W

What does ancient Greek philosophy and literature have in common? More than you'd think. They both use what can be called negative demonstrations; that is, they both prove a mode of life by showing how NOT to live. In literature, the character (who, by the way, is an autobiographical character of the author) goes through a journey in which, by the end of the book, he learns of his futile attempts at self-pride and accepts that humanity is all the same. Plato used this method as well, to great effect. In his 38 dialogues, the character cannot define what something is. You can see it as a self-dialogue; assume something exists and then try to say what it is. You can't...

Well, at least you can't "say" what it is. But does that mean it doesn't exist?

^ there is one thing you can't think: you can't think "nothing"

Chess doesn't exist but Chess.com does.

Thx philosophy

and please elaborate

Chess exists. Case closed.

Wrong! Uh-oh!!!

You fail everything forever (probably). Probably, but since nothing exists, who cares...

An unproven thing is unproven until proven. True.

It is not proven untrue until proven untrue. True.

Prove it untrue or have the weakness of your intellectual processes be assumed (while just an assumption... I'll be pretty confident my assumption is correct). By your own words have you bound yourself.

You'd better sit down. The power of awesome will knock you off your feet.

Your original argument is that chess exists. By your own words, this is, therefore unproven, which, by your own words, means that my statement is simultaneously true and untrue, which means that your statement that an unproven thing is unproven until proven is not proven is not proven, and therefore not true.

 

You cannot prove it. Untrue until proven true.

Until proven true it is not untrue but doubtful

Given those grounds, everything that Murgen and myself have said is false.

ok here is my philosophy:

nothing exists metaphysically - so we can't know anything epistemologically

ethically, we obey a law, but its possible to will that we write a "contract", then important to will to "tear it up" so now we have the distance to appreciate the phallus (the empty space, that's all i mean Hatty)

Of course all of this is the best i can describe - as wittgenstein said, the language of my world signals precisely the limits of it

It is not false but doubtful. You just don't know if it is true of false.

Given those grounds, everything that Murgen and myself have said is false. Given the grounds with which Murgen and myself have set, everything we have said is true. (More or less.)

Unproven does not mean either false or true... it merely means unproven.

Incidentally, I have a high threshold to awesome... you've got a way to go to reach it... 

Unproven does not mean either false or true... it merely means unproven.

Incidentally, I have a high threshold to awesome... you've got a way to go to reach it...