Are Witgensteinian language games essentially about ambiguity? — TheMadFool

No. There are only different uses.

2. The rejection of the private mind, hidden from public view. — Banno

Rejection of private language. Not clear if he thought there was a mind.

That's a good way of putting it.

Why would you publish a paper stating that you agree with everything Professor X said?!

The author presents his reasons as to why there is a persistent disagreement among philosophers and l think this view is right. I noticed this too often. The author contends that the methods of philosophy are problematic. — Wittgenstein

The question is what is philosophy supposed to do? I don't think philosophy should be like science since science is essentially about solving physical and practical problems.

I'm not against Heidegger. He has done a lot of important work.

The problem I have with Heidegger is that people get lost in his jargon and discuss his terminology without ever stepping outside it.

You did. But...clearly you want no discussion. Have a good evening.

You brought it up. Was it irrelevant to you?

ontos just means "thing"

I don't think we are disagreeing. But, again, for Aristotle it does literally mean the growth of a plant.

Everything living decays and eventually dies. What do you disagree with?

It turns out that φῠ́σῐς (phusis) is the basis for "physical." So the idea of the physical world and the natural world are ultimately based on Greek and Latin concepts, respectively. — Xtrix

phusis means growth. So, so nature is a process of growth--as well as decay.

You will be ignored by most people here. You are a know nothing jerk.

Change from what?

In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:

An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.

These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical. — Greylorn Ell

The Big Bang is not about something coming into existence. So, it is just an original state from which we explain the history of our universe.

Good question.
The God of the Bible is a benevolent tyrant. Plato said the gods do not argue therefore there has to be one God. Seems petty.