Philosophy is an excellent, excellent subject.
that is all.
Philosophy
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
Lithium_joe
- Power poster
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm
- Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
Emanuel Kant was a real pi88ant who was very rarely stable
Hideger hideger was a boozy fella who could drink you under the tabl
David hume could out consume porr old Friedrick hegel
and Winkinstein was a beery swi*e was was just as sloshed as slegel
John Stuart Mill of his own free will
on half a pint of cider was particularly ill
Plato they say could sink it away
half a crate of whisky everyday
Idegga idegga was a boozy bugger
and odds was fond of a dram
and and renee Decarte was a drunken fart
I drink therfore I am
Yes socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little drinker but a bu**er when he's pissed!
Don't you just love those python Boys! yes it's a monty Python song, did philosophy at college and it changed my world proffoundly
Hideger hideger was a boozy fella who could drink you under the tabl
David hume could out consume porr old Friedrick hegel
and Winkinstein was a beery swi*e was was just as sloshed as slegel
John Stuart Mill of his own free will
on half a pint of cider was particularly ill
Plato they say could sink it away
half a crate of whisky everyday
Idegga idegga was a boozy bugger
and odds was fond of a dram
and and renee Decarte was a drunken fart
I drink therfore I am
Yes socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little drinker but a bu**er when he's pissed!
Don't you just love those python Boys! yes it's a monty Python song, did philosophy at college and it changed my world proffoundly
actually my ontological view of existance at the moment is "water fountain or wedding cake" shaped, it accounts for the supernatural logically, (and for an intererasting flaw I found in logic, see below) logically. and it dosn't contradict any religion, or science, and expalines how they do not contradict one another.
the problem is it's very complex, and won't fit in a post. But It lead from thinking about this logical paradox I dreamt up one evening:
A is a box* in which everything which does exist is put
B is a box* in which everything which dosn't exist is put
C is a box in which everything which cannot exist is put
(box is a simplifing term for " the housing system of ontological laws, in which a thing is"
What is outside of A&B&C takes alot of explaining, so I;m not going to begin, I will only say that I can give a definition (just incase people accuse me of hiding the ladder as it were), back to the problem:
Inside of C is everything which cannot exist
inside of "B" is everything which dosn't exist, this includes Box C.
inside of A is everything which can exist including A itself, becasue it exists, and B, because B exists.
The paradox is A, contained both A (existant things) and B(non existant things), and C (impossible things).
if you can defeat this paradox you can probly defeat the whole argument I constructed to get around it. But at the moment it looks as though Impossible things can exist(items in boxs C, are in boxes B, and A) .
the problem is it's very complex, and won't fit in a post. But It lead from thinking about this logical paradox I dreamt up one evening:
A is a box* in which everything which does exist is put
B is a box* in which everything which dosn't exist is put
C is a box in which everything which cannot exist is put
(box is a simplifing term for " the housing system of ontological laws, in which a thing is"
What is outside of A&B&C takes alot of explaining, so I;m not going to begin, I will only say that I can give a definition (just incase people accuse me of hiding the ladder as it were), back to the problem:
Inside of C is everything which cannot exist
inside of "B" is everything which dosn't exist, this includes Box C.
inside of A is everything which can exist including A itself, becasue it exists, and B, because B exists.
The paradox is A, contained both A (existant things) and B(non existant things), and C (impossible things).
if you can defeat this paradox you can probly defeat the whole argument I constructed to get around it. But at the moment it looks as though Impossible things can exist(items in boxs C, are in boxes B, and A) .