Ask the Furry Philosopher

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 01:55:28 PM

Okay! *opens book back up*

I'm going to assume that you are asking about solipsism in general rather than a certain branch of it. For starters, there would be no reason for a true solipsist to argue a concept, because he/she believes that there is no other person to communicate the concept to. Nothing else exists except for his/her own mind. But if someone were to argue a solipsict concept, there would not be anything self-contrary about it. It would simply be impossible for the listener to believe that everything is apart of the speakers imagination, because the listener knows for a fact that he/she does exist and is not a figment of the speakers imagination.

Next question!

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: Zylos on February 13, 2008, 07:07:48 PM
Quote from: Nightwolf on February 13, 2008, 01:54:55 PM
Are you furry and philosophical from a 42degree angle on july20th from the north pole?
I am furry and philosophical from any angle, on any day, in any place.

What if i add a telescope, then there's a zoom too. Are you furry and philosophical from a zoom?

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 02:03:48 PM

Yes, I am fur... wait, what are zooming in on?!

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:06:24 PM

No, just a zoom...you know...CLOSE-UPS OF ------

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 02:19:50 PM

*walks over to the window*

Nightwolf! What are you doing out there?! Stop spying on me like that!

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:23:30 PM

See, now you're not answering. I just want information so i can stop doubting on your furriness.
And philosophicity or whatever ;-;

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 02:28:26 PM

To answer your question, yes, I am furry and philosophical from any angle, on any day, from anywhere, from any distance, with or without zoom, with or without wide-angle, and in any situation.

Next question!

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:35:24 PM

What if i close my eyes and hear your breathing/steps or talks.

Then are they philosophical?
Before i ask you my real question, i ned to be sure of your furriness and philosophicisity.

or whatever ;-;

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 02:45:17 PM

My breathing/steps/farts/etc. are not philosophical. Talking depends. What I say may be philosophical if it relates to philosophy or if it can be creatively interpreted to have a deep meaning. Now, what's your real question?

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:48:29 PM

2+2?

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 02:54:56 PM

.........That's it? 2+2? (*sigh*) For all practical purposes, 2+2=4.

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 02:56:39 PM

Now's the real question:

Is it really four or just the interpretation of logic in our illogical brains with cellular systems and a skeletal covering force us to come-up to the thought of neglecting the cremostipholispact that the fact that 2+2=4 may be pericombobulacious and could in real be 6 and our mind just is medlinontigrospocing with us?

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 03:16:18 PM

I didn't understand half of what you said, but here's what I think.

For theoretical purposes, let's say that God or some unknowable deity was an evil genius who for his own pleasure decided to implant in our mind the illusion of reality. He could make it so that you aren't really seeing a computer screen or touching the keyboard, it's all just an illusion that's in your mind. Because of that possiblity (an absurd possibility, but a possiblity nonetheless), there's nothing that we cannot doubt, except for the fact that we are doubting (because to doubt that truth means that you are already doubting).

There is no real way to prove 100% that 2+2=4 or if it's all in our heads. In fact, it is impossible to prove 100% that we in fact have a head and brain. But through our own experiences so far, 2+2 has always appeared to be 4, so for all practical purposes, 2+2 will most likely equal 4 any time in the future.

Now let me go eat breakfast, and then the next person may ask a question.

Nightwolf · February 14, 2008, 03:23:41 PM

Did you not understand due to your lack of attenticificaltomistophic indeprecendifencelepencilous or just because you didn't wanna?

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 03:40:09 PM

I didn't understand you because google couldn't find any matches for your big words.

Dertt · February 14, 2008, 05:17:25 PM

You should at least know what pericombobulacious means.

Zylos · February 14, 2008, 09:16:34 PM

Sorry. I'm a fox, not a dictionary.

Arwym · February 15, 2008, 01:21:41 AM

Mister, can you be a philosopher without consulting the textbook?

Also, how do you define love, from your own words?

Sophist · February 15, 2008, 01:30:16 AM

Zylos are you a furry because you watched too many animal Disney movies ;o;

Zylos · February 15, 2008, 03:47:44 AM

Quote from: Arwym Starlight on February 15, 2008, 01:21:41 AM
Mister, can you be a philosopher without consulting the textbook?

Also, how do you define love, from your own words?

Yes, but when people refer to philosophical concepts from other philosophers, it's usually wise for me to check my facts before I open my mouth. To me, love is a complex emotion that one person feels for another person, where he or she will take great sympathy in the both the target of his/her affection and the bond between them. It's not always a happy emotion, but at times it can be the happiest emotion a person can feel. Most people would not truly understand what love really is until they've experience it.

Quote from: Anski on February 15, 2008, 01:30:16 AM
Zylos are you a furry because you watched too many animal Disney movies ;o;

I actually have a specific reason why I became a furry (and no, Anski, it's not because of Disney movies). But, if you don't mind, it's a little too personal for me to be sharing with you guys just yet. Sorry.

Anyways, next question!

Nightwolf · February 15, 2008, 04:40:18 AM

If you cannot understand my most enthisomolistiphically simple words then you should regret your english, good sire...

fox*

Arwym · February 15, 2008, 01:30:23 PM

Actually, Zylos, you are mistaken about your definition of love, but don't worry. Most of us are. As soon as I find enough online sources to explain to you what love truly is, I will show them to you.
But yesterday, in St. Valentine's Day, at the Western Culture II class, we learned the differences between infatuation and love. One of those is that, unlike infatuation, love is NOT an emotion. And to understand this, you must understand a series of other things, including Aristotle's anthropological theory.
There are still a few "holes" in what I learned today. I have some more questions for my professor. I'll see if I can clear those doubts next Tuesday.
By the way, my sources are in Spanish, and that is why I can't just write them down in here. I would have to translate. And I am not in the mood for that.
It's okay to be skeptical about what I said, by the way.

Thank you for kindly answering my question.

Dertt · February 16, 2008, 05:06:51 AM

Quote from: Arwym Starlight on February 15, 2008, 01:30:23 PM
Actually, Zylos, you are mistaken about your definition of love, but don't worry. Most of us are. As soon as I find enough online sources to explain to you what love truly is, I will show them to you.

Haha... awesome.

Tsunokiette · February 16, 2008, 04:11:03 PM

Love is choosing to unconditionally meet the needs of another person.

Oh, my question... hmm...

If all life must end at one point, and nobody is remebered forever, what is the point in staying alive?

Zylos · February 17, 2008, 12:43:58 AM

Lol, have you been playing FF6 lately?

Quote from: Kefka"Why do people insist on creating things that will inevitably be destroyed? Why do people cling to life, knowing that they must someday die? Knowing that none of it will have meant anything once they do?"

Quote from: Terra"Because it's not the end that matters! It's knowing that you have something to live for right now, at this moment! Something you've worked for... something that's worth protecting! As long as you have that...that's enough!"