well i dont see how a lie cant become true if the environment changes enough etc

this was proven wrong by Aristotle when he discussed the difference between the one and the many, and the ontology or natural being of things

>arguing objective ttruth with a brainlet

what ar you doing

so for example, we know that dogs exist, but we also know that dogs have an essence to them that is apart from just the physical figure of a dog

meh people reading it benefit too

imo

@Aisa im a brainlet?

Anyone watch the McGregor fight?

nope

It was sad

test wha tis 1+2

lamp

the answer is objectively true

no alt universe shit

i dont see how u refute anything i said

You can easily disprove pantheism and monism just through the one and the many essence example.

And in a broader sense because epistemology itself would make no sense

essence have one source?

and their seperations are illusory

Yes, but that doesn't mean source = essence

their separations are not illusory, you can prove through logic that they are not

@StaySarcastic NYPA

go away

no u

im black

negro

shit

hes good

too good

so all of existence is an extremely complex planck scale geometry

<:FeelsFedora:356316725865611264>

whats essential about that

no, because things which exist have more to them than just physical pattern/substance

there is an inherent intrinsic ontology or being to things

this is what I speak of when I'm saying we can differentiate

it's not an illusion, it's a metaphysical concept which is necessary

what is actually illusion is the temporal physical world

the metaphysics, the substrata conceptual invariant world is not illusory

yes you argue essentialism

ok , if you try to divide by zero you will always get infinity, no matter if you swap processors or not does that naswer your question