Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:44 pm

Meno_ wrote:Sure again since content is voided.


Content, far from being voided, is what is thought.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:46 pm

Except the reason of man reaching absolute limits then man's reason reaches the assumptive limit, thereby invoking the chaos that proceeds that very assumption.
Then It assumed the need to return to sender.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:47 pm

origami wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Sure again since content is voided.


Content, far from being voided, is what is thought.



As the void.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:48 pm

If only the thought, the contents of the thought, are needed, then no assumptions are needed. It is there.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:48 pm

Meno_ wrote:
origami wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Sure again since content is voided.


Content, far from being voided, is what is thought.



As the void.


That is one thought.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:49 pm

origami wrote:If only the thought, the contents of the thought, are needed, then no assumptions are needed. It is there.





No there isn't there.
Where? Only if looked at otherwise it can't be seen.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:50 pm

You are either confused or lying. If the thought is, it is there.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:52 pm

Meno_ wrote:
origami wrote:If only the thought, the contents of the thought, are needed, then no assumptions are needed. It is there.





No there isn't there.
Where? Only if looked at otherwise it can't be seen.


It doesn't matter if it is seen. If a thought is had, then obviously, patently, by virtue of existing, it exists.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:53 pm

origami wrote:You are either confused or lying. If the thought is, it is there.



No You are. The thought may be there or there an other place or even here and there and else where.?.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:54 pm

It doesn't matter where.

That we are discussing where the thought is, is already proof that the thought exists, otherwise we would not be able to refer to it, because it wouldn't be there.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:54 pm

origami wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
origami wrote:If only the thought, the contents of the thought, are needed, then no assumptions are needed. It is there.





No there isn't there.
Where? Only if looked at otherwise it can't be seen.


It doesn't matter if it is seen. If a thought is had, then obviously, patently, by virtue of existing, it exists.
the



That's re rolling back the dice from Leibnitz to Decartes, therefore going begging the evil genius for some proof
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:55 pm

Well, you got me red handed there, Descartes as a backstop for thought existing.

The real backstop is deeper, and you have not hit it.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:57 pm

origami wrote:It doesn't matter where.

That we are discussing where the thought is, is already proof that the thought exists, otherwise we would not be able to refer to it, because it wouldn't be there.



How can You discuss where the wherenesd of thought is without assuming where that where's resource can lead it back to any source otherwise it is it's own source
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:58 pm

origami wrote:Well, you got me red handed there, Descartes as a backstop for thought existing.

The real backstop is deeper, and you have not hit it.
ok let's break. For now.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:59 pm

Meno_ wrote:
origami wrote:It doesn't matter where.

That we are discussing where the thought is, is already proof that the thought exists, otherwise we would not be able to refer to it, because it wouldn't be there.



How can You discuss where the wherenesd of thought is without assuming where that where's resource can lead it back to any source otherwise it is it's own source


Being there is just a linguistic utility. it is, it is there, it is.

You are chasing your tail. If a thought exists, it doesn't need a place, because by virtue of existing, it exists.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:59 pm

further, source is only needed if substance is needed, magic, something outside existence. Otherwise, it needs no source, it exists, and it exists by virtue of existing.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:00 pm

Or, evidently, we would not be able to talk about it, because there would be nothing to talk about.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Rolling Leibniz into Descartes

Postby origami » Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:04 pm

However, if we are discussing revelation, the source would be God, which is contained in the thought God.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users