At 1/6/12 08:03 PM, TrevorW wrote:

It's an interesting philosophy, but it's not very hard to see that it's not that unusual a one and is almost a regurgitation of Rousseau. Now, what would be unusual is if you showed how this philosophy has a practical application, because what the basic problem of philosophy is is not that it attempts to change people, but that it doesn't attempt to apply itself to real life.

Regurgitation? I assure you, I do not regurgitate anything. My philosophy is genuine, and I have so many ideas.. Of course I may accidentally come close to a similar concept.. Does everyone forget that the human possesses all kinds of different ideas? That one idea similar to another doesn't deem them pointless? When they /COULD/ have an idea that is actually genuine? Humans are so quick to judge, I don't understand why. :/ Also, my philosophy has to do with everything as a whole.. our minds.. our race.. our world and it's inhabitants.. logic.. virtues..our life.. our reality..our language.. etc. It has to do with everything in a fundamental package.

You are attempting to describe concepts that Rousseau penned many years ago. Your logic and presentation fall very short of his writings. Therefore, you have attempted to say what has already been said, and done so poorly (thus the regurgitation). Congrats. Your thoughts are your own, but they are hardly ground breaking or monumental. Furthermore, your egotism and pretentiousness completely mask what little worth your writing presents.

Now, go ahead and blame me, as that is what you do. You blame your poor writing skills, lack of a knowledge base, and poorly articulated arguments on my supposed unwillingness (or inability) to appreciate and understand your work. Do it. Or, take the time to understand that philosophy is a form of academia which is constructed by building on previous works and refuting them, while using sound logic (though relatable examples) to explain concepts.

Nothing humans do is groundbreaking.

I already said I had an ego. I am not pretentious. I love how hypocritic you humans are. Telling me how I need all this solid evidence when nothing you say is solid at all. You are on an imaginary foundation my fellow friend. Keep deluding yourself. I'm blaming everyone for this monstrocity of a reality. Everyone can and choose not to do something about this world while everyone just ignore everything.. BLARG. I don't care.. Bunch of selfish, hypocritical, delusional putzes is what you are.

Having fun feeding your ego, mate?

I never directly blamed your ignorance because of my lack of execution and performace. You really /are/ deluded. Such a fool. You're just simply ignorant. There is no blaming there.

Again.. I'm going to say it /again/ since you are too hungry with your ego to take things seriously. EVERYTHING YOU SAY AND DO IS NOTHING BUT AN IMAGINARY FOUNDATION YOUR OWN PATHETIC RACE CREATED TO FORM BIAS LOGIC.

I wish I could save this forever.

At 1/7/12 12:10 AM, TrevorW wrote: I wish I could save this forever.

Why? ^^?

At 1/7/12 12:10 AM, TrevorW wrote: I wish I could save this forever.

I thought that the best thing you could have possibly done is ignore this thread, but you have proven me wrong.

At 1/7/12 03:45 AM, The-iMortal wrote:

At 1/7/12 12:10 AM, TrevorW wrote: I wish I could save this forever.

I thought that the best thing you could have possibly done is ignore this thread, but you have proven me wrong.

You know.. It's intriguing that you and Trevor imply that this thread is pointless to read when both of you can't even take it seriously; like its not as if you guys actually gave a viable reason to reject it's alleged insignificance.

Especially when it comes to the example Trevor unjustifiably contorted without any reason at all.. It only clearly shows that he doesn't even know what I am trying to say and puts not greater effort to understand what I am trying to say.

You guys are welcome to scoff at my scholarly work.. /IF/ you give me a few solid reasons as to why you rather scoff at it.. When I put a whole bunch of work in this philosophy and it /does/ make sense.

I don't think this is pointless. I think you are approaching your audience the wrong way. If you are likable your ideas will be easier to accept. Also, we are trying to tell you that (like the rest of us) your writing needs some work, which is perfectly ok!

I'm trying.. This is a philosophy that is bringing /everything/ together. It's really tough in the first place to explain something like ''This world is not as solid as it appears to be'' to people.

Let alone the rest of the stuff that swims around inside my mind.

That, and grammar is really annoying.. because there is no such thing as past, present and future in my mind. It's timeless when I'm contemplating within. I tend to see images to me.. It's logical, and it's a bad habit. Lol.

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: That, and grammar is really annoying.. because there is no such thing as past, present and future in my mind. It's timeless when I'm contemplating within. I tend to see images to me.. It's logical, and it's a bad habit. Lol.

