Originally Posted by theburningbush

you qoute deals primarly with the focus on the individual mine is with society as a whole similiar and yet vastly diffrent

how does anything know it is special because humanity exists?

The earth would be special with or without man it hosts life and is the only confirmed planet in our solar system that does (although in the next 10 years that will change).

The intelligent minde and its significance if any is arguable. Ill leave it for you to present the first argument for or against if you so choose.

Originally Posted by Jordyn

what makes it special, outside of human comprehension?

there are other planets, other solar systems, and most scientist agree highly probably that in those other systems, there could be planets just as capable of supporting life...but if there was no humanity, what would it matter?

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

At no point in time did I declare that opposites do not exist. Opposites very much so exist...nevertheless, that doesn't mean opposition is a Truth...only a truth.



Now you're taking one said flawed theory (oppostion) and counter-arguing it with another flawed theory (perception).

What undeniable validity is there that perception is wholly justified?

1. I see a white speck in the sky. Only, it's really a ball of burning gas many, many, many light years away. Even then, said "ball of gas" might be "dead" and all I'm really observing is the light that has yet to "burn out."

1a. Counter-argument states that although in the years past it may not have been recognized for what it really was before the aid of telescopes, we today have knowledge of its being and understand it's a ball of gas. Thus, the perception isn't as flawed as argued.

1b. Counter-counter-argument. Knowledge is one thing, perception is another. All a-posteriori knowledge starts with perception...nevertheless, the QUOTE-UN-QUOTE facts of said objects don't answer all the subjects. Yes, I know stars are balls of burning gas, but I can't pinpoint this star's size, type, distance, etc. Nor all of the stars for that matter. Point being...a posterori logic might declare the object, but that doesn't necessarily declare its subjects.

2. Hallucinations. Obviously, hallucinations are examples of things "perceived" but not actually there. Hence, the perception isn't accurate. Like with a mirage.

3. People who have lost limbs often claim that the limb which is no longer there itches.

4. The subject of the object. Like with the first example...perceiving doesn't necessarily inform us of the all the parts in the object. In all the ways that you can "perceive" a loved one, there's still that quality that can't be perceived. Such as, their imagination. Their memories in full detail. Etc.


So, since we as humans often make perceptual mistakes, there's no actual proof to declare that the justification beind perception is indeed reliable and valid.

Now, again, I'm not saying things aren't warranted proofs by perception, or that perception doesn't exist. But there are flaws to the theory of perception. Arguing one flawed theory (opposition...which, I think I've pointed out its flaws, as some others have as well) with another flawed theory doesn't help the argument any.

But you still want proof that not everything has an opposition. I took upon myself to look up opposition in my hand-dandy Philosophy dictionary, and I came across something of interest.

The Principle of Polarity (oppostion) states that objects under this principle are intelligible only in the terms of their contrast to one another.

Like you sort of said: we understand hot because of cold. We understand night because of day. We understand fire because of water.

How is it we understand humans? How is it we understand triangles? Where is their opposition so readily available to us that helps us understand said objects? I've never encountered the opposite of a triangle, yet I understand a triangle. I've known what a triangle was since I was wee-little lad with my Nike Air-Jordans. Yet I didn't know, nor do I know now, what the opposite of a triangle is.

I might not understand hot without it's opposite of cold...yet, I can understand triangle without it's opposite.

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

First and foremost...to recall the stack of money and Hitler...you do understand the concept of metaphysics...yes? A stack of hundreds isn't physically in front of you, but it exists nonetheless. A mermaid doesn't exist physically, but it still exists!

Opposition...well, if that's your theory, so be it. Not a very valid one, but a popular one nonetheless.

Likewise for any theory based on or attributed to perception. Not very valid, but popular.

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

Triangle's opposite is shoe. Humanity's opposite is sharp cheddar.

Originally Posted by Dyshade

Do you have anything to add or does acting 15 feel better for you??

Originally Posted by Dyshade

I proposed it and you countered it and now you are retreating to a state of acceptance of the theory. It can't be both ways. It either exists or it does not. If it does not exist as a valid theory than nothing can exhibit any opposition in nature which as both of us have acknowledged is exactly what occurs

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

Windmills do not work that way.

Originally Posted by Dyshade

In other words ignore you because you do want to act the child. Ok. I will ignore you.

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

But in the end, and no offense, I'm getting rather tired of this discussion because it's leading us nowhere. Say what you want, argue as you will, but if you (who are so readily to accept science) can't warrant that as long as the validity of a theory is flawed, and forever will be flawed, limits its justification in an argument, any argument, then arguing with you is just inane.

Originally Posted by Dark Messiah

If one is to play the fool, it would be better to do so by intention rather than accident.


Despite the history of futility in this, I'll spend a few seconds actually trying to reason with you;


All black people are criminals. If you disagree with this, you must prove why all black people aren't criminals. Furthermore, if this theory is invalid, then that means no black people can be criminals.[/yourformoflogic]

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

My lord man! It's basic philosophy!

Socrates is a man
Man is immortal
Therefore, Socrates is immortal!

.