Phenomenology can be good, but it often leans into the usual ghost story. Why is that bad ? The ghost story, in most of its forms, is obsolete -- has been shown to be wrong or incoherent. Because it's outlandish and daring, it's supposed to be sophisticated, but believers are quick to tell you that 'practically' they are just like everyone else. So it's a bad theory that serves no purpose, hackneyed poetry basically, 'describing ' the world by denying it ... insisting it cannot be described, does not exist, etc. — Pie

I compare any antiphenemenological stance to interplanetary civilizations; in a sense phenomenology is, to put it mildly, mundane, restricted to, let's just say, (a) special case(s). Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with ya.

I stand corrected. In my humble opinion, one of the worst things anyone could do is refuse to accept that there's a problem for it delays the search/discovery of solutions.

That said you two might wanna look into the statistics of anal sex; someone in another thread claimed that it's more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals. Feels relevant, dunno!

I wouldn't quite go that far. There are people who are trying to work out the implications of his ideas, but as far as I know, and I'm just guessing, it's a small number. Moreover, I'm not up to date on some of this — Sam26

Don't worry, you'll get there. Keep at it, that's a motto, not sure!

I believe the right question to ask is a rather simple one, cui bono?

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death? — Xtrix

Most profound questions! You must be Einstein's descendant! Please comtinue, you must...for our sakes...you must.

Phenomology, intelligently practiced, is always a good thing. Anything at all unintelligently practiced, is not a good thing; so there's little of substance, and much of the bleeding obvious, there. — Janus

Touché mon ami!

Oh, apologies!

It doesn't make sense — Pie

It doesn't make sense — Pie

Yep, it doth not make any sense at all!

That's not always a good thing ! — Pie

Right you are! Good job!

So, having established in what circumstances conscription works. In what circumstances is it just? — Isaac

Great question!

We're all, in a sense, talking to ourselves! — Solipsist

Self-Talk

:snicker:

Please calm down, take a deep breath and relax. Pagliacci will be with you shortly!

:chin:

I guess we don't really know if she and her husband somehow made tons of money on the trip, but then again we really don't know if he trip was just another piece of the Saurian's plans to gain more power to help them get control over the governments around the world and eventually allow them to rule over all of us. — dclements

:smile:

You never know, you never know. Let the profits made speak for themselves.

Do you understand the difference between an instance of something being good, and the ideal good, the best thing? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope! :grin: Edify me, please!

Apparently. (He probably wouldn't accept your apology.) — 180 Proof

Too bad, it's a sincere request for forgiveness.

I would agree with you. Most are just trying to understand what he said, but few are working out the implications of what he said, especially the nuanced implications of this very abstract linguistic subject. — Sam26

In other words, unlike other philosophical ideas, Wittgenstein's views remain unchanged or static since the time of its inception. Is it, in that case, a work that's perfect as it is?

Hmmmm.

Above me pay grade, mon ami! You're on your own! Danke for the exchange. Bonam fortunam!

It appears that Wittgenstein has broken new ground in re language & thought (philosophy, etc.) but no one has, to my knowledge, worked out the nuances of his thesis. For instance confusion is greater when dealing with abstract concepts, the words assigned to them, than with the concrete, stuff like chairs, stones, etc. I feel it's important to do so! Anyone with me on this?

Well, conscription is there for a (very good) reason obviously. It's worked before; why shouldn't it now or in the future?

It's more than enough! — DA671

:pray:

You see the light in the dark! Good to have you on the team.

I believe this :point: What makes an observation true or false will be helpful!

Synthetic a priori?

Never had the time nor the brains to dig deeper into Kant's ideas.

Thank you for the warning! — DA671

We do what we can!

This is not true, and it is a very common mistake. A thing, be it a self or any other thing, is described by referring to its properties, not by referring to "the other". So a thing (such as a self), may be in complete isolation, with all of its properties, with no other. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never understood duality. Sorry Heraclitus.

How do we know that Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan trip isn't designed to make big sums of money for her and her husband?

Killing two birds with one stone. Smart woman this Nancy Pelosi! Hope her plans work out for her, her husband, and her family.

That's how I made sense of your position that there hasta be true statements that need no proof!

Have you read Gödel's incompeletenss theorems? It might come in handy. The Gödel sentence G is true but, here's where it gets interesting, unprovable. For the moment ignore the constraint in a/the given axiomatic system, it kinda kills the vibe if you catch my drift. Trust a genius to take the fun outta living!

there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: Reasons which do not need to be proven. — javi2541997

Most perceptive!

The force is strong with this one. — Master Yoda

Allow me to assist you as best as I can.

Act I

(Your) Conclusion: There are statements that are true sans proof.

(Your) premises: ?

Act II

What are these statements?

:up:

I am content with what I am capable of having. Cats are cute, by the way. — DA671

They're lookin' for you! Quick, hide!

Odd, then, that the conversation continues in your absence...? — Banno

:up: The only choice for a solipsist then is to say he wasn't really absent. :scream:

I'm always there for you. — YHWH

:grimace:

Curiosity — DA671

You need at a minimum 9 lives to be as curious as a cat! :snicker:

A few years back I posted on another thread that free will is most likely inexplicable as all explanans are causal i.e. exist in a deterministic framework.

No we don't because no we ain't. Vaginas are more resilient than arses and better lubricated. Arses tear and bleed during sex and this provides the gateway for transmissiion via the exchange of bodily fluids. The correlation is thus directly observed and the explanation is already well known.

It's unfortunate, but gay sex is medically more risky than straight sex, apart from the dread disease of pregnancy, for which there is no known legal cure. — unenlightened

You gotta point there, but it may not be as simple as increased chances of anal/rectal abrasions, lacerations, etc. that have been found in those engaged in sodomy that have been identified as easier routes of transmission. To a virus, the monkeypox is one, intact skin is no barrier and so, in a sense, we can't really say that traumatic anorectal injuries are putative channels of infection. Do you see what I mean? It doesn't make any difference at all, oui monsieur?

Well, if you've ever watched youtube videos, you'll realize that you're not alone in this OP: some people, as one so eloquently put it, have what they call a death wish!

...perhaps you are doing it wrong? — Banno

:lol: :up:

To say that infectious illnesses have something to do with sexual habits i.e. to claim a correlation between them we have to demonstrate how transmission is facilitated by certain methods of coitus and that's precisely what we're in the dark about. En garde!

Yes, yes!

That's a totally different take on negatives. Is it possible to construct a coherent/consistent system of operations ( +, -, ×, ÷) on negatives using that?

Good points! Sometimes, people would do things willingly if only...

Doc from "Back to the Future" could forget his life, and eventually reincarnate hoping to remember exactly how he invented the quantum flux capacitor. Or he could remember how to survive the terrorists that he bought materials from to build it! & all of the adventures in-between those four causalities. — Winner568

Danke for the input. I wish we knew how Doc Brown could deliberately forget i.e. delete memory files.

The practical antithesis to "memory-tricks" (enhanced functioning) is lacking memory-tricks (unenhanced functioning) and not "amnesia-tricks" (enhanced dysfunctioning). — 180 Proof

On point señor, but wouldn't it be great to have a system for forgetting; we're most grateful for the junk files deletion feature on our computers, oui?