Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Hume vs Supernatural

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and willingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 5:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: These notions are more powerfully exemplified by Kant.
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?

I am not even claiming natural. I use the term natural in these cause to only refer to sense information. But I personal would just kick out the term, its superfluous, why use it. So that is solved. Sense information is good and coherent enough. So witht that gone the question remains what are you talking about when you make you claims. What is this extra stuff?? did you check the kantian refutation??
And
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:07:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:04:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?

I am not even claiming natural. I use the term natural in only to only refer to sense information. But I personal would just kick out the term, its superfluous, why use it. So that is solved. Sense information is good and coherent enough. So with that gone the question remains what are you talking about when you make your claims.
What is this extra stuff??
Did you check the kantian refutation??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:08:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:04:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?

I am not even claiming natural. I use the term natural in these cause to only refer to sense information. But I personal would just kick out the term, its superfluous, why use it. So that is solved. Sense information is good and coherent enough. So witht that gone the question remains what are you talking about when you make you claims. What is this extra stuff?? did you check the kantian refutation??
And

So, why can't religious experiences count as sense information again?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:12:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.

It's not your spelling. It's that I literally had no idea what you were talking about.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:08:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:04:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?

I am not even claiming natural. I use the term natural in these cause to only refer to sense information. But I personal would just kick out the term, its superfluous, why use it. So that is solved. Sense information is good and coherent enough. So witht that gone the question remains what are you talking about when you make you claims. What is this extra stuff?? did you check the kantian refutation??
And

So, why can't religious experiences count as sense information again?

The Fool: Pls use quotes so I know what you are referring to. Because you have moved from sincerity to loaded questioning?

So make sure you know the know the kantian argument first? and make sure to answer the questions, first//

For example this question assume sense data makes is of religious information.
so a combination of physical. colours, space, sounds frequencies, taste, and touch.

Constitutes religious information???? so the quesiton is which part of that is the religous information?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:12:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.

It's not your spelling. It's that I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

The Fool: Well I guess I expected more from you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 9:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:13:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:08:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:04:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:59:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:52:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:49:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 5:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hume:
"Here indeed lies the most just and most plausible objection againt a considerable part metaphysics [The supernatural] that they are not properly a science [a body of knowledge], arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to [our] understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselfs on fair ground, raise these entangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chased from the open country, these robbers[Theologins] fly into the forest and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudes. The Stoutest antagonist, if he remist his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice an folly, open the gates to the enemies and williingly receieve them with reverence and submission as thier legal sovereigns. "

Excerpt from Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Metaphysics =\= the supernatural. QED.

The Fool: Now I am questioning you metaphysical understanding. In for far as its a form of existence it falls under metaphysics whether you like it or not.

I meant that supernaturalistic claims don't exhaust metaphysics.

Anyways, define "natural" for me. Is there even an argument here?

I am not even claiming natural. I use the term natural in these cause to only refer to sense information. But I personal would just kick out the term, its superfluous, why use it. So that is solved. Sense information is good and coherent enough. So witht that gone the question remains what are you talking about when you make you claims. What is this extra stuff?? did you check the kantian refutation??
And

So, why can't religious experiences count as sense information again?

Just for you.

The Fool: Pls use quotes so I know what you are referring to. Because you have moved from sincerity to loaded questioning?

So make sure you know too know the kantian argument first? and make sure to answer the questions, first?

For example your questions assumes that sensedata makes up religious information. Most religoius people would reject that.

So according to your questoin we should think that a combination of physical. colours, space, sounds frequencies, taste, and touch, Constitutes religious information????

So the quesiton is which part of sense information is the religous part?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 10:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 9:15:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:12:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.

It's not your spelling. It's that I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

The Fool: Well I guess I expected more from you.

Does it strike you as strange that you uniquely receive so many complaints from people of all intelligence ranges that you are making no sense whatsoever?

