Small and dark — unenlightened

you end up with violations of Liebnitz' Law — Count Timothy von Icarus

But if the statues have an identity, and the clay has its own identity, then you have two objects occupying the same area of space at the same time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If things are eternally indiscernible, but someone still claims that they can be ontologically different, then it seems to me like their ontologically commited to the possibility of infinities of indiscernible differences throughout their ontology. But these unobservable differences, aside from not being parsimonious, are also explaining absolutely nothing about the world, which is a notable difference from unobservable parallel dimensions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

a very unsatisfactory ontology — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not only do they insist on dressing for dinner, they have to have the dinner dress too — unenlightened

prosecco salad — Benkei

My father insists that Darts isn't a sport. — sime

usage is the only source which informs you what a sandwich is. There is no trans-linguistic reality — hypericin

platonic essence — hypericin

parody of bad philosophy — Pie

Take the ubiquitous example of a count of apples. It's obvious and natural to us what it means for me to have a positive number of apples, it's something we can count. — Jerry

"But," you might say, "none of this shakes my belief that 2 and 2 are 4." You are quite right, except in marginal cases -- and it is only in marginal cases that you are doubtful whether a certain animal is a dog or a certain length is less than a meter. Two must be two of something, and the proposition "2 and 2 are 4" is useless unless it can be applied. Two dogs and two dogs are certainly four dogs, but cases arise in which you are doubtful whether two of them are dogs. "Well, at any rate there are four animals," you may say. But there are microorganisms concerning which it is doubtful whether they are animals or plants. "Well, then living organisms," you say. But there are things of which it is doubtful whether they are living organisms or not. You will be driven into saying: "Two entities and two entities are four entities." When you have told me what you mean by "entity," we will resume the argument. — Russell

However many rules you give me—I give a rule which justifies my employment of your rules — Wittgenstein

Trader Joes — Xtrix

Is the mind a single thing, or does it have parts? If it has parts, what are they? Are its parts tied to parts of the brain? — TiredThinker

It does seem to imply the notion of infinity, does it not? How far can something that is solid in the absolute sense, be infinitely divided? — Watchmaker

Not a small but insignificant difference (such as with reducing one's carbon footprint), absolutely no difference at all — Isaac

Voting (or not) does not decide my future. It's not a belief, it's a fact. — Isaac

It is also impossible to tell the difference between enthusiastic support and reluctant consent just from a vote. — Isaac

The Ego and Its Own had a destructive impact on Stirner’s left-Hegelian contemporaries, and played a related and significant role in the evolution of the thought of Karl Marx. Concerning its longer term historical influence, Stirner’s best-known work has become a founding text in the political tradition of individualist anarchism. — Stanford on Max Stirner

........refusing to vote seems a viable position in this regard. But there is little philosophy on the subject and very little writing I can find comfort in. — NOS4A2

If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State. — Bakunin

Foster: I'm still a bit hazy about the Trinity, sir.
Schoolmaster: Three in one, one in three, perfectly straightforward. Any doubts about that see your maths master. — Alan Bennett, 40 Years On

I went into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ;
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.
.....................

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

I would say not quite. “existence” is indexical: is it awkward that I can refer to different people with the same word ‘he’? I personally don’t think so. I can posit, without contradiction, that the cup in my hand “exists” (by constituting, for example, its existence as phenomenal) while denying it as existing in an ontic sense. I gave a couple examples, such as Spinoza to illustrate this clear distinction: do you disagree with that distinction as demonstrated in the examples? — Bob Ross

If I were to posit, for example, that the cup in my hand exists (contextually to phenomena), but really exists as one infinite substance, then, regardless to its truth, there is a distinction being made there within the concept of “existence”. Another example is that a cup may exist in the sense that I can interact with it, yet not exist sans my consciousness. — Bob Ross

The only valid, thus far, determined sine qua non is that the subordinate rules cannot be affirmed and denied in accordance to the superordinate rules within the given operation of derivation; the derivation of derivation, and its recursive utilization, is this principle—which shall be termed the principle of regulation.

My point here is that, to my comprehension, there’s a meaningful distinction between objects put forth in front of me and what lies at the bottom of existence (or what actually is existence); that is essentially what I am trying to convey. — Bob Ross

It is most certainly possible to assert that what “actually exists” is the same as what “exists” (which would be essentially claiming that whatever is deemed “existent” must be also in an ontic sense), but my point here is that that is not necessitous at all (personally I would find it problematic)

The only valid, thus far, determined sine qua non is that the subordinate rules cannot be affirmed and denied in accordance to the superordinate rules within the given operation of derivation; the derivation of derivation, and its recursive utilization, is this principle—which shall be termed the principle of regulation.

The essay is most certainly meant to prove that the principle of regulation is true. — Bob Ross

“1” and “1” are identical but not indiscernible.

My whole point is - we can't know. I don't think we can even make an educated guess. — RolandTyme

consequentialism has no practical important — RolandTyme

Only the very ignorant use wiki. — Jackson

I believe Aristotle originated that phrase (don't remember where). — Jackson

Ontology is about what “really exists” as opposed to a looser, colloquial use of the term (which usually is deployed to merely depict something resides outside of imagination or what have you). — Bob Ross

In terms of your contention, if you could please review my response here, then that would be much appreciated. Perhaps you did respond and I simply missed it?

Please feel free to refer me to your response if that is the case; otherwise, I would love to continue our conversation if you could provide a response to mine. — Bob Ross

The only valid, thus far, determined sine qua non is that the subordinate rules cannot be affirmed and denied in accordance to the superordinate rules within the given operation of derivation; the derivation of derivation, and its recursive utilization, is this principle—which shall be termed the principle of regulation.