Thus, Fukuyama appears to be looking in the wrong place for a new movement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, his mistake is to think that history -- or the development of political history is linear. The ancients actually thought it was a cycle, in which the liberal democratic form is just going through its phase, and then another political form replaces it. There were probably 4 or 5 forms of a government. They cycle around until it repeats.

Rather, he thought (he is writing in 1989-1992) that no alternative to liberal democracy could emerge that would be widely considered to be a more legitimate alternative. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's assuming that "political freedom" and individuality continue to be the ideal values. But we can't even fathom now that a possibility exists that the development in eons, human minds could change into something we wouldn't recognize now. Maybe humans would actually turn docile and think that an oligarchy is desirable -- so long as the needs of the population are being met, the oligarchs are the ideal masters. Maybe in eons, the population do not want to be responsible for their own life and want the ruling elite to take care of everything.

Ancient philosophy was designed for the sake of living a truly eudaimonic life. The modern philosophies that have risen since the Enlightenment need to shift towards this paradigm of therapeía, that is to say, "healing. — Dermot Griffin

We can't have this if our world worships massive material wealth -- the surplus economy where only those in position to hold the surpluses flourish.

Great, IF the spouse has lots of cash,

I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

Especially if one IS the rich spouse. — BC

No, we're not talking about cash or "one rich spouse". We're on topic here as below:

that would mean they have to pay capital gains tax. — Mikie

This is the topic.

This is a funny thread.

So, what do they do instead? — Mikie

A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. But that's how it can work too.

I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat

Reality is the whole cosmos. But in philosophy, we really do not have a hard definition of it. Philosophers do not intentionally define it, for good reason. Instead, what we have is a contrast against appearance, illusion, imagination, and possibilities. This is the best way to understand what we mean by reality. A negative definition works better than any other attempts.

Someone on a philosophy forum once said the amount of new information (they might have said knowledge) in a dictionary is essentially zero, because all the dictionary does is refer to itself. That's always stuck with me. What do you think of that? — RogueAI

To me this is incorrect as there are actually panels of experts who write the dictionary, they're just not cited for each word definition. So, it looks like "no human source" was used in the making of the dictionary. Besides, words, as years go by can change its meaning due to change in population's way of talking or writing. And more words are added to the dictionary, as we now know "google" is a verb.

What’s annoying is how expensive it is. — Mikie

Exactly.

[1]

Influencers. — Sir2u

[2] people who go to concerts so they could hear themselves talk nonstop. They do this intentionally.

[3] Drivers who hit pedestrians. WTF, man! :scream:

[4] Drunk drivers. There should be a breathalyzer device in the car to start the ignition. But it wouldn't take long before people could fool the breathalyzer. So, I don't know.

[5] People who eat ramen everyday. Look, it's good. But everyday? We're not in apocalypse yet.

[6] Animal abuse

[7] Dragon fruit.

I’m also basically jobless/unemployed, and not interested at all to run his (my father’s) businesses ... — niki wonoto

Stop being a selfish asshole. Help your father with his struggling business in any way you can – help your family, help your brother, contribute to your community. Whatever good you've experienced and benefitted from, sir, you owe them all – which is a debt none of us can repay but we can honor by taking care of others beginning with those closest to us. — 180 Proof

Yes, this is all good.

Also, tell niki wonoto to open himself/herself to the world -- even in small ways. Make his life mean something to others, if he can't make it meaningful to himself. It's gonna be a very tiny circle -- not plastered on magazines or websites. So, one, he needs courage to face the fact that he is nothing to the world, he's a nobody; but that he can use his living daylights to help his family, or someone else. It won't be easy because the lack of motivation is the enemy. But as I just mentioned, courage is the key here. Courage to disobey his mind, and do something.

Btw, all this lifelong career is bullshit. An acquaintance got fired from his job. So, what he did immediately -- he passed the cpa exam and got his license. Then abandoned it and enrolled back to college to study physics. He's arrogant in a good way. He wanted to prove he didn't get fired because of incompetence. He wanted to prove to them that he was bored to his skull.

So anyway, niki wonoto's life can be a series of gig jobs. Forget about retirement or planning for the future. Just work to eat and pay for electricity. That's it.

Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? — Pantagruel

the present moment may be all which exists, but how are we to understand looking back? I think we just have to take past, present and future as structures in human cognition which help us to make sense of our reality, but I don't know how much we can say beyond this. We can't really examine time outside of our experience of it. — Tom Storm

We don't have awareness of time, per se. If there's "nothing" in the universe but time, then we wouldn't be able to perceive it. How we perceive time is through object permanence and memory. I saw a huge tree when I passed the bridge, then I came back the same way and saw the tree again. In my memory, I saw a tree on my way, then I saw it again on my way back. The two moments are both in our thought. The second time triggered my memory that I saw that tree the first time. If I deliberate further, because my mind has object permanence, I believe that I will pass that tree again tomorrow if I go that way (unless someone cut down the tree before I get there).

Edit. there are things that we perceive that isn't temporal.

However, that is not the comparison I was making. I was trying to distinguish the two concepts:
human-motivated technology from independent AI motivation — Vera Mont

Ah! I see where you're not clear about. The AI is not "independent" or autonomous, as we say about humans. The AI can be launched once and be automatic. Independent/autonomous is not the same as automatic. There is no motivation (as there is no intentionality). It's the widening or limiting the restrictions, that's where you're supposed to look at.

I didn't say anything about futility. I said it was insufficient; i.e. does not avert the danger. — Vera Mont

Read the fallacy of appeal to futility.

There are humans behind every gun that kills a schoolchild, too. Is that the "danger of guns"? — Vera Mont

Yes.

Prosecuting the few fraudulent users of AI who can be caught won't stop the fraud; — Vera Mont

The appeal to futility actually benefits the fraudsters and scammers. And it's incorrect to think that it's futile. It's not futile. Minimizing fraud and danger is a strong response to fraud and danger. Why not just ban all vehicles, since each year thousands die from vehicular crashes?

This might cause me some alarm, but if I am unfamiliar, fundamentally, with what an object is, then there is no way for me to differentiate the lion from everything else in the environment perceived. In other words, I would have to pick out the lion first, before I have good reason to avoid it.

But I can pick out lions, and other things. How do I do this? — NotAristotle

And the answer to your question is, you would not have grown into adulthood, or into childhood without object-perception. Unless you are blind, no nerve endings to feel objects, and no other sensory features, and no perception of time (memory) -- in which case you would not have survived infancy -- then you really do not have a choice but be conditioned to know these things. This is your realism at its best.

No, the world does not appear to us as a painting simply because we perceive boundaries and points and edges. You can't escape your perception, so you have no choice but to view the world through these lenses.

The internet is already up to it nostrils in disinformation of every kind. That's all human-motivated, human-initiated activity. — Vera Mont

But AI doing any of that on its own initiative? Improbable. — Vera Mont

Yes, of course. There are humans behind the AI -- humans that could be prosecuted for fraud, disinformation, and whatever.

The issue is that unregulated AI has the potential to promote propaganda, malicious agendas etc with highly convincing/persuasive rhetoric. In that way AI can be used in a non measured, non objective and unethical way. — Benj96

Yes, this. Our world is now beginning to show machine worship, like we've never seen before. Some because there's tons of money to be gained, others because technology worship is their way to fit in society. Was it Einstein who championed the scientific rhetoric? (God bless him)

Both scientists and philosophers can work together to keep the human perspective strong. Humans have the evolutionary-perception advantage, which took millions to perfect. Don't ever forget this. The amygdaloid complex took 7 million years to evolve into what now is in the human brain. We have nuclei in our brain. If this does not impress you about humans, then go join the AI.

Just a thought experiment: Imagine the internet full of AI-created information websites. Other AI would subscribe, click on ads created by AI themselves, purchase goods, give product reviews, drive stocks upwards or downwards. Imagine the AI driving the economy downwards. AI economic terrorism. Is this possible?

When users create poems for their dog using AI, it's all innocent and fun. Until it's not.

Seems to me that even if we are mistaken, viz. interpretation, about what is there, when we are faced with some illusion, we are never mistaken that there is something there. We are only ever mistaken about what it is. — NotAristotle

Yes, this is the gist of the cogito.

What I noticed about his 'Ouamuamua coverage, which included a book, was his dogmatic insistence that this object must be an extraterrestrial artifact. That is what other scientists have taken him to task for. He seems to brook no disagreement, and has written polemical articles attacking critics for being narrow-minded and dogmatic. — Wayfarer

A cure for a dogmatic person is time.

Alien debris had reached the Earth, but the aliens themselves were nowhere to be seen? Unfortunately for him, he exhibits the same patterns as other alien flying object videos -- always grainy, unrecognizable, blurred, dark, and shaky camera.

Don’t know what others think but it seems to me Loeb has become somewhat obsessive in his quest, to the detriment of his overall reputation. Of course, if the titanium-alloy spherules turn out to be the real enchilada, then I’ll happily eat my words. — Wayfarer

I made a post earlier in this Illusion thread mentioning error in beliefs.

Avi Loeb is neither wrong nor right in his belief at this point. If he gathers more evidence of the existence of aliens and their technology, then at some point in our life, his hypothesis could be correct and his belief vindicated. But for now, he can't claim the truth or we can't claim the falsity of his belief.

↪goremand

, an illusion happens at the level of perception, while a misinterpretation happens (obviously) at the level of interpretation — goremand

Many psychologists and philosophers today would argue that perception is interpretation all the way down. — Joshs

↪Joshs

While it may be that it's not human nature to perceive without also interpreting, I think the two are distinct. I would say a camera is an example of perception without interpretation in the sense I mean. — goremand

The camera is recording, not perceiving. When humans perceive something they are not just detecting it with their eyes, there is a whole perceptual apparatus attached to the act of seeing that just isnt present in a camera, yet. — DingoJones

The above quoted posts are an interesting exchange.
Perception implies the mind and beliefs (true belief or false belief). So, a distinction between perception and interpretation does not make sense. (To understand this further, I mentioned in another thread at one time that when we talk (philosophically, scientifically) of awareness/consciousness, we are talking about the central nervous system. But there is a sort of a zombie nervous system that does not require our mind in order for it to function, and that is the enteric nervous system. (Look this up please).

That said, Goremand's analysis of illusion is a good one. Where does the error -- or the illusion -- occur? In the epistemological analysis of beliefs, it is a matter of various facts associated with an assertion. Should we prefer being justified or possessing the truth?
I believe that every individual walking around has a brain inside their skull. But I could not attain the truth of this belief because I wouldn't be able to open every person's skull to check if there's a brain inside.

To me @Judaka's and @unenlightened's posts complete my response to the "Does ethics apply to thoughts " question.

I'm not seeing why acquiring the capacity for reason should not be thought of as a result of evolutionary biology, driven by adaptation. — Janus

Because there's nothing in the theory that addresses it specifically. The theory is about the factors that contribute to the survival and evolution of species. — Wayfarer

No, the study of civilization, which includes evolution, is also the study about the intelligence of humans over epochs. What Janus might be referring to is the study of logic, which is a modern development. The "capacity for reason", as civilization reveals, is actually the capacity to use tools, for example.

I have forgotten that this is Pantagruel's thread. I thought it was Gnomon's. Sorry.

In very summary terms, scientific methodology has yielded many amazing and indispensable discoveries and innovations, but it doesn't necessarily comprehend or address the problems of philosophy, and the attempt to squeeze those problems into the procrustean bed of the objective sciences has deleterious consequences. — Wayfarer

Yes, scientism becoming the predominant view.

Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? — Tom Storm

Telling a lie while believing otherwise -- your pulse betrays you. The brain sometimes has its own motivation. Hence, there are times you make mistakes in the process of executing a particular action: you forgot to turn off the light when you exited your house, you forgot to lock your door, you missed your exit on the road.

Edit: intuition is a very private conscious deliberation -- private is the key word. When you know the subject well, your intuition will also be strong, so strong that you act on it confidently.

Whistling is hard.

THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS HOW TO PUT TOGETHER A SYSTEM OF METAPHYSICS IN WHICH THE ONTOLOGY IS THE ISSUE.

But, for the moment, I want to address this even though it has nothing to do with the topic:

which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer

Are you serious? The equation calls for the measure/quantity contained "in this matter" to come up with "that capacity" in joules. You're confusing identity with the equivalence.

@Pantagruel's post above is an excellent introduction to what a metaphysical system should be.

In my own thesis I define Energy as a form of Information (power to cause change in form or state), which is also a causal interrelationship (e.g. organization)*4, not a thing in itself. — Gnomon

Rule 1. Thingness is a metaphysical must have, if you're going to have an ontology. Without the thingness, it's either an accidental feature or a conditional feature which must depend on other essences for it to exist. Determinate things are what we call things in metaphysics.

Energy is not a cause". Philosopher David Hume discussed the mysteries of Causation at a time before scientists had pieced together our modern notion of Energy. He referred to the producer of causation as an "illusion"*1, but Einstein might say it is a "stubborn illusion", that there is some kind of physical "connection" between Cause & Effect*2. — Gnomon

Rule 2. Causation is at the heart of a metaphysical system -- and it is what we know as scientific causation that involves the physical/material entities. Without a thing that can cause something or in relation with causes, it has no essential existence.

