/lit/ - Literature

>>13923397
Because I'm working with different information. I do not by necessity at least regard my thought to be freely willed (though I do but that's irrelevant. I also do not, by necessity disregard thought that isn't "free". I also don't find capitulating to a specific religion to be hazardous to my ultimate well-being, much less my exercising of free thought (in fact I would regard that as something conducive to well-being). Once again the internet Christian proves he has no theory of mind.

>>13922809
>Is something that basically has no coherent meaning true

I don't know. Is it?

>>13885877
In order to mount a meaningful criticism, his work would first need to have something meaningful to criticize.

>>13878012
What is possibly any more like being than thinking?

>>13877986
Christianity is total submission to the cave tho.

Are there any books that talk about the philosophical irresolution of most disputants engaged in formal debates? I've noticed that when people argue things, they seem to think they can adopt multiple inconsistent ethical, epistemological even ontological systems at once, jumping from one to another at the slightest convenience, without even considering the antinomy of what they are doing.