

Note the OP,

I don't know what syllogism means, and I'm not going to google it, but is it? Like a male version of Buddhism, instead of boring meditation, there is bombation?
...

In response to the above, I was merely giving an example what 'what is a syllogism' using the existing materials and not taking into account the truth of the contents.
Point is you did not follow the 'logic' of my post.

Note the following are can be independent by themselves;

1. Philosophy
2. Logic
3. Semantics
4. Mathematics
5. Science
6. Others

Logic and semantics are merely tools of philosophy in seeking wisdom to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.

Ah. "Others" can also be "independent by themselves". I think you yourself have to note your 6 points again.

Again: I do not always rely on semantics. In my last posts I just wanted to remind you of the importnace of semantics. I did not say that semantic rules over this and that. I merely saif that semantics is needed everywhere.

I think that your „ranking“ should be corrected a bit.

Note: Maybe it is a typical view of an English-speaking man you have, but that does not automatically mean that it is correct or even the best one.

But okay, it does not very much differ from my model:



And look, semantics is not on the "top", is not even mentioned. As a branch of linguistics it is included in linguistics - of course, duh. According to my model philosophy is on the "top" (thus seemingly similar to your view, your model), but this "top" is no real top, because it can be turned upside down. And if it is turned upside down, the physics is on the "top" which is no real top. (See the arrows in the graphics above.) However. Semantics is never on the "top", but that does not autmatically mean that it is not needed everywhere.

[Arminius]

Back to the topic:

Does Jokerism exist at all? And if yes: What does it exactly mean?

This questions should be answered by Joker first.

[Prismatic567]

In response to the above, I was merely giving an example what 'what is a syllogism' using the existing materials and not taking into account the truth of the contents.
Point is you did not follow the 'logic' of my post.

Note the following are can be independent by themselves;

1. Philosophy
2. Logic
3. Semantics
4. Mathematics
5. Science
6. Others

Logic and semantics are merely tools of philosophy in seeking wisdom to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.

Ah. "Others" can also be "independent by themselves". I think you yourself have to note your 6 points again.

Again: I do not always rely on semantics. In my last posts I just wanted to remind you of the importnace of semantics. I did not say that semantic rules over this and that. I merely saif that semantics is needed everywhere.

I think that your „ranking“ should be corrected a bit.

Note: Maybe it is a typical view of an English-speaking man you have, but that does not automatically mean that it is correct or even the best one.

But okay, it does not very much differ from my model:

And look, semantics is not on the "top", is not even mentioned. As a branch of linguistics it is included in linguistics - of course, duh. According to my model philosophy is on the "top" (thus seemingly similar to your view, your model), but this "top" is no real top, because it can be turned upside down. And if it is turned upside down, the physics is on the "top" which is no real top. (See the arrows in the graphics above.) However. Semantics is never on the "top", but that does not autmatically mean that it is not needed everywhere.

Generally, philosophy is overriding and there is the Philosophy of 'X' where 'X' can be any thing.
Thus one can prefix 'Philosophy' as a subject to any predicate and philosophy is always in a meta- or overriding position.

Generally say we have the Philosophy of Logic, Science, Mathematics, Semantics etc. but it is very abnormal to have 'Logic of Philosophy' as encompassing philosophy. At most we can have 'logic' or semantics within philosophy but that is merely as a subset and not the main-set.

Semantics is needed where it is necessary and relevant to compile and communicate but it is not imperative to discover and understand all human knowledge.
In some cases semantics is a liability to the higher finer knowledge. This is why there is the koan approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan

[Arminius]

Semantics is needed everywhere. Each process of understanding must be accompanied by its meaning, its semantics. Without semantics you know nothing. So if you want to know less and less and at last nothing at all, then just loose semantics (like those who suffer from Altzheimer’s disease do).

[Prismatic567]

Semantics is needed everywhere.

I disagree.
It is not needed EVERYWHERE but only where it is relevant.

1+1=2.
Do I need semantics for this knowledge?

Each process of understanding must be accompanied by its meaning, its semantics. Without semantics you know nothing. So if you want to know less and less and at last nothing at all, then just loose semantics (like those who suffer from Altzheimer’s disease do).

I'll say again, semantics is critical to knowledge, but it is not the only critical element to knowledge and it is not needed EVERYWHERE.

[Arminius]

Semantics is needed everywhere.

I disagree.
It is not needed EVERYWHERE but only where it is relevant.

1+1=2.
Do I need semantics for this knowledge?

Yes. Of course. You also need semantics for the knowledge of "1+1=2“. Look how children learn to count. Counting is not only a formal phenomenon. Even numbers have a meaning. Without knowing what numbers mean you will never learn the meaning of "1+1=2“.

And interstingly, children learn to count when they have already acquired the main part of language, thus before they are enrolled in school. It is not possible to learn to count before the main part of language is acquired. And it is never poossible to know what numbers are without the meaning of numbers, the semantics behind it.

A child that is about 5, 6, 7 years old often uses the fingers when it comes to learning to count, because it is not possible for the child to learn a purely formal aspect without any reference to reality (facts - "there is one [1] finger and another [2] finger, and one more [3] finger", ... and so on). This reference works in a general (namely: semiotic) way like semantics does in a particular (namely: linguistic) way.