Energy is not a substance, not something in the sense of “some thing”. Energy often appears to be a substance that flows, for example if charging a battery or an electrical capacitor. — Gnomon

Rule 3: The Doctrine of Haecceity. That tree is a tree. Treeness is what makes a tree a tree. Use haecceity to assign an identity to a thing. There is mindness in "mind" as explained by Descartes or Kant. If you cannot have a uniqueness of a substance, then you don't have a system. All you have is a parasite feature that cannot exist without the other features. It is a conditional existence. Haecceity also calls for the "wholeness" -- the mind is a whole thing. If you posit that the mind exists, then it is the measure of all things.

Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts. — Gnomon

Rule 4: Prehension is what you are talking about and facts are what we spit out when we have enough prehension of a thing or phenomenon. We use language to put together a statement of facts. Information is our own expression of the thing that caused us to have this epistemic values. Your metaphysical system is working well if you could come up with data or information in the process of your existence. So, if the mind is the thing, then the mind perceives, makes logical connections, makes hypotheses, puts together a coherent explanation of the world.

I suppose you are restricting the term "cause" to some particular traditional definition. — Gnomon

How else are you defining it then?

But it's now clear that Energy does not have a material existence. Instead, it is merely a (mathematical??) relationship between things*2 — Gnomon

Then it fails to be a thing (being a thing would qualify it as a candidate for the fundamental reality or existent.

If the ability or capacity or power or force that we refer to as Energy is not a Cause, what is it? Isn't Causation what Energy does? — Gnomon

That's for you to explain in this thread. I'm waiting for an explanation as to why it is a cause, and why it is fundamental.

Energy is relative, but what's interesting that for any observer, it's always conserved. — Gnomon

If it's relative, then it cannot be a cause. It's also contradictory to "conserved".

Food for thought for you: Gravity is also just there. Why is gravity not the ultimate reality?

But as was made clear by the four causes, 4 is the perfect answer here. — simplyG

How so? Energy is not a cause.

Inches & miles are conventional measures of space, not space itself. — Gnomon

Energy is a measure of capacity, not the thing it is measuring. It is not a cause. It cannot be a cause. It is also not a thing that exists as if it has a categorical substance. Please define "energy". If energy exists, it's because there are things!

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, ideas itself require no energy themselves to be elucidated or thought yet…there must be something producing then…could that not be some type of energy? — simplyG

Assumption can be dangerous. Think deeper. Is energy a cause of ideas? I refer you to Aristotle's 4 causes.

Sorry, I don't understand how you write. So, I won't be responding to your post. Nothing personal.

When you say that energy is the fundamental thing in the universe, it is like saying inches or miles is the fundamental thing in the universe.

Here's a brief sample of personal opinions from individual scientists saying that Energy is the fundamental principle of the universe*2. — Gnomon

In philosophy, energy cannot be the fundamental existent as it is not a thing.

1. It is not a thing like perceptible thing.
2. It is not a result of a logical meditation, like Descartes's. dualism.
3. It is not any of Aristotle's 4 causes:
a. material
b. efficient
c. formal
d. final
4. It is not a perception out of ordinary experience.

What it is, is a capacity or a measurement for a thing to do work.

I think you are misunderstanding what energy is. In science, energy "exists". But in metaphysics, energy is not a categorical substance or entity or thing.

As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what? — Gnomon

Well, first off, "Enformationism" is a made-up word for something like information. Not a problem at all. But I believe this has to do with the information theory which has been done by the likes of Shannon. I have not read Shannon, I looked up the origin of this school of thought. Here's a simple summary of what it means:

Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. — Wiki

So far so good.

But you wanted to make this information theory to be a school of thought in metaphysics. Listen, I read your posts about energy information. Again, not a problem. I don't care about the mechanics and the precision you want to present it. I'm not here to argue about the correct syntax or cause and effect of what happens when a computing engine is pushed to its limit. Dissipation of energy? Fine. I don't care about how much energy the storage and transmission of information takes up. The bit coin harvesting has become a household name so that even a 12 year old knows how to protest against how much energy is wasted.

But I do not agree with your supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. This is an abuse of philosophy. You said:

The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references. — Gnomon

...and therefore can pass off as a metaphysical speculation on the nature of existence? Energy, if you recall is a property, and as such, a regulative law. But energy applies to every entity. Think of what you're trying to answer when you try to answer the metaphysical problems. Aristotle, Plato, Descartes have all tried and succeeded in narrowing down what it is to exist -- or what it the essence of an entity like a human being.

How exactly is energy the ultimate existence? Because energy doesn't happen as a causal theory. It is also not the essence of an entity as it is present in all and everything.

Oh. I took that to be the meaning of the 'smallest unit', which is typically considered the atom. — Wayfarer

I might have led you to that idea. Apologies.

Parmenides was a mystic. He had more in common with the Vedic sages than with moderns. — Wayfarer

I disagree. They had a notion of the atoms, in physics, but couldn't articulate it as we moderns articulate it. They were warm, but didn't quite get to the physics part of it. Speaking of which, earlier I said Parmenides was not an atomist. Well, all his musings point to that, actually.

I guess you haven't been paying attention. If you really care to know, just peruse the few posts below of exchanges with Gnomon where, after hundreds of previous exchanges with him over the last few years, he had finally copped to his own crypto-"Panendeism"-of-the-gaps sophistry. :mask: — 180 Proof

:smile: And I suppose, contagious? Ergh, I mean the mask.

Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. — Gnomon

Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. You want it as raw as possible, and information is processed data. You've got layers and layers there to uncover. Did you not read the Parmenides passage? That's why I posted it here. They took the time to nail down the raw data until they could no longer go any further.
For example, atomism works as a theory because it's .. well.. the atom. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the theory sticks because they got it as raw as possible. Naturalism is similar. When we talk about the natural forces, or the physical laws of nature, you can't argue this down any further, if your point is to unravel what's in the physical laws or what's in the natural forces. They're a given.

But information, like I said, is processed data. They don't mimic the first principles or primary force, or fundamental unit. I mean, we put in a lot of creative license into it. You know the old mantra, garbage in garbage out -- I mean, sure we can balance the bank, in a manner of speaking; make it look pretty for the investors. But are the numbers accurate? I can make it appear like everything is in order, but with incorrect data.

That was Democritus and Leucippus, the atomists. Parmenides was not an atomist. — Wayfarer

I wasn't referring to atomism. Here's a passage from a synthesis by Scott Austin, on Parmenides:

The 'Truth' section of the poem concludes with a recapitulatory metaphor: being is like a well-rounded sphere equal from every side; it is not right for it to be any bigger or any smaller anywhere, since nothingness cannot prevent it from reaching uniformity, and, since there is nothing in its own nature which would cause it to be asymmetrical, it rests evenly within its bounds…

The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all
' distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded, yet one which, in accordance with the Greek horror of the infinite, preserves its definiteness so that it can also be the truth, the implicit and single object of all language. Parmenides is thus the ' first metaphysician (or, if you prefer, theologian) to argue for those eternal attributes also shared by Plato's forms, by Aristotle's primary movers, and by their descendants in the history of philosophy. This picture of the truth as a single, abiding whole is next contrasted by the goddess with the picture to which the mortals subscribe. — Scott Austin

The synthesis goes on to say that Parmenides rejected the sensible world. But here is where the ambiguity is laid out -- the mortals believe in the sensible reality, but it is not "what is" according to him.

I'm not here to argue about what the heck Parmenides wanted -- after all, if he was saying that the truth has "definitiveness" in it, it is similar to saying that it has sensible qualities. And sensible qualities, we all know in the modern day, are those we come to know from sense perception, not logic.

Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining". — Gnomon

I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.

There's no prejudice here against metaphysics. This is a philosophy forum.

I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile: — Gnomon

By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon

You can't talk about a metaphysical theory without using a justification from both the material (sensible) world and concepts (object of the intellect). I just gave you Parmenides who couldn't stay away from shaping the truth into something we mortals could grasp, even though he purportedly rejected the sensible world.

Edit:

Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms. — Gnomon

Funny you chose superposition -- easily mistaken to be non-physical, even if to be taken as an experimental truth. Quantum notions are physical.

Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology? — Gnomon

No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. Did you know what Parmenides and his contemporaries wanted to know? The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real.

And therefore, the below is also a disastrous attempt to understand metaphysics:

That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon

You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.

If you want to de-legitimize this system of philosophy, launch a whole new approach -- or better yet, defend the analytics. Or talk about the continental, and its attack on the metaphysical methodology -- its lack of worthwhile philosophical problem.

Does any of that make sense to you? — Gnomon

No.

I'll be more sure to write with exacting precision — Benj96

Deal. :up:

A petty squabble about a word that I've never seen before and from which I could not discern the usage which makes me the responsible party for my not understanding what that word was?

I have no time to correct your disorder. I respond exactly to what you type in this thread. And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult.