Skepticism in one sentence

[Global Skeptic]

Everything is P AND/OR non-P

Rationalism in one sentence: Everything is P (AND not non-P)

The rest is in part from the "la-la land" of philosophy, which is a part of philosophy but not all of philosophy and which is called limited irrationalism. I.e. you can't explain the irrational using the rational because that appears to be a contradiction. In other words you can only in the positive sense explain the irrational using the irrational.

I sincerely wish you and hope that you will have a long and happy life.

With regards
GS

 

[Muhammed]

you too

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Everything is P AND/OR non-P

Lets call this statement: "P"

Rationalism in one sentence: Everything is P (AND not non-P)

Hi Global Rationalist

 

[Global Skeptic]

Lets call this statement: "P"

Hi Global Rationalist

Yes, P is P as everything is everything is true as a tautology but empty for what everything is empirically

 

[Borachio]

Only P's are P. And each P is unique. There is no "everything is P", since everything is different from everything else in its unique particulars.

Similarly "everything is not P" is also untrue. Since everything is pretty much the same in its most global generalities.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Only P's are P. And each P is unique. There is no "everything is P", since everything is different from everything else in its unique particulars.

Similarly "everything is not P" is also untrue. Since everything is pretty much the same in its most global generalities.

You just did it, you used everything is P albeit as "everything is P", but some people think that they can actually do everything is P. What they don't realize is that all that they are doing is to think "everything is P".

 

[Borachio]

So, is that good or bad? Do I win a prize, or have I got egg on my face?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, is that good or bad? Do I win a prize, or have I got egg on my face?

Since everything is P AND/OR non-P: Both and both.

 

[Traitorfish]

Where's the proof that scepticism can be defined in one sentence?

 

[Angst]

And this is why I avoid the Anglian obsession with formal logic.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it's appropriate for us to be discussing P on a family oriented forum

 

[Gucumatz]

Damn philosophers... mind your Ps and Qs they said, look what we have to wade through now...

 

[Global Skeptic]

Since everything is P AND/OR non-P: Both and both.

Correct

 

[potatokiosk]

So rationally unicorns are P and also not non-P? I don't think rationalism as you define it is very useful.

 

[Global Skeptic]

Where's the proof that scepticism can be defined in one sentence?

What an odd thing to ask a global skeptic about; i.e. proof, since we don't believe in truth, knowledge and proof in the any meaningful and practical sense. They are rationalistic states of mind in those who believe in truth, knowledge and proof and thus a part of everything but they have nothing to do everything as everything. I.e. everything is not truth, knowledge and proof except for those who believe in everything is truth, knowledge and proof.

Try this:
A claim and a proposition as "everything is X". In other words everything as everything is "everything is X" or if you like try this:
P1 "everything is X"
Therefore everything
And notice the skeptical answer:
Non-X

In practice:
Claim: Everything is e.g. physical OR (from) God.
Answer: No! (to both claims).

Of if you like:
Claim: I can explain how reality works with rationality...
Answer: Stop right there. With rationality explain the irrational! I.e. that you can understand the irrational in the sense of being irrational with rational in the sense of being rational. That is a contradiction!

So the proof of skepticism is that there is no proof other than the belief in proof!

 

[lovett]

I am inclined to think there is no argument to meet from someone who freely admits their claims aren't true.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Global, how long do you take to cross the street?

 

[Perfection]

Everything is P AND/OR non-P

Rationalism in one sentence: Everything is P (AND not non-P)

The rest is in part from the "la-la land" of philosophy, which is a part of philosophy but not all of philosophy and which is called limited irrationalism. I.e. you can't explain the irrational using the rational because that appears to be a contradiction. In other words you can only in the positive sense explain the irrational using the irrational.

Well, I'm lost.

Can you explain this better or elaborate? I don't get the steps or the rationale.

 

[Traitorfish]

What an odd thing to ask a global skeptic about; i.e. proof, since we don't believe in truth, knowledge and proof in the any meaningful and practical sense. They are rationalistic states of mind in those who believe in truth, knowledge and proof and thus a part of everything but they have nothing to do everything as everything. I.e. everything is not truth, knowledge and proof except for those who believe in everything is truth, knowledge and proof.

Try this:
A claim and a proposition as "everything is X". In other words everything as everything is "everything is X" or if you like try this:
P1 "everything is X"
Therefore everything
And notice the skeptical answer:
Non-X

In practice:
Claim: Everything is e.g. physical OR (from) God.
Answer: No! (to both claims).

Of if you like:
Claim: I can explain how reality works with rationality...
Answer: Stop right there. With rationality explain the irrational! I.e. that you can understand the irrational in the sense of being irrational with rational in the sense of being rational. That is a contradiction!

So the proof of skepticism is that there is no proof other than the belief in proof!

I'm sorry, I'm really not following you. You seem to be arguing that meaningful claims about reality and our knowledge thereof are impossible? Despite that being, itself, a meaningful claim about reality and our knowledge thereof?

 

[Borachio]

Try this:
A claim and a proposition as "everything is X". In other words everything as everything is "everything is X" or if you like try this:
P1 "everything is X"
Therefore everything
And notice the skeptical answer:
Non-X

In practice:
Claim: Everything is e.g. physical OR (from) God.
Answer: No! (to both claims).

Of if you like:
Claim: I can explain how reality works with rationality...
Answer: Stop right there. With rationality explain the irrational! I.e. that you can understand the irrational in the sense of being irrational with rational in the sense of being rational. That is a contradiction!

So the proof of skepticism is that there is no proof other than the belief in proof!

Pure poetry!

And makes about just as much sense, to me, as poetry.

I'm sure it is perfectly sensible, but I'm blowed if I can follow it.