You bad boy, you! Defiling the laws of grammar :P

At 1/7/12 07:17 PM, The-iMortal wrote:

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: That, and grammar is really annoying.. because there is no such thing as past, present and future in my mind. It's timeless when I'm contemplating within. I tend to see images to me.. It's logical, and it's a bad habit. Lol.

You bad boy, you! Defiling the laws of grammar :P

Well, it's somewhat true. Inside your mind, there is no time. It's just there. A neutral; perpetual state of absence.

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm trying.. This is a philosophy that is bringing /everything/ together. It's really tough in the first place to explain something like ''This world is not as solid as it appears to be'' to people.

But if you are going to label something you have to do so in such a way that we can understand what it is that you mean. You label what ever you believe a "solid world" to be as a "solid world."

At 1/8/12 02:20 AM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm trying.. This is a philosophy that is bringing /everything/ together. It's really tough in the first place to explain something like ''This world is not as solid as it appears to be'' to people.

But if you are going to label something you have to do so in such a way that we can understand what it is that you mean. You label what ever you believe a "solid world" to be as a "solid world."

Considering that my mind is a general formula that sees things beyond labels -- for what it is -- it's arduous trying to form a tangible explanation.

At 1/8/12 04:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 02:20 AM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm trying.. This is a philosophy that is bringing /everything/ together. It's really tough in the first place to explain something like ''This world is not as solid as it appears to be'' to people.

But if you are going to label something you have to do so in such a way that we can understand what it is that you mean. You label what ever you believe a "solid world" to be as a "solid world."

Considering that my mind is a general formula that sees things beyond labels -- for what it is -- it's arduous trying to form a tangible explanation.

That's because you cannot communicate what things are without the labels to do so. Your own logic prevents your concepts from coming to completion and from being able to be understood by others. We cannot crawl in your head.

At 1/8/12 01:18 PM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/8/12 04:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 02:20 AM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/7/12 05:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm trying.. This is a philosophy that is bringing /everything/ together. It's really tough in the first place to explain something like ''This world is not as solid as it appears to be'' to people.

But if you are going to label something you have to do so in such a way that we can understand what it is that you mean. You label what ever you believe a "solid world" to be as a "solid world."

Considering that my mind is a general formula that sees things beyond labels -- for what it is -- it's arduous trying to form a tangible explanation.

That's because you cannot communicate what things are without the labels to do so. Your own logic prevents your concepts from coming to completion and from being able to be understood by others. We cannot crawl in your head.

How do I explain to a being that what they see as solid is not solid at all?

1a. How do I explain to a being that everything is right unto them; only if they trust in themselves.

1b. How do I convince them that it's simple to say ''I know who I am'', when they don't show that they do?

How do I stress the discomforting nature of our race, and how everyone can spread like wildfire with their ideas?

How do I reason with beings that I feel don't reason with themselves; their ideas; their beliefs; their virtues; their morals; their dreams?

How do I approach a being who lashes out at you for holding out your hand to save them from what I see as an inevitable state of weakness?

How do I explain 'faith in antithetical values'? [The concept of not being able to disprove or prove something.]

How do I convince people that what they are convincing themselves is not convincing at all for either of us.

How can I not begin to even fathom why it's so terribly hard to see how simple all of this really is?

Without definition, logic, or reason? That is beyond me.

At 1/8/12 04:03 PM, TrevorW wrote: Without definition, logic, or reason? That is beyond me.

This life has no true definition? It's just a layer we created that way we could map out our thoughts; ideas; etc?

What is truly logic? It seems to me that logic can be twisted in any way you like it to be, since this logic is built on straws, and straws are very flexible. Yet, they cannot support anything.

What reason do you seek of? This world has blatant problems. I can't ignore them. I chose to go out of my way to find the roots to these problems. While understand that this world is not as whole as it can be; how human beings are able to appear to be solid, but when you test them.. it's like they are strangers to themselves, generally speaking; how this world is polluted with 'faith in antithetical values'; how this world's people lives of fake value; standards, etc..?

How do you not see where I'm coming from? Can't you see me waving from the other side?

How can you think without logic or reason? What tools do you have other than speculation and beliefs?

At 1/8/12 04:25 PM, TrevorW wrote: How can you think without logic or reason? What tools do you have other than speculation and beliefs?

Well, considering that we created out 'logic', and 'reason'.

