Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

Someone pointed me to this post, and looking back, there are some interesting irregularities.

My problem with many Platonic-Kantians is that whilst I can agree that there is a distinction to be made between "appearance" and "reality", the distinction is by no means absolute nor exclusive. Put crudely, "appearance" is a subset of "reality", not a duality. Plato made the distinction an ontological duality, whilst Kant endorsed an epistemic dualism. Whilst I find these conclusions/metaphysics unsound, I certainly empathise with some of the basic premises. The problem lies not so much with the concepts these thinkers begin with, but, as you noted earlier, what they supposed these concepts (appearance, reality) implied.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

I am interseted in this part of your post, because I agree that Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

I noted the incorrect spelling of 'noumena' before. This is something an amateur might get wrong, but someone who has read as much philosophy as I have, this is not an error you would make. This I found at the time conflicting, which is why I remarked at it, at the remarkably well description of Kant. It's actually a decent description of Kant. I didn't make this observation as I'm not in the business of complimenting people who generally make shitty posts, but when this post was pointed out to me with a link to another article, I first wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, monkeys typing and all that, but I have coloured in the post what I find very profound.

At the following website : Philosophy pages (Google cache) large parts of that post can be found back. Monkeys and typewriters not withstanding, the spelling errors of noumena as neomena make a fairly convincing case, I think.

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism. In combination with the bullshit about 'proving' and Quantum Mechanics, I have no problem ridiculing him. Next to Jamest who can not to be taken seriously as an opponent against Metaphysics, I suppose we are left with the words of Surendra about 150 years and Galapagos islands. I'm no fan of Darwin, but it seems as if metaphysics can only be defended by this.. I am a being of conflict and all that this world throws against me is.. this.. I'd risk a thousand waterloo's for one serious opponent.. Woe unto me!

I have been busy with family stuff, my wife and youngest left yesterday for a 3 month holiday, so I have been occupied by that, but I thought would comment on this.

First, what does this have to do with my ‘still being serious about being an educator’? What gives you any right to even hint I am less than a serious educator? Why would a qualified teacher with over a decade experience would be any less serious educator because of your irrelevant opinion?

I repeat, knowing how hard it is for you to entertain an opinion not in agreement with or submission to your own; your opinion regarding my professional status is irrelevant.

EDIT to add; you deserve a smilie

Second, regarding the ‘charges’ you make; I am quoting myself from an old thread in RDF thread where I made exactly the same argument, and actually quoted and linked to exactly the same source.

I think its worth pointing out the distinction between the supporting information and the argument in my post. I don’t see any of my actual arguments or conclusions on the validity of Kant in the page you link to, not a one, Nada. (These being, for any unable to recognize an argument or conclusion of mine; the potential for dismissal that I refer to, and the speculative point at the end.) If these arguments are not even mentioned in the link, its hard to make any connection between my points and the web page you refer to.
The supporting information, i.e. factual description of what he says, which is well known to us all, cant really be anybody’s intellectual property, can it.

So far as "the spelling errors of noumena as neomena make a fairly convincing case, I think." I think an equally convincing case is that word does not offer a spell check suggestion for 'noumena.'


So, in summary;
Yes some of the sentences in regard to the content of Kants work may be from the website, which I linked to myself in the original RDF Post.
None of the arguments made from this content are from this (or any other) website.

To prove this, here is the entire post I made, and I have made bold all that I think is connected to the website. (I have not re-read the entire website). By my calculation there are two short sections very similar to the website, is this your supposed “large parts of that post can be found”? By my word-counter there are 370 words in the post, of which 83 are in bold, that’s hardly ‘large parts’ and all of which are descriptions of Kant’s work, none of which are the actual intellectual products derived from the description of Kant.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

I am interseted in this part of your post, because I agree that Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. {very similar to website – being a good point that he supposed not established the point in hand} This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer. {A shortened version of a sentence on the website}
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

[GrahamH]

...
Its gone far enough as far as I am concerned; I demonstrated a start to metaphysics, involved SD in an exchange of information about absolute truth and therefore we did metaphysics, and did it with out error by using a valid 'if - then' logic argument. Thereby proving that metaphysics is possible, and is possible without errors. As I said, thats QED. I dont see any defence offered to that.
The ignoring of the post is not significant to dismiss that point.

If doing metaphysics does not prove metaphysics is do-able, then I feel sorry for those of closed mind and restricted capacity to accommodate new evidence, and in any I dont see myself spending much more time on this thread, as I said a few days back....

Is THAT what you think 'Doing Metaphysics' is???

It was pointed out to you, several times, why your informal syllogism was vacuous. If that was you 'doing metaphysics' then 'Metaphysics is an error' has been fully vindicated!

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I repeat, knowing how hard it is for you to entertain an opinion not in agreement with or submission to your own; your opinion regarding my professional status is irrelevant.

I could care less whether you think of my opinion irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that if I talked to your boss about plagiarism, he'd find it very relevant. I could be an educator if I wanted to (the hours, however, are not sufficient for me to do it, combined with the low paygrade) so consider it a collegial assessment. Frankly, I don't think anyone here would look kindly upon their educator plagiarising in his spare time. It's all about credibility and if you ever had one here, you sure threw it out of the window with this one.

You've provided no source, no reference or link to any RDF post that might imply that you were sourcing material. There was no indication that you were 'quoting yourself'. You passed of work of others as your own. That's plagiarism. And yes, this reflects greatly on your role as an 'educator'. It doesn't matter that it was one percent of your post, or that you once linked to the material on a different website, or that the source doesn't agree with your point or mine. You plagiarised material and it makes you an unlikely candidate for a serious discussion and a joke as an educator.

[SpeedOfSound]

Second, regarding the ‘charges’ you make; I am quoting myself from an old thread in RDF thread where I made exactly the same argument, and actually quoted and linked to exactly the same source.

I think its worth pointing out the distinction between the supporting information and the argument in my post. I don’t see any of my actual arguments or conclusions on the validity of Kant in the page you link to, not a one, Nada.

I am starting to notice a pattern in your personality. I had hoped it was limited to just your philosophy. Let's call it I'mneverwrongism. Get your wife on here, I have some questions for her.

You plagiarised parts of a a document. Modifying it and tacking on arguments at the end of someone else's sentences is even worse. That adds lying and distortion of another's views to stealing. Now man up and admit it was very wrong, without wibble or excuse, and apologize.

[SpeedOfSound]

there is...an absence in the Woosphere....

I for one have been busy with family stuff, my wife and youngest just left for a 3 month holiday and I have been busy for a few days with that.
I do need to piss on one camp fire though and I will post shortly;

Regarding the thread;
Its gone far enough as far as I am concerned; I demonstrated a start to metaphysics, involved SD in an exchange of information about absolute truth and therefore we did metaphysics, and did it with out error by using a valid 'if - then' logic argument. Thereby proving that metaphysics is possible, and is possible without errors. As I said, thats QED. I dont see any defence offered to that.
The ignoring of the post is not significant to dismiss that point.

If doing metaphysics does not prove metaphysics is do-able, then I feel sorry for those of closed mind and restricted capacity to accommodate new evidence, and in any I dont see myself spending much more time on this thread, as I said a few days back.

If me proving the point and then withdrawing constitutes a 'victory' to anyone on the J-team, then congratulations

Your QED seems FUBAR.

First you tried odd and even numbers which turn out to have meaning in the PW. Along with all math that is more than scribbling.

Next you offered Penrose's speculation's on physics which are actually physics. You pointed out yourself that they could be verified empirically. You thought that was a bonus but I need to remind you that it is a requirement for these types of mathematical physics. Not a bonus. A Requirement. This is science not metaphysics. Just because it is dodgy science doesn't cross it over into metaphysics.

The last is:

Absolute truths do not change. (definition)
Time does not apply to that which does not change.
Absolute truth is timeless.

My tax bracket changes (definition)
Time applies to things that change
My tax bracket is not timeless

So what?

[Little Idiot]

Second, regarding the ‘charges’ you make; I am quoting myself from an old thread in RDF thread where I made exactly the same argument, and actually quoted and linked to exactly the same source.

I think its worth pointing out the distinction between the supporting information and the argument in my post. I don’t see any of my actual arguments or conclusions on the validity of Kant in the page you link to, not a one, Nada.

