Posts by ironfox9

electricrider16 said:All at once? Really? We are discussing individuals who flip-flop on their most fundamental convictions across various categories—it’s a pattern of inconsistency, not a synchronized event. To use the word "simultaneously" in this context is, quite frankly, a logical impossibility.

Philosophers tend to overlook the technical side—the actual practical application of a hypothesis.

From an engineering standpoint, what you described is essentially a feedback control system.

Every bit of new data triggers a shift in the initial state, or in this case, a change in stance.

I bet everyone remembers this diagram:

Gerald Hill said:That is just Russell's nonsense. It creates a set without defined positions, while simultaneously being a set with defined positions, wouldn't you agree? In the scenario I described above, we aren't actually discussing a mathematical set or an element, but rather the constant shifting of stances. That volatility is precisely what ensures it belongs nowhere and everywhere at once. If it isn't an "-ism," then what is it? To put it simply: what I have outlined is a state of non-belonging and total belonging—an intentional shifting of perspectives that prevents one from ever truly belonging to a single, unique "-ism.

So, they belong to a group defined by their own inconsistency.

I've gone ahead and labeled this non-declarative-ism, or perhaps intentio-variabil-ism, and there's really nothing you can do to argue against it.

The moment you define something, you've essentially created it—you've shoved it into a category, a set, or whatever label you choose. You call it an "ism," but the terminology is secondary.

Every form of categorization or classification is just a man-made construct designed to make things easier to handle.

.

Well, you all certainly have a lot to say... yet somehow you can't seem to grasp a simple Paradox...

A Paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time)

-Behind it lies a collection of specific definitions.

Not belonging to a set of certain positions makes it a member of a set that lacks defined positions which ultimately makes it a set that does have defined positions (specifically, the lack of a defined characteristic), which finally makes it—ism.

So, we have pure Russell's Paradox, which goes like this:

If I examine the set of all sets (-isms) that do not contain themselves as an element (are not -isms). The question is: does that set contain itself as an element? (meaning, is it then an -ism?)

Gerald Hill said:Nihilism does not exist.😁.

Well now...

Is an element of a set that doesn't belong to any set actually part of a set consisting of elements that don't belong to any set?

Isn't that just
Russell
paradox in disguise?

Gerald Hill said:I realize there might be very few people here who feel this way, if any at all, but is it truly possible to belong to no school of thought whatsoever? I am talking about a person who holds no specific philosophical, religious, or political dogma—someone who simply respects everyone else's worldview while recognizing that adhering to any particular ideology offers no practical benefit to their daily life. Is it actually feasible to remain entirely indifferent to deep philosophical, political, or scientific inquiries and view them as irrelevant to one's existence? Are there any individuals among us who live this way?

Not a single one....

.....so it's just not possible

Larry Walker24 said:If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

It's actually a technicality... specifically regarding positioning

A collection of things only starts being called a "heap" once the individual elements are physically stacked on top of one another.....

I feel like this poll isn't really hitting the mark for the modern era. Comic book art styles have shifted so much, and nowadays, characters are being cast based on which actors fit the roles rather than picking actors who look like the drawings.