NationStates Jolt Archive

Im in the mood to start philisophical threads today,
do you have your own personal philosophy?
or even a saying that sums it up for you?
my saying is dont be too serious-youll be dead soon enogh
cheery isnt it.;)

I always try to keep things in perspective by saying "one day this will all be twenty years ago."

I always try to keep things in perspective by saying "one day this will all be twenty years ago."
thats a good one.
my mothers is dont worry,the world might explode tonight-which she usually says before exams.Great-its exams or death.

I always try to keep things in perspective by saying "one day this will all be twenty years ago."

That is neither true nor false.

That is neither true nor false.
well if he lives another 20 years it will be true

It's not the things you don't know that get you in trouble -
it's the things you know for sure that just ain't so.

It's not the things you don't know that get you in trouble -
it's the things you know for sure that just ain't so.
I dont get it,sorry im a bit dull..

Whatever comes, however bad or good, can all be summed up in this:

It happens.

And you just keep going.

well if he lives another 20 years it will be true

From his perspective, probably.

It's not the things you don't know that get you in trouble -
it's the things you know for sure.

Fixed it, the last part was redundant.

I dont get it,sorry im a bit dull..

being wrongly convinced of something and sticking to it despite it's incorrect nature.

Fixed it, the last part was redundant.
cool.I think I gettit now.

Fixed it, the last part was redundant.

But see now you've actually changed the meaning. Whereas before it could be taken to mean "knowing" something that was wrong and standing by your wrong assertion, now it means sticking by something that is in fact correct.

But see now you've actually changed the meaning. Whereas before it could be taken to mean "knowing" something that was wrong and standing by your wrong assertion, now it means sticking by something that is in fact correct.

No, as I said the last part is redundant.

Anything that you know for certain is incorrect.

Of course, I can't even know that for certain.

Rather a sticky human habit, false righteousness.

Far more intriguing for me is how we constantly yearn for deeper meaning despite the fairly obvious lack of any such thing. But it's a marvellous motivator, don't you think? Keeps us going.

But see now you've actually changed the meaning. Whereas before it could be taken to mean "knowing" something that was wrong and standing by your wrong assertion, now it means sticking by something that is in fact correct.
Its his philosophy, he can do what he likes with it(sorry im assuming your a he-correct me if im wrong)

Rather a sticky human habit, false righteousness.

Far more intriguing for me is how we constantly yearn for deeper meaning despite the fairly obvious lack of any such thing. But it's a marvellous motivator, don't you think? Keeps us going.
It sure does-however Im unsure whether to believe that there is no meaning or if there is meaning.Even if there isnt the trick is to carry on anyway.
I think if nobody believed there was meaning we wouldnt keep reproducing, or we would all kill outselves ar we would just go crazy and party everyday(the last peoint not being such a bad one)

"whenever you speak in absolutes you are always wrong"

I say that a lot, it's kinda my thing


*yes I know that always is an absolute, my 4 year old points it out to me just about every time I say that, it's part of the reason I like it. (not that she points it out, but that it's true and false and true all at the same time)

however as a philosophy it's not very good.

I guess I don't really have one :eek: :(

It sure does-however Im unsure whether to believe that there is no meaning or if there is meaning.Even if there isnt the trick is to carry on anyway.
I think if nobody believed there was meaning we wouldnt keep reproducing, or we would all kill outselves ar we would just go crazy and party everyday(the last peoint not being such a bad one)
That's the trick I meant. And yes, the nihilist approach has been suggested. It tends not to make people happy though, so it seems that we must construct meaning, regardless of its "truth", to preserve our sanity. How's that for a quirky by-product of evolution?

Friedrich Neitzsche, from Beyond Good and Evil:

34. At whatever standpoint of philosophy one may place oneself
nowadays, seen from every position, the ERRONEOUSNESS of the
world in which we think we live is the surest and most certain
thing our eyes can light upon: we find proof after proof thereof,
which would fain allure us into surmises concerning a deceptive
principle in the "nature of things." He, however, who makes
thinking itself, and consequently "the spirit," responsible for
the falseness of the world--an honourable exit, which every
conscious or unconscious advocatus dei avails himself of--he who
regards this world, including space, time, form, and movement, as
falsely DEDUCED, would have at least good reason in the end to
become distrustful also of all thinking; has it not hitherto been
playing upon us the worst of scurvy tricks? and what guarantee
would it give that it would not continue to do what it has always
been doing? In all seriousness, the innocence of thinkers has
something touching and respect-inspiring in it, which even
nowadays permits them to wait upon consciousness with the request
that it will give them HONEST answers: for example, whether it be
"real" or not, and why it keeps the outer world so resolutely at
a distance, and other questions of the same description. The
belief in "immediate certainties" is a MORAL NAIVETE which does
honour to us philosophers; but--we have now to cease being
"MERELY moral" men! Apart from morality, such belief is a folly
which does little honour to us! If in middle-class life an ever-
ready distrust is regarded as the sign of a "bad character," and
consequently as an imprudence, here among us, beyond the middle-
class world and its Yeas and Nays, what should prevent our being
imprudent and saying: the philosopher has at length a RIGHT to
"bad character," as the being who has hitherto been most befooled
on earth--he is now under OBLIGATION to distrustfulness, to the
wickedest squinting out of every abyss of suspicion.--Forgive me
the joke of this gloomy grimace and turn of expression; for I
myself have long ago learned to think and estimate differently
with regard to deceiving and being deceived, and I keep at least
a couple of pokes in the ribs ready for the blind rage with which
philosophers struggle against being deceived. Why NOT? It is
nothing more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than
semblance; it is, in fact, the worst proved supposition in the
world. So much must be conceded: there could have been no life at
all except upon the basis of perspective estimates and
semblances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and stupidity of
many philosophers, one wished to do away altogether with the
"seeming world"--well, granted that YOU could do that,--at least
nothing of your "truth" would thereby remain! Indeed, what is it
that forces us in general to the supposition that there is an
essential opposition of "true" and "false"? Is it not enough to
suppose degrees of seemingness, and as it were lighter and darker
shades and tones of semblance--different valeurs, as the painters
say? Why might not the world WHICH CONCERNS US--be a fiction? And
to any one who suggested: "But to a fiction belongs an
originator?"--might it not be bluntly replied: WHY? May not this
"belong" also belong to the fiction? Is it not at length
permitted to be a little ironical towards the subject, just as
towards the predicate and object? Might not the philosopher
elevate himself above faith in grammar? All respect to
governesses, but is it not time that philosophy should renounce
governess-faith?

I dont get it,sorry im a bit dull..

My point is that being wrong is more dangerous than being ignorant.

Here's another one.

If it matters, measure it.
If you can't measure it, how do you know that it matters?

a soundbyte might be "this too shall pass"


on a personal level i try to adhere to bits of good ol' kantian ethics and generally try not to harm anyone
on a moral philisophical level on some days i like Rousseau, some days Rawls is my guide.

a soundbyte might be "this too shall pass"


on a personal level i try to adhere to bits of good ol' kantian ethics and generally try not to harm anyone
on a moral philisophical level on some days i like Rousseau, some days Rawls is my guide.
Im not that keen on Rouseau(nothing to do with the fact I have an exam on friday on socail contract theories)I just dont find him coherent.
I kinda like mill.

We're all fucked. Might as well enjoy the ride.

Do all, harm none. Everyone should be able to enjoy the right to live freely and pursue their goals, without violating the right of other people to pursue theirs.

Do all, harm none. Everyone should be able to enjoy the right to live freely and pursue their goals, without violating the right of other people to pursue theirs.
like mills harm principe?

Im not that keen on Rouseau(nothing to do with the fact I have an exam on friday on socail contract theories)I just dont find him coherent.
I kinda like mill.

Mill's a good choice, though I do think Rousseau and Hobbes have intelligent things to say.

I can't stand Kant and Rawls. I think their reasoning is shoddy.

No, as I said the last part is redundant.

Anything that you know for certain is incorrect.

What if I got lucky? It might be possible to hold any knoweldge with certainty, but that doesn't preclude my false certainty from being right when the dice fall my way.

And the original is actually a quote from Mark Twain.

Mill's a good choice, though I do think Rousseau and Hobbes have intelligent things to say.

I can't stand Kant and Rawls. I think their reasoning is shoddy.
yeah, rawls is too hypothetical, and kants reasoning is crap as far as im concerned.

I recently adopted my wifes latest philosophy:

Do whatever you want, just dont get it on the carpet.

do you have your own personal philosophy?
or even a saying that sums it up for you?

It sounds political, but it's really philosophical to me: I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

I recently adopted my wifes latest philosophy:

Do whatever you want, just dont get it on the carpet.

That is sooo good.Im stealing it.;)

It sounds political, but it's really philosophical to me: I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.
meaning you believe what?
im imdividual liberty and free markey economices, you mught as well call yourself a classical liberal if this is the case.

