Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Only constructivism is valid

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-03 11:06

When one assumes that an object does not exist and derives a contradiction from that assumption, one still has not found the object and therefore not proved its existence.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-03 11:21

Assume you're not an idiot.  This post is idiotic, which contradicts our assumption.  Therefore, you're an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-03 12:00

what a stupid thread

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-03 12:27

>>1
Said object can certainly not NOT exist (by contradiction), so what other options are left?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-03 13:09

>>1
OP why don't you go learn some math and then form your own views instead of plagiarizing from Wikipedia?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-04 2:21

>>3
Welcome to /sci/.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-04 3:14

Actually, your "assumptive reasoning is an assumption" especially because it invalidates the very thing that you are looking for in the first place.

First off, if I were to say to myself, "Gee, you know what? I don't have much money. That means I'm without a process of obtaining money. Therefore, a separate action that I've not done and currently AM not doing right now is what is necessary to get what I don't already have."

reasoning: If what you do now is bringing in all that you currently ARE receiving, to get what you AREN'T yet receiving you are required to do something that you AREN'T yet doing.

denying this is denying yourself the goal which you seek and further more denying yourself the right to experience such things.

"The final answer to all questions are you yourself."
"Both sides of the equal sign must be equal or it is chaos."

And the final test of your fortitude and logic; if you are thinking of something complex to implement in your life...you're doing it wrong. All complex things are made of simple things.
And to understand complex things, DIVIDE AND CONQUER. :3

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-04 3:23

Also, to understand where you are, where are you not?
To understand where you stand, where don't you stand?

You are standing someplace other than where you are not.

You are, not where you aren't.

Divide yourself between your presence (where you are) and your destiny (where you're not), back track from your destiny towards your origin, this is preparation (mapping). Finally, your first step will be the both the hardest and the easiest; one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

The purpose for planning is not so that everything is choreographed, but rather that you learn to be flexible enough to change paths or attitudes or beliefs in order to fulfill your dream and achieve your destiny along your journey if you learn something required to receive victory in your pursuits.

"I have found that not everything goes according to plan, but planning has been invaluable in battle."
-Sun Tzu; The Art of War


Of course what I am saying to you appears wrong, especially since you aren't already doing it...which can mean only one thing...I'm receiving something you aren't...I wonder what that might be...hmm... :3

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-04 3:30

sage

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-04 20:29

to ignore is the action behind the reaction of ignorance.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 2:23

when you seek to separate yourself in one way, through the law of consistency, you yourself will become separated. The devil knows this all too well, but still blames the one responsible who granted him his wish to be separate.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 1:55

I assume that someone or something is not...
But inspite of that, someone or something is or may be...
However, that still doesn't prove someone or something is...

And the point of this line of logic is?

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List