• Devans99
    1.5k
    And 'round we go. That's a fine definition. However, it corresponds to nothing real, nothing that actually existstim wood

    Thats the point; it's nothing. What is your definition?

    This lack of substance seems a feature of your arguments, and I, unfortunately, a predilection for calling out what I think is non-sensetim wood

    You are waffling rather than addressing my arguments. You have made 5 posts on this subject so far and none of them contain anything of substance.
  • tim wood
    2.2k
    Thats the point; it's nothing. What is your definition?
    You are waffling rather than addressing my arguments. You have made 5 posts on this subject so far and none of them contain anything of substance.
    Devans99

    And you apparently don't benefit from repetition. And you're clearly confused. It's your claim, your argument, your terms. It's not my business to define your terms for you. And even if it were and I did, it's still not my argument. Yours is akin to your making a mess, looking at it both proudly and defensively and saying, "You clean it up!" But there are two problems with this: 1) it's not how it works, and 2) your mess cannot be cleaned up by anyone other than you, a consequence of the subject matter and how it's been handled so far.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.