I don't see how hard it is to see that I'm trying to create better 'logic' and 'reason'?

At 1/8/12 04:54 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 04:25 PM, TrevorW wrote: How can you think without logic or reason? What tools do you have other than speculation and beliefs?

Well, considering that we created out 'logic', and 'reason'.

I don't see how hard it is to see that I'm trying to create better 'logic' and 'reason'?

Explain to me how you intend to create logic and reason. You have given your opinion on a number of issues but you have yet to explain the functionality of how you think and how it is legitimate. Walk me though the steps of how you think. Do you think in a "if then" way? Or? Do you think empirically?

At 1/8/12 06:28 PM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/8/12 04:54 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 04:25 PM, TrevorW wrote: How can you think without logic or reason? What tools do you have other than speculation and beliefs?

Well, considering that we created out 'logic', and 'reason'.

I don't see how hard it is to see that I'm trying to create better 'logic' and 'reason'?

Explain to me how you intend to create logic and reason. You have given your opinion on a number of issues but you have yet to explain the functionality of how you think and how it is legitimate. Walk me though the steps of how you think. Do you think in a "if then" way? Or? Do you think empirically?

I figured that if my own race can form fabricated logic that is 'logical' today.. I can too, esp. when I am able to poke holes in today's 'logic'. While I still have yet to find anyone who can poke holes in my logic. [There are people who know exactly what I mean, and still can't poke holes in my logic.]

I'm just putting together the puzzle pieces, mate. This world is not all that complicated at all. People only make it complicated. It's very simple to me. :/

You still have no explained the mechanics of how you think. You have disagreed with ideas but you have yet to detail HOW you think. Why are things what they are? How are they? What makes you make your conclusions?

Logic and reasoning are methods. You have disagreed with conclusions.

At 1/8/12 07:18 PM, TrevorW wrote: You still have no explained the mechanics of how you think. You have disagreed with ideas but you have yet to detail HOW you think. Why are things what they are? How are they? What makes you make your conclusions?

Logic and reasoning are methods. You have disagreed with conclusions.

I'm a critical thinker. I see everything as puzzle pieces. Even when I eat my food. I see puzzle pieces. Everything, even human beings. I see puzzle pieces.. I don't know how else to explain it.

I just never take anything for face value. I look at something for the thing of itself. When I speak to people, their bodies aren't even my concern.. I look straight in their eyes, and I see them.. Every word they speak, how they react.. It just draws this map I understand.. I don't know how to explain it, mate.

My mind is able to put things together, and I can feel it putting things together. I see quick images.. Sometimes it just dawns on me.. It's like my mind is able to put things together along with my conscious piecing together along with my philosophy.

It's hard to explain this, mate. :/

So the logic its self isn't flawed, so much as the way people apply it? Perhaps most people aren't critical thinkers and fall into logical falicies? I think this is what you are saying.

At 1/8/12 08:14 PM, TrevorW wrote: So the logic its self isn't flawed, so much as the way people apply it? Perhaps most people aren't critical thinkers and fall into logical falicies? I think this is what you are saying.

You are getting the idea.

At 1/8/12 08:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 08:14 PM, TrevorW wrote: So the logic its self isn't flawed, so much as the way people apply it? Perhaps most people aren't critical thinkers and fall into logical falicies? I think this is what you are saying.

You are getting the idea.

I only had to pull teeth to get it. Honestly, it wasn't clear when you wrote it.

At 1/8/12 11:32 PM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/8/12 08:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 08:14 PM, TrevorW wrote: So the logic its self isn't flawed, so much as the way people apply it? Perhaps most people aren't critical thinkers and fall into logical falicies? I think this is what you are saying.

You are getting the idea.

I only had to pull teeth to get it. Honestly, it wasn't clear when you wrote it.

I'm sure it wasn't. It's hard to turn your mind's language into a human language.

Unfortunately, this is same thing that happens with less broad issues. People don't start thinking from within the same sphere, so how can we hope to understand why we each believe we are so right. To some, life is complicated and that's the way it should be. To many, including myself, everything is so clear that it's hard to see life when one reaches so far back.

At 1/9/12 01:59 AM, EKublai wrote: Unfortunately, this is same thing that happens with less broad issues. People don't start thinking from within the same sphere, so how can we hope to understand why we each believe we are so right. To some, life is complicated and that's the way it should be. To many, including myself, everything is so clear that it's hard to see life when one reaches so far back.

