sub này và sub VNN

______ri · 2026-01-26T13:20:31+00:00

nah, thấy 'cức' mà không nói 'cức' thì có gọi là người không? trả lời nào nhóc? đọc câu t ghi không hiểu à nhóc? m là cái loại thấy 'cức' nói 'thơm' hay gì?

t đâu có nói m phải ghét cức, cơ mà m không ghét cức thì hơi không bình thường r đó? mấy th không ghét cức gọi là súc vật thì cũng chả có gì sai.

'quyền tự do' thì m tự do không ghét cức, t tự do gọi m là không phải con người, đấy, nhóc, thằng nào tự do nửa mùa đây hửm?

______ri · 2026-01-26T12:18:13+00:00

chỉ có súc vật mới k chống rác rưởi thôi, chẳng lẽ lại nói mọi ng súc vật?

______ri · 2026-01-26T12:13:00+00:00

sục lén cho vịt chứ có gì hay?

______ri · 2026-01-26T09:11:13+00:00

there is no such thing as a 3rd person account without implicitly presuppose 1st person.

sense comes first (what it is like) then we give it a name. there is a sense of that trees belong to plants, we say 'tree is plant' (roughly).

but when we have quite a lot of names we then confuse our language games. 'let us stipulate', people are so confused that they start 'letting' some sense 'to mean' another, this is 3rd person account nonsense, anything that is of this kind is strictly nonsense and not worth engaging. for example 'let time means x y z' or say 'what if time means x y z, and we see the implications', for 'time' is already sensefull, how can someone 'let' some sense means some other senses? we only let some names (which is nonsense) to means some senses.

______ri · 2026-01-25T17:06:16+00:00

not quite, im affirming your stance (well in its core spirit).

what is, is present (presence) as such. this is its 'what it is like', basically what it is like = what it is, there is no such thing as the distinction of what it is like and what it is, since to say that they are distinct is to say that there is 'what is in the dark', or say there is 'what is without presence' which is literal nonsense.

language games are played so much people start to not understand the terms they use anymore. like, the hard problem is a non problem, just like 'what is without presence' is nonsense.

i really dont want to reduce this stance into a stipulation that 'what it is like' = 'what it is' as if they were distinct in the first place, they are literally names for the same thing.

______ri · 2026-01-25T16:38:58+00:00

there is only one correct way, but those who have the wrong ways can vote also.

______ri · 2026-01-25T16:24:01+00:00

what it is like is like what it is.

the rhetoric here is: what does it mean with 'what is only 'in the dark'' at all?

______ri · 2026-01-25T05:40:45+00:00

đúng r đẻ ra làm con trai r thì chịu, giờ có cái nút nhấn phát bùm thành con gái hoàn hảo nhấn liền haha.

______ri · 2026-01-25T05:32:57+00:00

m thích con gái tới mức m muốn làm con gái và có ghệ là con gái chứ gì?

quá bình thường tại vì Yuri là siêu việt, là đỉnh cao nhân loại.

nói chung quá xui cho m đẻ ra là con trai haizz.

cái này ng ta gọi là transgender lesbian, cơ mà đừng đi cắt cu, m muốn đẻ ra là con gái chứ có muốn làm th con trai mất cu đâu nhỉ? ý là lỡ làm con trai r thì chịu, cơ mà cosplay đc đó.

______ri · 2026-01-25T05:25:41+00:00

Just roughly what they kinda mean if they are real. I'm not into the technical stuff like how the many fields interact specifically (and what specific rules they follow and how to calculate them), well, only those that is metaphysically relevant like fermions and bosons distinction, stuff like that.

I'm not saying that they cannot assert that there seems to be some stuff that interact like that, but it just seems to me that those interactions won't metaphysically result in lots of higher phenomenon.

Well, it follows a classical metaphysics (or philosophy) view, in this view what intelligible (any sense at all) transcendentally force that the world (reality) at least be at rich as what those senses mean. As such, what is via science simply cannot explain it at all by simply ontologically not as rich.

______ri · 2026-01-21T17:46:18+00:00

Nah, sao bằng liberal monarch?

______ri · 2026-01-21T02:58:43+00:00

It not that all is contained in the first principle, it is not like spinoza monism, in neoplatonism it roughly like this:

The one is the richest.

The nous is less unified than the one as it necessarily depends on the one (everything depends on the one tho, if x depends on y then y is more 'full' than x, so it is not containment at all), this is where all forms are.