That is sooo good.Im stealing it.;)


so THAT's why you started this thread... to steal philosophies! you evil genius

so THAT's why you started this thread... to steal philosophies! you evil genius
damm you foiled my plan.
back to the drawing board...;)

What do I say?

Is this the right question to ask?

If I ask the question, do I answer it well?

If not, what do I err in answering the question?

Yesterday is already done; tomorrow may come,
So live today in the best manner that you can.


The future may yet be written, but honestly, have you read it yet?

anything else to add?

What do I say?

Is this the right question to ask?

If I ask the question, do I answer it well?

If not, what do I err in answering the question?

Yesterday is already done; tomorrow may come,
So live today in the best manner that you can.


The future may yet be written, but honestly, have you read it yet?

anything else to add?

very philisophical:cool:

It sounds political, but it's really philosophical to me: I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

I'd say the opposite for me: socially conservative and fiscally liberal :) [maybe too much for my own good]

I'd say the opposite for me: socially conservative and fiscally liberal :) [maybe too much for my own good]
what would you say were the main principles of your political/philisophical beliefs?

Do not do unto others what you would not want to have done unto you.

meaning you believe what?
im imdividual liberty and free markey economices, you mught as well call yourself a classical liberal if this is the case.

Sorry, had to read an article on "classical liberalism" to be sure what you meant. I'd say sort of. I think that the people right to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to do as I please, and vice versa. Example: I don't like the idea of abortion, but I support your right to get one, up to the point of taking away the father's rights. I don't like the idea of individuals owning guns, but I understand and support your right to do so, up to the point where you endanger someone else's life. THAT'S what I meant by socially liberal.

As far as fiscally conservative, I think the financial role of government is to encourage business practices that are fair to all individuals, rich AND poor, and to encourage business to perpetuate that fairness. But I don't think the government should go any further than that. Laissez-faire economics is, I believe, a ridiculous oversimplification that failed when tried.

Do not do unto others what you would not want to have done unto you.
wasnt it hobbes that said that-or was it bentham, Im gunna go find out.

It was hobbes's golden rule.

Sorry, had to read an article on "classical liberalism" to be sure what you meant. I'd say sort of. I think that the people right to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to do as I please, and vice versa. Example: I don't like the idea of abortion, but I support your right to get one, up to the point of taking away the father's rights. I don't like the idea of individuals owning guns, but I understand and support your right to do so, up to the point where you endanger someone else's life. THAT'S what I meant by socially liberal.

As far as fiscally conservative, I think the financial role of government is to encourage business practices that are fair to all individuals, rich AND poor, and to encourage business to perpetuate that fairness. But I don't think the government should go any further than that. Laissez-faire economics is, I believe, a ridiculous oversimplification that failed when tried.

So your more of a welfare liberal. Freedom as long as its fair?

Im in the mood to start philisophical threads today,
do you have your own personal philosophy?
or even a saying that sums it up for you?
my saying is dont be too serious-youll be dead soon enogh
cheery isnt it.;)
It's a toss up between "Close enough for Government work", and "Don't sweat the small shit".

wasnt it hobbes that said that-or was it bentham, Im gunna go find out.

Confucius...

Simply stated my philosophy is tell people what they want to hear, and then do what you want. May seem a little mean, but hey, it's a very easy strategy.;)

Confucius...
Hobbes said it too.
I know nothing of confucious,I need to learn more, dammit.

Simply stated my philosophy is tell people what they want to hear, and then do what you want. May seem a little mean, but hey, it's a very easy strategy.;)
saves you from having to explain yourself.;)

Qu'ils mangent brioche, y'all.

Qu'ils mangent brioche, y'all.
que?

que?
Let them eat cake.

I always try to keep things in perspective by saying "one day this will all be twenty years ago."

Some day you will look back and say, "It seems like only 5 years ago when...." Then you realize it was 40+ years ago. :(

Follow your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not very original i know, but it's how i try to live my life.

Let them eat cake.
I gettit now, Im not good with languages(brobably cos im a brit)

like mills harm principe?
There are various forms of it floating around... the Harm Principle, the Golden Rule, the Wiccan rule ("an it harm none, do what you will"), and the Libertarian Party, to name a few.

So your more of a welfare liberal. Freedom as long as its fair?

Depends on which definition of the word "welfare" you're talking about. I don't believe the government should directly support persons in the form of cash, check, or charge. But if you mean welfare as in "to promote the general welfare," then yes. I'd be a welfare liberal.