I am starting to notice a pattern in your personality. I had hoped it was limited to just your philosophy. Let's call it I'mneverwrongism. Get your wife on here, I have some questions for her.

You plagiarised parts of a a document. Modifying it and tacking on arguments at the end of someone else's sentences is even worse. That adds lying and distortion of another's views to stealing. Now man up and admit it was very wrong, without wibble or excuse, and apologize.

Yes, I cut n paste a few sentences from a website in a post on RDF some time back (which you may well recall, as you were in the discussion). That I admit.

In my opinion; modifying it and using it as factual statements of well known facts (kants position is hardly esoteric knowledge is it?) to support my view is not very wrong, nor stealing.
Am I stealing if I say 'Peter Pan has to face a bad guy called Captain Hook' This is common knowledge, as is Kants position.

What is very wrong is the repeated and unnecessary ad-hominem attacks against my capacity as an educator. Several posters, and mods have asked for this type of thing to be avoided.

For this reason I intend to post one more reply on this, and then I am done, unless to post a formal complaint if such attacks continue.

Regarding 'I'mneverwrongism' you obviously forgot the time I posted a detailed apology (again in DRF, RIP) to qualiam after saying he was guilty of obscurantism.

[Little Idiot]

I repeat, knowing how hard it is for you to entertain an opinion not in agreement with or submission to your own; your opinion regarding my professional status is irrelevant.

I could care less whether you think of my opinion irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that if I talked to your boss about plagiarism, he'd find it very relevant. I could be an educator if I wanted to (the hours, however, are not sufficient for me to do it, combined with the low paygrade) so consider it a collegial assessment. Frankly, I don't think anyone here would look kindly upon their educator plagiarising in his spare time. It's all about credibility and if you ever had one here, you sure threw it out of the window with this one.

And I could be a president if I wanted too
You are not seriously claiming to be a qualified teacher, I assume. As briefly mentioned by SoS and myself, sometimes institutions are forced to drag in incompetents to do the job, unless you have a suitable qualification or a few years experience, that is all you would be.
Therefore you are no more suitable to give a collegial assessment than the security guard or janitor.

Obviously my statement that 'your opinion of my professional capacity is irrelevant' is a factual account of the situation - you are not a stakeholder in the school. It is not my opinion, so much as a simple and definite fact.

Your opinion of my credibility is just that; your opinion. As such I dismiss it as insignificant to me.

You've provided no source, no reference or link to any RDF post that might imply that you were sourcing material. There was no indication that you were 'quoting yourself'. You passed of work of others as your own. That's plagiarism. And yes, this reflects greatly on your role as an 'educator'. It doesn't matter that it was one percent of your post, or that you once linked to the material on a different website, or that the source doesn't agree with your point or mine. You plagiarised material and it makes you an unlikely candidate for a serious discussion and a joke as an educator.

gotta love that smilie for dealing with you

Is it not at least as likely that the original link to the page came from my RDF post, since many of us are former RDF'ers and could well have seen the link?
Is it not most unlikely that someone stumbled upon a website, recognized less than 100 words from amongst the multiple thousands on that site and said to themselves 'Oh look my photographic memory recognizes those few words from that post by LI'

If you get your 'conflict kicks' by talking out of your ass, then feel free. I will however report you to the mods for repeated and unnecessary ad-hominem if you make another comment against my capacity as an educator.
Even if your story were factual rather than mere allegation, even if I were to have zero credibility on the forum in the eyes of everyone, that has no bearing on my professional capacity.

In the words of my current smilie fav;

[SpeedOfSound]

Second, regarding the ‘charges’ you make; I am quoting myself from an old thread in RDF thread where I made exactly the same argument, and actually quoted and linked to exactly the same source.

I think its worth pointing out the distinction between the supporting information and the argument in my post. I don’t see any of my actual arguments or conclusions on the validity of Kant in the page you link to, not a one, Nada.

I am starting to notice a pattern in your personality. I had hoped it was limited to just your philosophy. Let's call it I'mneverwrongism. Get your wife on here, I have some questions for her.