And that no other user, no matter how intelligent (and you aren't the most intelligent one here), seems to get as many people saying they cannot understand (after multiple posts) what you are trying to say?

Not that they fail to comprehend. You just AREN'T communicating.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:01:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does it strike you as strange that you uniquely receive so many complaints from people of all intelligence ranges that you are making no sense whatsoever?

And that no other user, no matter how intelligent (and you aren't the most intelligent one here), seems to get as many people saying they cannot understand (after multiple posts) what you are trying to say?

Not that they fail to comprehend. You just AREN'T communicating.

That would be evident. :THE FOOL:
TheAsylum
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:12:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 10:55:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:15:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:12:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.

It's not your spelling. It's that I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

The Fool: Well I guess I expected more from you.

Does it strike you as strange that you uniquely receive so many complaints from people of all intelligence ranges that you are making no sense whatsoever?

The Fool: I would have to say that you have not been around very many people in your life time.

And that no other user, no matter how intelligent (and you aren't the most intelligent one here), seems to get as many people saying they cannot understand (after multiple posts) what you are trying to say?

The Fool: For this predicate is contained in the subject of the first question.

Not that they fail to comprehend. You just AREN'T communicating.

The Fool: Excuse me if I am wrong but is that not the same.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 11:01:59 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Does it strike you as strange that you uniquely receive so many complaints from people of all intelligence ranges that you are making no sense whatsoever?

And that no other user, no matter how intelligent (and you aren't the most intelligent one here), seems to get as many people saying they cannot understand (after multiple posts) what you are trying to say?

Not that they fail to comprehend. You just AREN'T communicating.

That would be evident. :THE FOOL:

The Fool: Thats genious. But that doesn't mean much comming from a Fool:
Genious.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 11:12:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 10:55:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:15:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:12:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:08:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/13/2012 9:02:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/13/2012 8:58:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you see what kant means The point is that after exausting faculties of conciousnes.. The only place it can possiblly come from is THE IMAGINATION. Thus if you don;t think so . then give and example of it. Just give a refutation and explain what this other source of thing is, Which at the same time is not conceptualize but known.
If not, Check and Mate, and thus we shouldnt have to hear your metaphysical Bulshit.

Kinda hard to claim check and mate if I have no idea what you're saying.

A when all else fails drop you integraty and break the principle of Charity!!?

Now normally I understand that my spelling is bad. but not this time. This is matter of education now.

It's not your spelling. It's that I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

The Fool: Well I guess I expected more from you.

Does it strike you as strange that you uniquely receive so many complaints from people of all intelligence ranges that you are making no sense whatsoever?

The Fool: I would have to say that you have not been around very many people in your life time.

And that no other user, no matter how intelligent (and you aren't the most intelligent one here), seems to get as many people saying they cannot understand (after multiple posts) what you are trying to say?

The Fool: For this predicate is contained in the subject of the first question.

Not that they fail to comprehend. You just AREN'T communicating.

The Fool: Excuse me if I am wrong but is that not the same.

When I refer to "people" I mean DDO users. I have no idea how you communicate with other people in real life.

If a physicist explains general relativity to an college student in eighth grade terminology, then even though he is doing a good job communicating, the college student simply may not be able to grasp concepts like time being relative. The student does not comprehend.

If someone talks jibberish, then we say they are bad at communicating AND we don't comprehend them.

You fall into the latter category.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 11:36:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: It seem you understand me quite well. But I would rather sound like gibberish, then live a life of anger, and disatifaction from the fact that another does so.

"It is completely, a great gift from heaven to possess propper appeal to popularity. But such appeal to common sense, when sight and knowledge fail, and no sooner-this is one to the subltle discoveries of modern times by means of which the shallowest babbler can safely engage the most throrough thinker and hold his own. But as long as a bit of insight remains, no one would think to hidering under it. Seen in the day of light but an appeal to opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the Philosopher IS ASHAMED., while the popular charlatan glories and boast in it. For the latter is the path of The Fool."
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL