-
Devans99
2.7kAnd 'round we go. That's a fine definition. However, it corresponds to nothing real, nothing that actually exists — tim wood
Thats the point; it's nothing. What is your definition?
This lack of substance seems a feature of your arguments, and I, unfortunately, a predilection for calling out what I think is non-sense — tim wood
You are waffling rather than addressing my arguments. You have made 5 posts on this subject so far and none of them contain anything of substance.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- Phil. Writing Challenge - June 2025
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- In an area of infinite time, infinite space, infinite matter & energy; are all odds 50/50?
- Is time travel possible if the A theory of time is correct?
- Multidimensional aspects of works of philosophy and meaning throughout time
- Question about relationship between time as discussed in Relativity in Physics, and time perception
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum