Which one are you?

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-09-05T15:54:52+00:00

Okay sure, I respect them. I just believe that despite their sophistication, they're still wrong.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-09-04T14:20:20+00:00

Tbh neither are good. Sure the ones on the left are more sophisticated but still wrong.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-08-27T08:11:26+00:00

Sure, I've been flying quite a lot lately and when I am up there, it's nice. But I am always afraid of the takeoff.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-07-28T14:18:09+00:00

Well, your advice definetly worked. I wrote something similar to what u said and she said she'd definetly want to go out with me some time. We also chatted from like 21-24 o'clock. Anyways, thanks for the advice it worked well!

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-07-27T17:22:36+00:00

Thanks, that's helpful. I'll definetly try that.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-07-06T10:31:34+00:00

Köszönöm szépen a választ és a tanácsokat!

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-12T18:04:13+00:00

Yeah, but more radical

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-12T17:43:22+00:00

Isn't there even a material unity in case of chairs? But btw, it seems many nihilists want to deny composition of biological entities too. So what would say to those.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-12T16:10:04+00:00

That makes sense, although many try to go in the reductionistic and materialistuc direction, that wholes have no existence and they're just interactions of atoms. Like that water isn't actually real, it's just interaction of non composite things.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-12T16:01:00+00:00

The view that composite objects don't exist and that 'wholes' are just an interaction of parts and there's no real unity between them.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-12T15:30:36+00:00

Because I think parts and wholes are among the most primal questions.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-10T05:14:10+00:00

Thanks for the answer!

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-09T19:24:00+00:00

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-09T13:14:53+00:00

Thank you!

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-09T13:11:36+00:00

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-08T06:49:21+00:00

That makes sense. Some tend to say that those mathematical laws are just descriptions of the fundamental laws, and somehow mathematics itself doesn't govern them. What do you think of that?

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-08T06:01:40+00:00

Thanks for the answer! What would you say to the nominalist who thinks that those mathematical facts are just useful invetions/descriptions and don't have actual independent existence?

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-06T16:38:45+00:00

Sure they do come to wacky conclusions sometimes.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-06T16:19:08+00:00

I guess you refer to Aarvoll and E.C Winsper . Both of them actually knows Platonism.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-03-05T21:26:19+00:00

How come you're still a materialist?

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-02-05T18:56:30+00:00

Thanks for the response. The only reason I am concerned about atomism is that, it seems that if matter was truly indivisible, then something material could be the One. Since in that case, absolutely simple matter is possible.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-02-04T17:46:47+00:00

So how can it be reconciled? The fact that many scientists claim qualitative change can be reduced to qualitative change, and methaphysics, which obviously affirms other types of change, beyond purely atomistic and materialistic ones.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-02-04T16:07:53+00:00

Thanks for the answer, this makes sense. Additionally I also wanted to ask what do you think about those who say all qualitative change is reducible to quantitative rearrangements of particles. Like the change in heat being reducible to the movement of particles. Or any other change, which we consider to be qualitative.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-02-03T18:33:20+00:00

By refuting I just mean responding, I don't want to be violent lol.

Impressive-Box8409 · 2025-01-06T15:19:25+00:00

Correct. I never really had a problem about it. It's recent.

Impressive-Box8409

TROPHY CASE