What I'm saying is that, this is actually a pretty difficult thing to do. It takes a certain kind of mentality to question yourself that way. — Wayfarer

Not really. Apart from the logical positivists, which philosopher hasn't dealt with the metaphysical? Even modern day philosophers have to gripe with questions raised by antecedent philosophers in regards to the metaphysical. I mean, you can take the path of least resistance, and claim that there really is no such thing as the wavefunction in physics, which is as close as you can get from within the field of stating something metaphysical.

I compare that to a set of spectacles, or something we use to frame and focus. And thinking about metaphysics, is directly comparable to 'looking at your spectacles' - rather than through them. — Wayfarer

At the risk of sounding nonsensical, why not?

And in which philosopher is that most obvious? I say it would be Kant. It was Kant who really tried to come to terms with the way in which the very elements that are the foundations of our worldview condition what we see - 'things conforming to thoughts'. That discovery (if you can call it that) is, as he said it was, a 'prolegomena to any future metaphysics'. Which I'm sure is true. — Wayfarer

Well, Wittgenstein was pretty adamant about what can and cannot be said. His philosophy echoes Kant's dream of outlining the sensible to senseless, all the way down to the nonsensical.

And just to be resolute here's the other part that is missing which might fill in the gaps.

I uploaded this image a while ago. You might find it helpful:

Well, it's sort of those Banno'esk questions about whether we have expressed (adequately?) the meaning behind such a sentence as "I love you more than words can say."

Intentionality or something else?
Saying vs showing?

Anyway, it doesn't sound like a personal issue. More of the sort where society just doesn't want to deal with such epistemic and phenomenological concerns.

Put bluntly, maybe there is a part of you that misses the guy that took advantage of you, and there might be a part of you that hates him for imposing on you these memories. I don't know, do you?

He never dismissed them as presented. — Valentinus

The Vienna Circle thought otherwise in regards to his Tractatus. Although it is as if they overlooked the seventh proposition entirely.

But what's up with a fish who asks what water feels like? — frank

Probably an adjustment disorder. Hah!

Why is it doing that? — frank

You'd have to ask the fish that.

Why does the drive to work it out lead it to accept Fish-Kant? — frank

Kant, hmm, not my first pick in answering the question. I'd have to refer you to Wittgenstein if you do not mind me saying so.

No, I want to highlight that people can be tracked to the meter by modern day phones. Now, before you act instinctually and want to throw away your phone, I should ask, who's after you? The old man is probably dead or in his home masturbating to CP. But, I'm sorry about your experiences and refer you to unenlightened's post about sharing such information with someone that can help you cope with the experience. Here, we're kind of limited to straw manning you unless you want to write a book about your experience, which I would gladly read. I used to be diagnosed as a schizophrenic, although it has changed to a psychotic disorder.

Anyway, glad the meds are helping, and best regards.

The relationship of metaphysics to other subjects has been compared to the relationship between the computer OS and applications software. — Wayfarer

Not quite. I'd compare it to a fish asking what does the water feel like. A fish would never know the answer.

Since this issue has been raised, I'm going to tip my own hat and ask if The Problem of the Criterion has any import here to the discussion?

My past experiences may influence my ideals, but they do not correlate with my intentions. My ideals are indicative of what I've personally lived and my perspective based on how I felt then and how I feel about it now. I'm not looking to harm anyone nor degrade the moral of society. — THX1138

So, you have insight. Congratulations as this is very hard to come by, by schizophrenics. Before I cast any questions or complaints, I was wondering if you are seeking treatment for your condition? And, I don't mean to commit the false cause fallacy here. Your concerns are legitimate and a cause for so e concern.

I don't know your diagnosis or what landed you in a state institution, but you come off as a sane person.

Hope things work out for you.

That is a direct contradiction. — whollyrolling

How so? I know I am professing sophistry here; but, it seems like the only logical conclusion to be had here.

I mean, isn't it a contradiction to say that one has a free will; but, can't resist the cravings for shooting some heroin?

Maybe I should reiterate.

A free will is not judged by the actions one takes; but, rather by the things that can be resisted from doing. So, therefore, if I can't resist the urge to light up a cigarette or take heroin, does that really count as not having a free will?

There seems to be the issue here of the absolute value of having a free will. It would seem quite obvious that prior to drug use having a free will is not the same post drug use.

Or in other words, having a free will is a dynamic process, not an absolute as professed here.

So, I've tried many drugs in the past as a person who has tried methamphetamine a couple of times out of curiosity, I must say that on a holistic level, one instance of having a "free will" prior to drug use is fundamentally altered post drug use.

The cravings will almost always be there, along with obsessive behaviors (depending on the drug of choice).

And so it might be...

Haha. And so it might be it.

Thy is pushing it!

Wallows does not approve; but, so be it!

Yes, yes... You've got it.

Follow the tune of Sir2U. It shall be pleasing to thy ear.

It's cause for celebration, I'm getting rickitty-wrecked. — Merkwurdichliebe

Wallow along with me. Wallow wallow all shall be fine!

Guys, this thread is here to allow discussion about recent bannings. — Hanover

Perhaps more want to jump ship. One never knows.

I love the bomb. It represents more than I could ever put into words. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then we're on the sammmme pageeee. Yay!

Manners! Nanners! Sea manners! haha

But is it not efficient to drop the cause once you've obtained an effect. For the effect constitutes ground for a new cause. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then drop the bomb, I ain't afraid no more. Don't you love the bomb by now?

Certainly, but not necessarily. — Merkwurdichliebe

Look what happened though, you lost the cause.

I am a student practitioner of game theory. The first thing to recognize regarding this strategy, it that every engagement is particular in its totality — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh, oh! Like the advent of WWII, who would have known?!

I’m 41 btw, if anyone cares! — I like sushi

41, oh yee still younggg. Hhaha.

Whence the supposed irony? Explain yourself. — S

Oh ya know. This that, lol.

Dri Strangelove, how have you been? The last Professor I impressed was in college dealing with mundane teaching of game theory. You must have mastered the field by now.

Your mother is a prostitrate. — S

What if I don't want to wallow in your prostate with you? — Janus

The consequences are too severe to put into words.

Why do people not bother answering questions here. How can it be the greatest thread ever if no one answers questions. — Sir2u

Wallow in prostration with me.

Even more of a mindphuq when spoken by Bugs. (Yes, we are on a first name basis.) — Merkwurdichliebe

So, you seem to be walking again, Dr. Strangelove.

And so on, ad infinitum...? — Janus

Yes, ad infinitum. Wallow in grace.

Tell him, he just needs to Wallowsomemore. Patience is the key to Wallowsing — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh man, what's a mindphuq to read that in bugs bunny voice.

I probably do, but I seem to have forgotten. I need a little of that good ole northern anamnesis! — Janus

Ooo, Plato. Much wallows.

You must wallow steadily, but, with vigor.

This is the classic missing of the point when it comes to stereotypes. It's not that there's no truth to them whatsoever, it's that unfair discrimination based on them is wrong. — S

Such irony! Much wallows!

It would be wise to leave age out of it. — S

Indeed.