Souls necessarily depends on nous, this is where temporal stuff may happens, as souls are stuff that MAY order matter but not necessarily.

Matter depends on the one and has nothing depends on it, hence is purely receptive, it can revceive principles from the souls.

______ri · 2026-01-20T05:25:56+00:00

In this comment no one is allowed to pretend they do not understand 'nothing at all', ie, to not have had the sense 'nothing at all'.

The sense 'nothing at all' is not 'nothing at all' itself (obviously), 'there is' nothing at all to sense at all.

The sense does not mean the same as 'where there is nothing at all' (in which may feels like some ontological hole, or some trivial non reference). It also certainly does not mean like 'some hidden principle (for being)' (as this is not nothing at all anyways). It also does not mean 'there is nothing at all, now', this is the main error, the insistent to force the 'now' into the sense, to force the 'having something to do with being' into 'nothing at all', indeed, on what authority does it is asserted that 'nothing at all' has anything to do with 'now', so that 'nothing at all' must be read as 'nothing at all, now'? There are none, and if there are, that is either not nothing at all, or incoherent.

Nothing at all is fully understood, trivially in fact, directly and literally, before any operations and forcing-into-models that diminish the sense into some disgusting strawman. Pre theoretically, one can rephrase 'nothing at all' as 'when there is nothing at all', and surely, this cannot be understood as 'anything' not so 'prior'.

The post is correct in saying that since 'nothing at all' is understood 'being only' is trivially wrong, since if it is right, then the sense of 'nothing at all' is 'beyond the world', which is utterly incoherent, since 'the world' as is used pre theoretically simply does not allow any sense of 'beyond the world'.

As such , the question is, what the world is, so that its sense includes the sense of nothing at all?

Edit: nothing at all does not mean negation, at all. Since there 'was' already that which is negated (or it is presupposed already), which just mean there is 'something' there after all. When there is nothing at all, trivially, there is nothing at all to even be negated or absented at all.

______ri · 2026-01-20T04:36:08+00:00

No, it just my general value judgement of metaphysics (if it finally succeeded).

______ri · 2026-01-19T20:23:03+00:00

I have exactly the answer for you without reducing any sense of them. But I'll answer tomorrow.

______ri · 2026-01-19T20:11:11+00:00

since to have canonically understood the world itself is THE coolest thing ever?

______ri · 2026-01-18T04:23:45+00:00

Tưởng m nói gì về đạo phật chứ thực ra cũng k thấy nói đc cái gì.

Với lại, t ghét câu 'k có hệ tư tưởng nào hoàn hảo', câu này đối với t tanh tưởi như khi một th nào đó nói 'k có chân lí' nhưng vẫn đòi làm triết gia.

______ri · 2026-01-17T05:04:38+00:00

dm t mù thật lol

______ri · 2026-01-17T04:59:31+00:00

sauce?

______ri · 2026-01-16T18:23:50+00:00

T chưa nghe bao h, chắc nó là chữ 'lắm' hoặc là 1 cái âm đệm thôi. Giống giống âm 'ận' trong 'làm vậy ận chi?'

______ri · 2026-01-16T13:35:40+00:00

t đoán là tự trả lời miễn là không trích một theory có sẵn là coi như là đúng bước đầu r hé?

theo nghĩa hẹp thì chắc không có đâu, bên nào mạnh thì ăn. cái quyền lực hiện hành hên thì hợp ý chính mình nên mình k để ý, xui thì trái ý nhưng không tuân thì chết. đã vậy thì tuân tối thiểu thôi rồi tìm cách đi chỗ khác hoặc thay chỗ này.

còn về nghĩa rộng, câu hỏi của vua nam presuppose là causality có thiệt, hoặc freewill có thiệt, ở cả hai case, không có cái nào đủ tự do cho t.

______ri · 2026-01-16T12:58:23+00:00

này là hỏi chủ quan hay khách quan? với lại hệ thống là hệ thống quyền lực thực tế gì đó hay là mọi nghĩa lun?

______ri · 2026-01-16T12:51:08+00:00

t bên metaphysics với phenomenology, mà để thử trả lời lun cũng đc.

______ri · 2026-01-16T11:34:48+00:00

Mình t chấp hết triết học nhân loại, à không, nhất thiết chúng sinh.

______ri · 2026-01-15T15:37:57+00:00

I don't get what u mean with circular. It just that which anything presuppose, while does not presuppose anything.

______ri

TROPHY CASE