lordoflight wrote:You are a good laugh but when it comes to reality, all you are is fantasy.
Ecmandu wrote:lordoflight wrote:You are a good laugh but when it comes to reality, all you are is fantasy.
That's not a refutation.
Ecmandu wrote:
The number 4 will never be able to hit you over the head yet everyone who exists believes in it
surreptitious75 wrote:Ecmandu wrote:
The number 4 will never be able to hit you over the head yet everyone who exists believes in it
The number 4 exists on the number line not in physical reality which is why so many believe in it
surreptitious75 wrote:Numbers are not real so obviously you would not expect to find them anywhere in physical reality
Those words you typed are not real either but they still exist as abstractions just like numbers do
Silhouette wrote:Devise a repeatable and falsifiable experiment to prove the existence of at least one Platonic form.
I am not asking for hand wavey terms, shaky logic and implicit assumptions - give me something as undeniably legitimate as proving the existence of a tree.
Who claimed this guy had a high IQ btw?
Ecmandu wrote:Umm... every experiment that's repeatable that has ever used math!!!??!
Ecmandu wrote:Utility is the only verification that exists. You said that the utility of math cannot be denied, but math can be.
Silhouette wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Utility is the only verification that exists. You said that the utility of math cannot be denied, but math can be.
That I can prove that you are engaged in a useless argument alone shows that things with no utility can exist.
Does the uselessness to me of a grain of sand mean it cannot be verified to exist? Utility is the only verification that exists?! Clearly there are innumerable counter examples to this ridiculously sweeping statement, of which the above are just two.
Regardless, if you had read my argument in full (and had a sufficient IQ to discern it) you would have discovered that I qualified how utility can both be and not be proof of existence.
Platonic forms are Santa.
Ecmandu wrote:Using a grain of sand as an attempt at an argument against me, just made each grain of sand, utile.
Ecmandu wrote:Numbers are not Santa Claus
Silhouette wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Using a grain of sand as an attempt at an argument against me, just made each grain of sand, utile.
What even is this?
Using a grain of sand IN an attempt at an argument against you is not using a grain of sand AS an attempt at an argument against you.
Yeah this IQ rumour is truly an inversion of the truth.Ecmandu wrote:Numbers are not Santa Claus
Yeah, that was my point, not yours.
You are one useless thinker dude.
phyllo wrote:I don't know why people are beating on you when you're not saying much more than what Plato said.
Ecmandu wrote:Philosophers from 3000 years ago were smarter than you are now.
I find that sad.
phyllo wrote:I don't know why people are beating on you when you're not saying much more than what Plato said.
Ecmandu wrote:phyllo wrote:I don't know why people are beating on you when you're not saying much more than what Plato said.
Or this guy...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
Ecmandu wrote:If you actually read the enniads, he comes the the same conclusion as me, that all existents have platonic forms, including all humans.
Silhouette wrote:Ecmandu wrote:If you actually read the enniads, he comes the the same conclusion as me, that all existents have platonic forms, including all humans.
Well if an old collection of writings says it, it must be true!
You realise your argument is "it's been said by at least two people who lived nearly 2000 years ago! Therefore it's true!", right?
You think nobody built on that or revolutionised or even re-invented/inverted philosophy since then? Keep learning about the Ancient Greeks, by all means - then move on to newer philosophy and see what you think then.
Maybe in a few years you'll be worth talking to. Not to discourage you - I want you and everyone to grow - just... don't act like you're already there.
Ecmandu wrote:You sound like iambiguous... "it can't be true because in a trillion years someone may find something different ... and that can't be true either because in a trillion more years, someone might find something different... as nauseum...
I'm man enough to say that people 2000 years ago may have been smarter than me. Are you?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users