Think of it this way. I don't like the thought of supporting Person X's retirement because he's 65 and wants to spend the last third or so of his life on his butt. He should provide for his own retirement, with government and business providing the incentive to do it correctly. But what if he's too lazy or incompetent to do it himself? I'm not so cold-hearted as to say f*** him, but he'd get very little sympathy from me.

There are various forms of it floating around... the Harm Principle, the Golden Rule, the Wiccan rule ("an it harm none, do what you will"), and the Libertarian Party, to name a few.
Laissez-faire. ^^ I love the Wiccan Rule too.

Loving wisdom.

I try to go with the no-view of life. Its not as reall as it may seem, but it is a realm.

I try to go with the no-view of life. Its not as reall as it may seem, but it is a realm.
very interesting, please elaborate

Loving wisdom.

Indeed, not "freedom as long as it's fair," "freedom until yours intersects mine."

very interesting, please elaborate
While it is very easy to invest ideas, thought and time towards ideas such as morality, wrong and right it is often best to just accept it as it is. Five weeks ago a friend had a horse that got a bad leg, and then got real sick, I had to shoot it for him, because he loved it too much. Almost a lazzaise faires (excuse my horrible french) view of life.

While it is very easy to invest ideas, thought and time towards ideas such as morality, wrong and right it is often best to just accept it as it is. Five weeks ago a friend had a horse that got a bad leg, and then got real sick, I had to shoot it for him, because he loved it too much. Almost a lazzaise faires (excuse my horrible french) view of life.
Laissez-faire.

Its been a while since I had Euro history class... Thank you :)

Checklandia (What a great name! Alle checken im Land :D)

My philosophy as of now:
-Expect the best, prepare for the worst.
-God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Stranger in a Strange Land?

Some day you will look back and say, "It seems like only 5 years ago when...." Then you realize it was 40+ years ago. :(

Yes all philosophys should be able to deal with birthdays. That's the time for philosophising. These are a selection of birthdays which must be coped with.

20 biggie no longer a teen
21 yayy formal biggie, try to drink your age in cocktails, pints is too messy.
22-24 noone gives a shit if it's your birthday
25 everyone says "whoa dude, quarter century, game over man" even people who're 50, bastards
26-28 noone cares about your birthday except to say "Really, xx, wow tick tock"
29 everyone says "man. the big three-o coming up, game over, game over"
30 not as bad as you thought it was going to be
31-34 noone gives a shit, except now when you tell people in their twenties how old you are they treat you like a teacher or something. Teenagers think you're a really old parent type. On the plus side people assume you know what you're talking about because you're old.
35 oh fuck it is game over, all downhill to 40
36 -39 slow gradual slide into senility. Aches become pains, lumps become tumours, hair either vanishes or appears.
40 don't even have a 40th birthday party, it's shit, it looks like an old folks home outing to the real world. Pubs shouldn't let them in. They've all stopped doing coke and stuff and keep talking about their kids.
42 apparently all questions are answered at 42
43-death bits fall off and stop working until your balance eyesight and mind go and you Ozzy Osbourne around covered in shit and piss eventually breaking a hip or somesuch and being killed by an incompetent doctor who didn't know you were allergic to air bubbles in your bloodstream.

Checklandia (What a great name! Alle checken im Land :D)

My philosophy as of now:
-Expect the best, prepare for the worst.
-God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
thank you,my actual name is checka, so I just thought Id add a landia onto it!

Yes all philosophys should be able to deal with birthdays. That's the time for philosophising. These are a selection of birthdays which must be coped with.

20 biggie no longer a teen
21 yayy formal biggie, try to drink your age in cocktails, pints is too messy.
22-24 noone gives a shit if it's your birthday
25 everyone says "whoa dude, quarter century, game over man" even people who're 50, bastards
26-28 noone cares about your birthday except to say "Really, xx, wow tick tock"
29 everyone says "man. the big three-o coming up, game over, game over"
30 not as bad as you thought it was going to be
31-34 noone gives a shit, except now when you tell people in their twenties how old you are they treat you like a teacher or something. Teenagers think you're a really old parent type. On the plus side people assume you know what you're talking about because you're old.
35 oh fuck it is game over, all downhill to 40
36 -39 slow gradual slide into senility. Aches become pains, lumps become tumours, hair either vanishes or appears.
40 don't even have a 40th birthday party, it's shit, it looks like an old folks home outing to the real world. Pubs shouldn't let them in. They've all stopped doing coke and stuff and keep talking about their kids.
42 apparently all questions are answered at 42
43-death bits fall off and stop working until your balance eyesight and mind go and you Ozzy Osbourne around covered in shit and piss eventually breaking a hip or somesuch and being killed by an incompetent doctor who didn't know you were allergic to air bubbles in your bloodstream.
No, the answer is 42, all questions should come from before. lol
But do you really think even with a healthier life style than Ozzy, we all end up as fucked up as he?

