The most horrifying journey, this is what doubting 'everything' does.

[Edwardo Piet]

MK, it seems to me one of your main problems is that you lose yourself through the torture of overunderthinking.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously dude, if you encourage him to think things through less you're just gonna make the batshitcraziness worse.

---

We don't all value human beings.  Some people accept horrible things being done to them, do those things themselves, or make excuses for those who do.

I do

All lifeforms in fact.

Fuck this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(philosophy)



I value all sentient lifeforms actually.

---

I am not saying we don't know those things we call axioms to be true, I am stating calling them properly basic, is to avoid justifying them and searching why we know they are true.

Reason itself is self-justifying. The moment you try to provide reasons against it, reasons to not reason, you've already been defeated.

---

And of course it wrong. Nothing can be conceived of not existing, the default is existence, and existence encompasses everything and witnesses it itself, before the creation of things through his words.

What about a magical bunny rabbit who grants wishes? You can't conceive that as "non-existing." Keep in mind, Spinoza is not saying that anything that can be conceived of as nonexisting doesn't exist. He just means that existence is not in its essence.

The way I see it is... a "non-existent thing" is an incoherent concept. Conceiving of the absence of a bunny rabbit, then, (which is very easy to do indeed... just think of literally any situation at all without a bunny rabbit (although, sure, we may need a bit of time to forget about bunny rabbits )) is conceiving of a nonexistent one. Because a "nonexistent bunny rabbit" just means "anything besides a bunny rabbit."

Existence is not a predicate because it isn't anything in itself. Things that are existent are the same as things that are things. And the totality of existence itself MUST exist, but that refers to the fact that all things must be all things. Giving something the property of existence does absolutely nothing: Because the fact that something is something means it is already existent. The property of existence is completely meaningless, and hence not really a property, because the only alternative, nonexistence, is impossible. It's literally nothing. It doesn't refer to anything. So, seen as all things, that are things at all, are existent, then to say that something exists is just to say that it is anything. Even imaginary objects exist within the imagination.

It's the same way with truth. To say "It is true that I am a man" is identical in meaning to saying "I am a man". Truth itself is already implicitly asserted by default, when anything is stated. People can lie, and people can be wrong, sure. But that's irrelevant. The point is the meaning of every sentence is identical with or without the word "true". "True" is just used for emphasis.

Take even a statement such as "This statement is false." All that means is "It is true that this statement is false." and all "false" means is "not true" so the statement literally means "It is true that this statement is not true", which is a logical contradiction. So as soon as you work this stuff out, even the Liar's Paradox disappears