Translate to English. "1)an object whose name you" What is an object? Object and thing are synonyms, circular. "2) an object that is not alive in the way people are." Again circular, and things/objects can be living object or non living objects. "Nothing is imaginary. even through the empty space electromagnetic waves can pass through" What will 'wave'? A wave is the to and fro motion of things, so what is waving? "Nothing is imaginary" As god is 'not a thing', imaginary.
You are on weed? Literal talk and poetic/lay talk are different. A charlatan like you WANTS to use lay talk to prevent other people from noticing the contradictions you are making so that deceive with impunity. And don't talk physics, you don't know any physics and will have to cut and paste from sites and again will make a fool of yourself. So instead of giving circular meanings DEFINE. Well, I am sure you will not define for your intention is not knowing facts but deluding yourself and deceiving others. Even after writing this many blogs you still haven't defined a single word. Do you intend to make money by deception?
"A and non-A law can't apply here." After giving the meaning of a thing as 1) a thing and 2) non living thing and nothing as imaginary, you say dichotomy is not applicable? Drug or ignorance?
"1)an object whose name you do not use because you do not need to or want to,or because you do not know it. " I do not want to use the name 'god', so he is an object whosd name I don't want to use, so even by your meaning god is a thing.
Thing and NOT A (NO)thing are mutually exclusive. There is no half thing or quarter thing. A thing exist, there is no partial existence that is nonsense. But of course you can delude yourself into thinking that you understand the meaning of such oxymorons by giving it new meanings that you don't understand just like your 'stand forth', a term you invented without ever able to state what it means.
Looks like you haven't got it yet, we are not discussing philosophy or values or psychology where ut is inappropriate to call a person thing, but we are discussing reality where a person is a thing irrespective of whether he is a king or a saint or your father. It is not our concern whether we know the name or want to use but only whether it's a thing, that exists, or nothing that separate things.
Translate to English.
ReplyDelete"1)an object whose name you"
What is an object? Object and thing are synonyms, circular.
"2) an object that is not alive in the way people are."
Again circular, and things/objects can be living object or non living objects.
"Nothing is imaginary. even through the empty space electromagnetic waves can pass through"
What will 'wave'? A wave is the to and fro motion of things, so what is waving?
"Nothing is imaginary"
As god is 'not a thing', imaginary.
You are on weed? Literal talk and poetic/lay talk are different. A charlatan like you WANTS to use lay talk to prevent other people from noticing the contradictions you are making so that deceive with impunity.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't talk physics, you don't know any physics and will have to cut and paste from sites and again will make a fool of yourself.
So instead of giving circular meanings DEFINE. Well, I am sure you will not define for your intention is not knowing facts but deluding yourself and deceiving others. Even after writing this many blogs you still haven't defined a single word. Do you intend to make money by deception?
"A and non-A law can't apply here."
ReplyDeleteAfter giving the meaning of a thing as 1) a thing and 2) non living thing and nothing as imaginary, you say dichotomy is not applicable? Drug or ignorance?
"1)an object whose name you do not use because you do not need to or want to,or because you do not know it. "
ReplyDeleteI do not want to use the name 'god', so he is an object whosd name I don't want to use, so even by your meaning god is a thing.
Thing and NOT A (NO)thing are mutually exclusive. There is no half thing or quarter thing. A thing exist, there is no partial existence that is nonsense. But of course you can delude yourself into thinking that you understand the meaning of such oxymorons by giving it new meanings that you don't understand just like your 'stand forth', a term you invented without ever able to state what it means.
ReplyDeleteLooks like you haven't got it yet, we are not discussing philosophy or values or psychology where ut is inappropriate to call a person thing, but we are discussing reality where a person is a thing irrespective of whether he is a king or a saint or your father. It is not our concern whether we know the name or want to use but only whether it's a thing, that exists, or nothing that separate things.
ReplyDelete