That is why I've developed a way of poking holes in people's defenses, by attacking their flaws.

Why does a man try to stand, if he is built with straws? Just tell me this.

At 1/9/12 02:05 AM, Insanctuary wrote: That is why I've developed a way of poking holes in people's defenses, by attacking their flaws.

Why does a man try to stand, if he is built with straws? Just tell me this.

Fuck it. I am going to attack your flaws:
1) You have the writing ability of a sophomore in high school.
2) Your arguments are overly simplistic attempts to understand the world.
3) You reject and/or horribly bastardize all forms of academia; you even go so far as to refute what you are obviously unfamiliar with.
4) You are egotistical and believe your mind is so superior when it is clearly not. (Pretentious)
5) Your metaphors (AKA this straw bullshit) do not make sense a majority of the time.
6) Your stubbornness prevents you from fixing any of these GLARING faults.
7) Attacking someone's character is almost the lowest form of argumentation, next to cussing someone out.

Seriously? I had to spend DAYS trying to make sense of how you could reject the mechanics of logic. You couldn't explain a different thinking mechanic and then later agreed with me, although you never stated as such directly.

Get the FUCK over yourself. God dammit.

At 1/9/12 10:32 PM, TrevorW wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:05 AM, Insanctuary wrote: That is why I've developed a way of poking holes in people's defenses, by attacking their flaws.

Why does a man try to stand, if he is built with straws? Just tell me this.

Fuck it. I am going to attack your flaws:
1) You have the writing ability of a sophomore in high school.
2) Your arguments are overly simplistic attempts to understand the world.
3) You reject and/or horribly bastardize all forms of academia; you even go so far as to refute what you are obviously unfamiliar with.
4) You are egotistical and believe your mind is so superior when it is clearly not. (Pretentious)
5) Your metaphors (AKA this straw bullshit) do not make sense a majority of the time.
6) Your stubbornness prevents you from fixing any of these GLARING faults.
7) Attacking someone's character is almost the lowest form of argumentation, next to cussing someone out.

Seriously? I had to spend DAYS trying to make sense of how you could reject the mechanics of logic. You couldn't explain a different thinking mechanic and then later agreed with me, although you never stated as such directly.

Get the FUCK over yourself. God dammit.

1. Yes, but I've already explained this.

2. What is wrong with that?

3. Not my fault that everything was created by a flawed race that is too ignorant to realise that we created everything. So how is it at all a fact?

4. Nope. Just appears to be, because apparently people just want to 'live'. They don't want to 'live to become the best they can be'.

5. You don't know that metaphor? It's basically saying that something is built falsely.

6. I'm not stubborn. I just have no need to fix what I am only see to be because people are plagued with tunnel vision.

7. Not arguing at all. Pretending your word holds meaning when you can't pull yourself together.. [not you.. generally speaking] now that is what you should be saying that to. My expansion for ad hominem works perfectly fine.

You seem to misinterpret me still.

At 1/9/12 10:32 PM, TrevorW wrote: 2) Your arguments are overly simplistic attempts to understand the world.

His argument is based in simplicity. Other arguments are far too complex. They were made to understand human nature and the world of thought made by humans. Something that's gone with in a blink of an eye. Insanctuary's simply trying to unravel complex things. Rather than thinking in very strange ways, he chooses to take the complexity of simplicity and apply it to everything that he can. He aims to break this wall of overly complex thought, so that we may live better.

4) You are egotistical and believe your mind is so superior when it is clearly not. (Pretentious)

Well, look at it this way: you haven't proved anything against him. If you were able to break his argument, the course of this conversation may change.

5) Your metaphors (AKA this straw bullshit) do not make sense a majority of the time.

...I understand them. I don't see why these metaphors confuse you.

7) Attacking someone's character is almost the lowest form of argumentation, next to cussing someone out.

Well, ad hominem isn't simply about pointing out character faults. Oftentimes, a person may follow a philosophy reflective of their own character. By exposing their personality flaws, you can break down their philosophy. Rather than using: __ is wrong because of__ we explain things this way: you're rather ____, isn't your philosophy__ reflective of yourself....
I'm sorry if the blanks made it confusing. It's not a matter of "you're stubborn" or "you're stupid", ad hominem exposes traits like: "that's hypocritical" or "that's narrow minded".
So no, pointing out the hole in a persons character is not close at all to cussing someone out.