[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 118 KB, 568x852, 0F4D2097-200B-46EA-8667-80F1F02C5EE2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21064274 No.21064274 [Reply] [Original]

Metaphysicsanons, why have you not read the greatest book on metaphysics ever written?

>> No.21065075

>>21064274
that's not Aristotle

>> No.21065090

That's not Broken Hegemonies

>> No.21065104

>>21064274
that's not my diary

>> No.21065233

>>21064274
This is unreadable. Seriously, what are the major differences between this and Wolff's works? Anyhow, what do you think of Kant's Lectures on it and the Critique?

>> No.21065243

>>21065104
desu

>> No.21065741

>>21064274
>Everything possible either has a ground or does not (§10). If it has a ground, something is its ground (§8). If it does not have one, nothing is its ground (§7). Therefore, the ground of every possible thing is either nothing or something (§10). If nothing were the ground of some possible thing, it would be knowable from nothing why that thing is (§14), and hence the nothing itself would be representable and something (§8),23 and nothing would be something (§14, 8). Hence something possible would be impossible (§7, 8), which is absurd (§9).
So this is the power of European intellect...
(for the retards who didn't catch the sophistry, he equivocates having no ground with having a ground, and it being "nothing")

>> No.21065759

>>21065741
>For every possible thing either has a consequence, or not (§10). If it has, then something is its consequence (§8). If it has not, then nothing is its consequence (§7). Therefore, the consequence of every possible thing is either nothing or something (§10). If nothing were the consequence of some possible thing, then it could be known from the latter (§14). Hence it would be something (§8), and thus something possible would be impossible (§7, 8), which is absurd (§9).
Same sophistry a few "proofs" down.

>> No.21065767

his name sounds like bum garden

>> No.21065785

>>21064274
that's not Aristotle

>> No.21065797

>>21065741
What? You are the retard. There is no difference between having no ground and it being ''a'' nothing, the point is still the same. He is wrong simply because of Hume. That's it.

>> No.21065879

>>21065797
>There is no difference between having no ground and it being ''a'' nothing
One denies a ground, the other affirms a ground, it being nothing, and thus there is a difference. For if there was no difference, then asserting one would assert the other, but they are contradictory, and so this would be absurd. Saying he is "wrong because of Hume" is retarded because it does not locate the actual error in the reasoning, which is the equivocation I already mentioned.
Also, might I add that just calling someone a retard isn't a support for your opinion.

>> No.21065894

>>21065797
If someone provided a proof, and another provided a proof proving the opposite, then the only way we could determine who has the right proof would be by locating an error in one of the proofs. Saying one proof is wrong because of the other proof wouldn't be very smart, because I could just as well claim the opposite. A little lesson from me.

>> No.21065909

>>21065797
>There is no difference between having no ground and it being ''a'' nothing
Anon is either a faggot, or isn't. If he is a faggot, then we are done. If he does not have faggotness, nothing is it's gayness. If nothing were the gayness of anon, anon's gayness would be representable in nothing, and hence nothing itself would be representable and something, so nothing would be something, hence something would be impossible, which is absurd. Thus anon is gay.

>> No.21065922

>>21065797
Nothing is better than god
An anime girl is better than nothing
Thus an anime girl is better than god

Here is another example where I do the same switch: I equivocate lack with nothingness.

>> No.21066204

>>21065879
>One denies a ground, the other affirms a ground, it being nothing, and thus there is a difference. For if there was no difference, then asserting one would assert the other, but they are contradictory, and so this would be absurd.
Your thinking is totally valid, however the precise matter which I pointed out was regarding the conclusion, not the particular way he was led to that conclusion.
>Saying he is "wrong because of Hume" is retarded because it does not locate the actual error in the reasoning
Indeed, but I did not reference Hume for that specific case, ''He is wrong simply because of Hume'' as in ''This particular paragraph of his oeuvre is not the reason for his being wrong, but the more general principles contradicted by the more rigorous challanges posited by Hume''. It was a general remark.

>>21065894
>>21065922
>>21065909
See above.

Your autism failed to grasp something much simpler, and what is yet simpler an explanation is that it is probably just a translation equivocation.