Reason and difference being the same.

[Strange]

Truth can't be represented. The topic of my research has been the opposite of reality (or the source of existence).

I wouldn't call it philosophy, because philosophy is reality.

 

Reason and difference are exactly what anyone would think of them: my aim is to separate reason from difference without committing the error of reason or difference existing more than once - that's what I mean, about truth being anti-representation (to be truth means to be anti-existence, which is what representation requires).

 

The latest data is that the need of reason is to act, but the problem is that to act means to duplicate need.

 

 

That may make sense in the original language (or in your head) but it makes no sense in English.

 

 

 

Truth can't be represented.

 

Why not?

 

 

 

The topic of my research has been the opposite of reality (or the source of existence).

 

Please define what you mean by "the opposite of reality".

 

Please explain the connection between "the opposite of reality" and "the source of existence".

 

 

I wouldn't call it philosophy, because philosophy is reality.

 

Philosophy does not necessarily have anything to do with reality.

 

 

 

Reason and difference are exactly what anyone would think of them:

 

Then your stamens are meaningless.

 

1. Please define exactly what YOU mean by "reason" and "difference".

 

 

 

without committing the error of reason or difference existing more than once

 

This is very ambiguous.

 

2. Do you mean "the error of reason"? If so, what is that?

3. Do you mean "the error of reason or difference"? If so, what does that mean?

4. Do you mean "the error of these existing more than once"? If so, how can reason exist more than once? How can difference exist more than once? (You might find it helpful to answer (1) first.)

 

 

 

that's what I mean, about truth being anti-representation (to be truth means to be anti-existence, which is what representation requires).

 

5. What does that mean?

 

 

The latest data is that the need of reason is to act, but the problem is that to act means to duplicate need.

 

6. What is this data? What is the source of this data?

 

7. Why are you simply repeating the same statements without explaining anything or answering any questions? If you are not interested in a dialogue, why are you on a DISCUSSION forum?

The research I've carried out isn't philosophy.

 

 

Please show us some examples of this research.

If this is science then show us the hypothesis, and specifically, the mathematical model.

And then show us the observations or experiments that support the hypothesis. Please feel free to include error bars and statistical analysis in your presentation.

 

Oh, you can't do that. Because it isn't science.

 

And you say it isn't philosophy.

 

So maybe this should be moved to Trash.

[dimreepr]

The research I've carried out isn't philosophy.

 

 

Then why post here?

[Phi for All]

Truth can't be represented. The topic of my research has been the opposite of reality (or the source of existence).

 

!

Moderator Note

In any case, if you're exploring "the opposite of reality", then science and philosophy aren't the right tools. I'm not sure why you think the concept is meaningful in any way, and you have failed to explain it to anyone's satisfaction.

 

If you were even rational-adjacent then the members could help unravel what you're talking about, but you're not and don't seem to understand why this is a problem. Two pages of wth?! is not a good discussion.

 

If you can figure out a much better way to explain your idea, you can try again in another thread, but if it's like this thread, it will be closed as well. We understand how some concepts are difficult, but you need to work harder at explaining yourself.