Armillary sphere
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
You believe this statement is "CORRECT". This implies that u/free-will-of-choice is the one with circular reasoning. Not me.
If you did not, then why are you saying it? Is it TRUE? Or is it a guess?
If you show a contradiction; then I would rip apart what I said...since I'm not holding onto it. Implication allows one to adapt on the fly to inspiration; instead of reasoning against one another about the correctness vs incorrectness of believed information suggested by one another.
A circle represents a potential (matter) within an implied process (motion)...using implication to define (is circular) contradicts motion.
Why put nothing (not) before something (me) one holds onto?
I utilize sound to take apart what others are saying...others judge that from within a did vs didn't conflict of reason. Taking apart what others are saying makes it harder for others to hold onto any side within the confines of circular logic.
Then again...ignorance is bliss, and the path of least resistance implies the temptation to ignore resisting.
What does free-will-of-choice ignore? How is resisting admission and denial to remain free based on ignorance?
Neither a true vs false conflict of reason, nor guessing an outcome; but simply adaption to perceivable origin.
To know implies ones perception within all perceivable...guessing what suggested means tempts one to ignore that, while establishing conflicts of reason against others.
How about this...if the process of dying is true, then would living within be false, since living implies the opposite of dying?
What if living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) implicate each other, while reason (true vs false) corrupts ones self discernment with whatever another pulls out of his ass?
Artificial, anti-nature "instead of".
Nature implies "As well as".
The natural way is "inspiration AS WELL AS reasoning against one another". One can do "imply" and "reasoning".
You are already tempted by your worldview, to ignore resisting the temptation to believe that "reason and implication conflict." They don't.
u/free-will-of-choice ignores the natural, PERCIEVABLE knowledge that there is no conflict between implication and reason.
It is based on ignorance of the fact that resisting admission and denial is resisting nature. Resisting those two is resisting growth. People admit and deny things regularly, because nature makes them do that. Your resistance to nature (reason) implies that your worldview is artificial.
Just accept the NATURAL way of admission and denial.
Adapt to the percivable origin, then. It is PERCIEVABLE that Reasoning and Implication DON'T contradict. You have been TEMPTED into an ARTIFICIAL, ANTI-NATURE thing , reason and implication supposedly "contradicting".
Artificial tells you "Reason and implication contradict". Nature implies that those two don't.
Living within what or where?
Believing that "Reason and implication contradict." corrupts ones self discernment. Believing that "Reason corrupts." is what corrupts ones self discernment.
a) Nature WAS perceivable before one can suggest what IS.
b) Only nature does...implication allows one to redo self; while reason tempts one to redo another in.
c) Well implies each ones will...as implies "as it where" aka as all was before each ones will comes into being.
The issue is using "as well as" to draw comparisons between implication and reason, while ignoring that reason draws together, while implication sets apart.