Exsiting

This is a mistaken view on the part of the group. Rather as if one would imagine Edmond Husserl, a world class mathematician, found the mathematical physics decisively wanting because he was resentful of mathematicians. The group recommends an essentially more serious tact be taken up by the group, other than cheep and tasteless polemics. The group must confront the issues, rather than seek refuge in hopeful explanations concerning trivial personal accidental motives.

“The group, um, CANNOT allow itself, anymore, to avoid pointing out the group’s willful avoidance of philosophey.”

The group says: exacto! And this must be so even at the expense of the many: the reverence for the destroyed university and for the crippled fragments of thought to be found there amidst the raging thoughtlessness.

This “the group” thing is a boring gimmick. Speak properly.

I see you didn’t opt to inject content into the thread either…

The group is finally accurately self-assessing.

"This “the group” thing is a boring gimmick. Speak properly.

I see you didn’t opt to inject content into the thread either…"

The group finds this group answer facile.

The group sees: a member of the group struggling (i.e., who should be struggling) with the temptation of fruitless polemics. The group would suggest disentangling biographical persons from investigations.

Jesus Christ dude…

I comment on how vacuous your self-congratulatory offer for a circle jerk is, and you blame me for not doing what you should have been doing?

Just how damaged are you?

ZzzzzzZZZzz

(Meno_)'s isn’t wrong in this evident madness ya know.

It’s my own mistake for talking to idiots, since I am without supreme powers, without powers of more than a god, this is a mistake.

We can get over this hurdle here, guys… think of philosophy first and foremost when posting.

I commend You for Your optimism, , and I certainly share it, albeit guardedly.

However , if allowed, I thought universals have long ago cleared it up, from the point of view of optics, where visibility was not a.function of invisible parts. That is an unhealthy strategy, but again, compassion may touch the deepest as well as the purely anthropomorphic vision of a higher power, which can inhabit only a singular version.

And that is how and only way to exit for the time being, without turning to the other side.

Guide could give less… personal answers. That’s one hurdle.

Meno is a clueless moron who embroiders idiot dreck left over from the academic usage. “Anthropomorphic,” a wholly empty piece of polemical blather.

There is only the “persons”. There is nothing else. Symbols don’t think. They don’t interpret themselves idiotically. I’m not you nursery teacher. You don’t pay me to help you and you need it. If you can’t see you have been brought to believe you don’t exist, and that philosophy is being passed off as “objective”, as “Science”, no one will come to raise you out of your dumb academic mediocrity for fifty, sixty and all the years of your life.

This forum has three strikes, the level is too low, I’m done.

Existing outside of one’s mind isn’t make believe it’s called imagination and you all are using up too much.

For fairness sake, I must not concur with the proposition that symbols don’t think.

Of course they do! Not the symbols themselves, fire is not language consistent with language itself?

That is certain, and higher the symbol the less attached it appears to be connected literally to its source.

However, the other angle is, that even of symbols can not be understood to apply to any concept and thing , it is passed on as innate or analyzed science.

It is in fact the foundation to science.
Objectivity is not proof formal or otherwise of anything else but conjecture, and it may not go beyond that at all.

I think the 3 strikes thing is faulty, form the same reason that 1 or 2 or 4 or any number is again based on conjecture of belief that more enumeration regarding passing that number will be insignificant. 3 is an ontologically and ideologically imposed limit based on very old Greek notions which again may not have any connection to reality.

In fact the group does not see this is a pity because he is arguing against his own position. The group meaning any ex culpatory entity. I guess.

You will be missed.

Don’t let “the group” hit you on the way out.

The last thing this place needs is more pretentious narcissists anyway.

Wow. That guy was like an academic Michelin doll.
Bloated as I’ve rarely seen.

No concurring there? Have it not meant something else it would have just remained nothing. If something wasn’t there to symbolize meaning or convey thought of some magnitude, then no constant would have existed and therefore it’s logic would have been void.