Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

A Method to Study the Principles of Reality (A Map of Reality)

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 786
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: A Method to Study the Principles of Reality (A Map of Reality)

Post by The Beast » December 26th, 2018, 12:40 pm

I can help in describing the mode of parasitic discourse as oppose to the phenomenological tradition with essential possibilities that cannot be treated as parasitic. Again, banished as not fitting the idea of pleasure or displeasure but to be double confine to the idea of the paradoxical and far away from the iterability of Angle-American. But perhaps it is all true as is three or four words of American Native in the operating lexicon or the absence of most of it. It is true then that the Saxons were an invading “force” and vernacular should not apply as is the Lex Saxon…one of the few Roman laws not written in Latin. See this as a not important trivial detail.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 205
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: A Method to Study the Principles of Reality (A Map of Reality)

Post by h_k_s » December 26th, 2018, 9:38 pm

LuckyR wrote:
December 26th, 2018, 4:11 am
h_k_s wrote:
December 24th, 2018, 11:12 am


As a philosopher you should be able to disagree with any so called experts, especially when all the evidence contradicts their worthless claims.
Hhmmm... professional linguists who have devoted their life's work to the study of the history and origins of the world's languages or a random anonymous internet posting... hhmmmm... I'll go with the professional scholars, if you don't mind.

"...all the evidence...", really? Overreach much?
Yup … those ones … quacks.

Post Reply