It is not impossible to possess knowledge. It's silly and counterproductive to think otherwise. The only certainty that one may possess in this life, however, is knowledge stemming from quality.

A=A. There is nothing that anyone can say, do, or argue that will undermine this. This is fact. This is something about which no one can NOT be certain of and still be thought to be sane.


And along those lines there are a great deal of things about which I am certain:


All things are relative in some way.

Humans know things, but don't ever forget that in the grand scheme of things we know almost nothing.

I exist, but what I am I do not know for sure.

Reality is not what you make of it, but life is only as much as how you live it.

Infinities cannot exist in this universe.


NT

thank you,my actual name is checka, so I just thought Id add a landia onto it!
Good thinking :p

Stranger in a Strange Land?
Nah, that's Iron Maiden :D:D:D

Eventually, being healthy means you get a few more years at the end of your life.

As far as I can see noone should work until they're about 30-35 and then work until they croak. Most pensioners have to be dragged from their desks, the routine of work is what keeps them functioning at that stage. Most people under 30/35 find that very routine the worst part of work.

We have too many kids working like dogs and too many old folk driving around in flash cars. I say extend the child labour laws to the age of 25 and raise the pension age to 80. Nothing to stop you taking early retirement. If you can only work part time until you're 25 you might as well go to university.

thank you,my actual name is checka, so I just thought Id add a landia onto it!
Where are you from?

Where are you from?
Wales!
you?

A=A. There is nothing that anyone can say, do, or argue that will undermine this. This is fact. This is something about which no one can NOT be certain of and still be thought to be sane.

Infinities cannot exist in this universe.



You say A=A but that cannot be proven in the real world. No two things are identical in the universe. If you take two 1Kg blocks of Platinum and place them on a table the chaotic evaporation from the surface will render them unique instantly. They can be said to be approximately equal but not identity.

There is no such thing as infinity. Mathematicians are fond of it but it's just a device.

It is not impossible to possess knowledge. It's silly and counterproductive to think otherwise. The only certainty that one may possess in this life, however, is knowledge stemming from quality.

A=A. There is nothing that anyone can say, do, or argue that will undermine this. This is fact. This is something about which no one can NOT be certain of and still be thought to be sane.


And along those lines there are a great deal of things about which I am certain:


All things are relative in some way.

Humans know things, but don't ever forget that in the grand scheme of things we know almost nothing.

I exist, but what I am I do not know for sure.

Reality is not what you make of it, but life is only as much as how you live it.

Infinities cannot exist in this universe.


NT
So you're a realist?

Also, if there are no infities, what is 0?

You say A=A but that cannot be proven in the real world. No two things are identical in the universe. If you take two 1Kg blocks of Platinum and place them on a table the chaotic evaporation from the surface will render them unique instantly. They can be said to be approximately equal but not identity.

There is no such thing as infinity. Mathematicians are fond of it but it's just a device.
the finger of pedantry is raised :sniper:

Wales!
you?
My location more or less gives it away. Your name is so unusual; is it a common Welsh name?

Well there is natural philosophy or physics, which is very precisly hitting things with bigger and bigger hammers to see what falls out when you smash something. It's full of things like 1Kg blocks of platinum and stuff.

My location more or less gives it away. Your name is so unusual; is it a common Welsh name?
no, Ive never ever met anyone else with my name, my family are part irish/native american/Italian, so it could be from any of these-Im stupid enough never to have asked.(tho I do love wales)

no, Ive never ever met anyone else with my name, my family are part irish/native american/Italian, so it could be from any of these-Im stupid enough never to have asked.(tho I do love wales)
I'm guessing it's native American. You should ask your parents.

