Ask the Furry Philosopher

hehe you were here 3 months and you had -22 rep
I was here 9 days and I have -20 rep


A new question:

who will win?

Missy Elliot vs. Grizzly Bear vs. Rohp himself :O

hehe you were here 3 months and you had -22 rep
I was here 9 days and I have -20 rep


A new question:

who will win?

Missy Elliot vs. Grizzly Bear vs. Rohp himself :O

Rohp? Do you mean Silverline?

If you mean the forum Admin then yes

If you mean the forum Admin then yes

It's spelled Roph, not roph... 

Let's consider a counter argument -

If the negation of hatred is apathy, and the negation of love is also apathy, then is it not true that love and hate are equivalent?

Consider a number of any magnitude. The opposite of a number with magnitude would, by your logic, necessarily be a number without magnitude: 0. However, 0 is not the negation of a number with magnitude - the negation of a number of magnitude is a number of the same magnitude with an opposite sign. Further, for anything that is opposite another, it is necessary that the relationship is reciprocal. The opposite of true is false, and the opposite of false is true. However, in the case of 0, while it may be possible to argue that the opposite of 1 is 0, it is impossible to argue that the opposite of 0 is 1. Reducing any number to just a number with magnitude loses a lot of the information that is contained by that number. You are losing information when you make that reduction, and thus, even if it were accurate to say that the opposite of a number with magnitude is a number without magnitude, it is not accurate to then translate that result to the original number, as you did not consider all of the pertinent information by making that reduction (for one, sign).

In the same way, It may be true to say that the opposite of an intense emotion is apathy, but it seems to me that to reduce love or hatred to just any intense emotion belittles the specificity of love and hatred. For one, love is positive, and hatred is negative, and reducing them both to "intense emotion" is to ignore pertinent information about those two things. Thus, even accepting that love and hatred are both intense emotions, and that the opposite of an intense emotion is indifference, is it possible to say that love and hate are just intense emotions. In other words, is knowing that something is an intense emotion sufficient to recover what intense emotion it is? Or is that translation not possible without more information? If it is not (and it is not), then it cannot be correct to assert that the opposite of love (or hate) is indifference solely because love (or hate) is an intense emotion, as that definition does not alone encapsulate love (or hate)

I've not teased you in months...


So, what's the philosophical furilizational rationalistic implementation of the conception of the virtuality of those living?

Let's consider a counter argument -

If the negation of hatred is apathy, and the negation of love is also apathy, then is it not true that love and hate are equivalent?

Consider a number of any magnitude. The opposite of a number with magnitude would, by your logic, necessarily be a number without magnitude: 0. However, 0 is not the negation of a number with magnitude - the negation of a number of magnitude is a number of the same magnitude with an opposite sign. Further, for anything that is opposite another, it is necessary that the relationship is reciprocal. The opposite of true is false, and the opposite of false is true. However, in the case of 0, while it may be possible to argue that the opposite of 1 is 0, it is impossible to argue that the opposite of 0 is 1. Reducing any number to just a number with magnitude loses a lot of the information that is contained by that number. You are losing information when you make that reduction, and thus, even if it were accurate to say that the opposite of a number with magnitude is a number without magnitude, it is not accurate to then translate that result to the original number, as you did not consider all of the pertinent information by making that reduction (for one, sign).

In the same way, It may be true to say that the opposite of an intense emotion is apathy, but it seems to me that to reduce love or hatred to just any intense emotion belittles the specificity of love and hatred. For one, love is positive, and hatred is negative, and reducing them both to "intense emotion" is to ignore pertinent information about those two things. Thus, even accepting that love and hatred are both intense emotions, and that the opposite of an intense emotion is indifference, is it possible to say that love and hate are just intense emotions. In other words, is knowing that something is an intense emotion sufficient to recover what intense emotion it is? Or is that translation not possible without more information? If it is not (and it is not), then it cannot be correct to assert that the opposite of love (or hate) is indifference solely because love (or hate) is an intense emotion, as that definition does not alone encapsulate love (or hate)

Yes, this explanation is closer to my view on the subject.  However, the thing about philosophy is that there really isn't a right answer.  It isn't necessary that we all agree on the same thing, but rather that we provide enough reason for what we believe.  And since this is Zylos' topic, it's not our place to start a debate here.

Are you a suicidal?

why does it make me think that cat is trying to assassinate an insect on the window frame???

What feels better during sex?

Human or animal? 

who will win?

Missy Elliot vs. Grizzly Bear vs. Roph himself :O

Roph.

Are you a suicidal?

No. Are you?

why does it make me think that cat is trying to assassinate an insect on the window frame???

If you look at the angle of the gun, it would seem that he's trying to assassinate the Pikachu in his signature.

What feels better during sex?

Human or animal? 

Having never had sex with an animal, I'd have to say that humans feel better during sex.
Don't worry, Arkbennett, you'll find out about sex someday.

You didn't answer my question.


Because those words are big but they are true words.

unlike chlamydomocramotinophilosmithicus.

George Michael or Joe Esposito

George Michael, I guess. He seems more well known.

okay i'll ask a serious question~

Do you beleive in re-birth etc, and if you do then how many times does a soul reborn?

Personally, yes. I do believe in a certain form of re-birth and reincarnation, and I believe that the soul is "recycled" repeatedly until the universe is such that it can no longer sustain any life whatsoever.

George Michael, I guess. He seems more well known.

Do you think fame should be a factor when it comes to liking someone?

If it is, could you maybe direct George to my house?

Did you mean "liking someone" or "liking someone's music"?



If you meant liking someone personally, then the answer no. Fame is not important.

If you meant liking someone's music, then the answer is partially yes. If he is more well known, then there is a good chance that his music is more well liked. But it all depends on your tastes in music.

I always thought the soul is recycled until it does enough good deeds and suffers enough (suffer=living) until it's sins have been paid for.

Which is the real reason?

No one knows. There's no way to prove the theory of reincarnation one way or the other just yet.

If you masturbate, do you really go blind? 

Well, I haven't gone blind yet, so the answer must be no.

Why did you choose Zylos for a name?

Why did you choose Zylos for a name?

Everybody knows that one. Here, fallow this link and you shall know why. ~Link~

My name is based off of this character.