Biguous is also a “she” and yet he’s a “he”. It makes no difference because I am speaking of feminine mindset. Not of vaginas and reproductive systems.
As to why I think she’s a she . . . well, she declares herself as such and she also posted a picture of her face once which was more feminine than masculine.
You are jealous of other people understanding reality. So you want to assuage your feelings by forcing others to either make you understand it or give up on the fact that they understand it. You cannot stand the possibility of others possessing something you do not possess. So they must either help you acquire what you do not have or they must admit they do not have what you do not have. There must be no inequality.
Remember, it’s up to you to understand reality. Not up to others to justify themselves to you.
It’s a matter of good will if someone decides to answer your questions.
Not at all. I already gave my answer with my earlier post.
Maybe it seems that way to you because you are not reading me properly from the beginning, thus presuming far too much throughout (after which I get pretty short with my responses).
My earlier response was asking you exactly the sentence you highlighted to respond to.
JSS wrote:
From my own experience, I believe that they should go ahead through the seemingly dangerous route of improving science so that it can and will end up answering truly all questions, rather than take the more familiar route of using peoples worries and false hopes to manipulate them as has always been done.
SM wrote:
Human beings are far too complex and chaotic for scientific reasoning alone and what about moral questions, no scientific discovery could ever settle a question of right or wrong, or could it?
Correct me if I am wrong.
You believe improvement of science will be the means of truly answering all questions, including my specific question above to you?
There is no such a thing as “science” that answers questions. It is people who do so. They do so by making their best guess. That’s how knowledge works. You collect data, process it, update you position if necessary, then repeat the process. Ad infinitum.
There is no “settling down” on anything. It’s a continual process that is evolutionary. You don’t just arrive at the “correct” answer. The better answers are evolved from the worse answers.
Shieldmaiden is a perfectionist . . . either you have the best possible answer or you have no answer. Nothing in between, no evolution, is permitted.
There is nothing smart about perfectionism. Having excessively high standards does not make you a higher person. It only makes you a snob.
It is not the application of, but from what can be seen, men and women indulge in philosophy specifically, not to acquire any definite answers, since the majority of times there are none known to be true.
One can assume then philosophy is no more than mental masturbation, which is why it needs to accept that it may one day be made redundant… and to James, as science may also have to accept there may be limits to its extent or application.
That is why I said “improvement of science”. You falsely presume that philosophical questions have no end. They do. And frankly are already found, merely not published in authority, thus endlessly argued, just as you are doing now.
I think you have become a cynic. Don’t mistake some example of “people who indulge in philosophy” for philosophy in itself. The great philosophers are few for a reason.
One could only assume this if they’ve never had a taste of what philosophy actually is. It’s not going anywhere and is as necessary now as it’s ever been.
Yeah, claiming philosophy is nothing but bullshit and mental masturbation threw me off. Sounded a lot like you had made up your mind and were announcing a conclusion. In that case, I gave a number of legitimate possibilities for why that probably isn’t the case.