To comment on a previous statement:
"I think, therefore I am."
By most standards, the action defines the object/subject. The problem with existentionalism, is that life is meaningless only if one does not invest meaning into one's life. However, either extreme will lead to the same result: meaning. If we can assume that all numbers have the same duplicate in any plane, (i.e. 1, -1; 5, |5|) then 0 is an opposite of infinity, and without the two, a proof cannot be created. A dog which thinks it is a deer, is a deer in mind, and might act like one, this doesn't change the genetics, but the genetics and training may influence such things; so to assume that knowledge is not obtainable, or useful, is to deny the human ability to survive. If a human were isolated all its life from society, it would be a human in simplest form. A cat raised by dogs will still act as a cat biologically, but may have identity problems.

The sound bite version is "Life is dealing with what is, not what we wish it to be; however, being human means attempting to change what is to what we want it to be."

Or Humans are highly illogical.

Take your pick. :D

The sound bite version is "Life is dealing with what is, not what we wish it to be; however, being human means attempting to change what is to what we want it to be."

Or Humans are highly illogical.

Take your pick. :D
Siddartha

I can pretty much sum up my overall philosophy in one sentence. If it doesn't hurt yourself or others, do it. That goes for others, too. If it doesn't hurt you or themselves, let them do it. I'm of the mind that everybody should be allowed to make personal choices that don't affect others without some law telling them they can or can't do it.

For example:

1. An intoxicated person gets behind the wheel and everyone on the road is pretty much up for randomized murder. That's a big no-no.

2. You are gay and you want to get married to your partner. Who in the heck is truly going to be hurt by this? Offended maybe, but not an ounce of real harm done. It should be allowed.

A few words shy of one sentence, but hey, you're not hurt!

To comment on a previous statement:
"I think, therefore I am."
By most standards, the action defines the object/subject. The problem with existentionalism, is that life is meaningless only if one does not invest meaning into one's life. However, either extreme will lead to the same result: meaning. If we can assume that all numbers have the same duplicate in any plane, (i.e. 1, -1; 5, |5|) then 0 is an opposite of infinity, and without the two, a proof cannot be created. A dog which thinks it is a deer, is a deer in mind, and might act like one, this doesn't change the genetics, but the genetics and training may influence such things; so to assume that knowledge is not obtainable, or useful, is to deny the human ability to survive. If a human were isolated all its life from society, it would be a human in simplest form. A cat raised by dogs will still act as a cat biologically, but may have identity problems.

0 is not the opposite of infinity; mathematically, an oppossing number is such that a number can be substracted and equal 0 and divided by itself and equal 1. 0-0=0 , of course; but 0/0 is indeterminate, ergo 0 is not a number of opposites. It is simply the statement of nothing and has no opposite; some may say it is purest number, because it only exists in itself.

You say A=A but that cannot be proven in the real world. No two things are identical in the universe. If you take two 1Kg blocks of Platinum and place them on a table the chaotic evaporation from the surface will render them unique instantly. They can be said to be approximately equal but not identity.

There is no such thing as infinity. Mathematicians are fond of it but it's just a device.


You act like a tautology needs "real world" proof. A=A is a qualitative necessity. It cannot be disproven, and its proof rests in the definitional constraints placed upon the relationship through defining the term "A."


Quantitative necessity theoretically exists, but it can't be shown in nature. If you take two apples and subtract one apple you should be left with only one apple, but no matter how many times you show this to be true it won't necessarily hold true over an unlimited number of cases.

A=A will always hold true no matter what you do or state.




And allow me, if you will, to correct your last statement: "There is no such thing as infinity in nature. Mathematicians..." You are correct if you wish to assert that you can find no example of an infinity any where in this universe, but to say that the concept does not exist is pure foolishness. The concept is real, and it does have a definition. It simply can't be applied to reality, hence I say infinities cannot exist in this universe.




Inherent Flaws:

0 is the qualitative representation of the quantity which exists when no value can be attributed to a substance. Essentially its what we say exists when no substance is present. 0 is the descriptor for the lack of substance.

It is not in and of itself an infinity. In fact one could argue philosophically speaking it is an anti-infinity. For something to have infinite quality its quality must be without end, unbounded (negative quality is still a quantiative value). And for something to have a Null or Zero quantity it must be utterly devoid of all quality (whatever that may be), which could be construed to be the same as "infinite" boundary.




Long story short I respect all qualitative necessities, and if I could find a quantitative necessity it would be respected.

2-1=1. In the theoretical there is no way to undermine this. You may call "two" or "one" something else, but as long as the meaning of the terms holds true it doesn't matter what you do or say that relationship will always hold true. It is not a matter of empirical fact, but a definitional one. Its just too bad that the relationship doesn't necessarily translate onto the real world.

NT