You plagiarised parts of a a document. Modifying it and tacking on arguments at the end of someone else's sentences is even worse. That adds lying and distortion of another's views to stealing. Now man up and admit it was very wrong, without wibble or excuse, and apologize.

Yes, I cut n paste a few sentences from a website in a post on RDF some time back (which you may well recall, as you were in the discussion). That I admit.

In my opinion; modifying it and using it as factual statements of well known facts (kants position is hardly esoteric knowledge is it?) to support my view is not very wrong, nor stealing.
Am I stealing if I say 'Peter Pan has to face a bad guy called Captain Hook' This is common knowledge, as is Kants position.

What is very wrong is the repeated and unnecessary ad-hominem attacks against my capacity as an educator. Several posters, and mods have asked for this type of thing to be avoided.

For this reason I intend to post one more reply on this, and then I am done, unless to post a formal complaint if such attacks continue.

Make a formal complaint right now. I'm accusing you of plagiarism. You directly copied portions of that document into your post, including punctuation, without reference, and then went on to change a period to a comma and add your own arguments. Pretty clear I think. You did not Captain Hook it you COPIED it!

Now that it has been pointed out to you I think the proper response is to go back and cite the source and remove your changes to the source material. Let us know in a post that you fixed your error, give us a link to the post, and agree not to do it again.

[Luis Dias]

[SpeedOfSound]

What!!??

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I repeat, knowing how hard it is for you to entertain an opinion not in agreement with or submission to your own; your opinion regarding my professional status is irrelevant.

I could care less whether you think of my opinion irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that if I talked to your boss about plagiarism, he'd find it very relevant. I could be an educator if I wanted to (the hours, however, are not sufficient for me to do it, combined with the low paygrade) so consider it a collegial assessment. Frankly, I don't think anyone here would look kindly upon their educator plagiarising in his spare time. It's all about credibility and if you ever had one here, you sure threw it out of the window with this one.

And I could be a president if I wanted too
You are not seriously claiming to be a qualified teacher, I assume. As briefly mentioned by SoS and myself, sometimes institutions are forced to drag in incompetents to do the job, unless you have a suitable qualification or a few years experience, that is all you would be.

Actually, I'm a qualified teacher, but not a qualified tutor, if that's what you mean. I would have to follow a brief course but my knowledge of psychology is sufficient to tutor it.

Therefore you are no more suitable to give a collegial assessment than the security guard or janitor.

Admittedly, I would have to attend a one, or was it two, hour lecture before I was able to provide such an assessment. The stuff about 'hiring incompetents' is silly and misguided. If anything, the word you are looking for is 'unqualified' workers, but I'll give you that for free considering your apparent problems with the English language.

Obviously my statement that 'your opinion of my professional capacity is irrelevant' is a factual account of the situation - you are not a stakeholder in the school. It is not my opinion, so much as a simple and definite fact.

This isn't about my opinion anyway, it's about your plagiarising

Your opinion of my credibility is just that; your opinion. As such I dismiss it as insignificant to me.

So what? Why should I care whether you care about my opinion? I'm going to post here and comment all I want - remaining within the parameters of the rules. If you start plagiarising stuff, like you did, I'll tell you what I think about that.

You've provided no source, no reference or link to any RDF post that might imply that you were sourcing material. There was no indication that you were 'quoting yourself'. You passed of work of others as your own. That's plagiarism. And yes, this reflects greatly on your role as an 'educator'. It doesn't matter that it was one percent of your post, or that you once linked to the material on a different website, or that the source doesn't agree with your point or mine. You plagiarised material and it makes you an unlikely candidate for a serious discussion and a joke as an educator.

gotta love that smilie for dealing with you

Is it not at least as likely that the original link to the page came from my RDF post, since many of us are former RDF'ers and could well have seen the link?
Is it not most unlikely that someone stumbled upon a website, recognized less than 100 words from amongst the multiple thousands on that site and said to themselves 'Oh look my photographic memory recognizes those few words from that post by LI'

If you get your 'conflict kicks' by talking out of your ass, then feel free. I will however report you to the mods for repeated and unnecessary ad-hominem if you make another comment against my capacity as an educator.
Even if your story were factual rather than mere allegation, even if I were to have zero credibility on the forum in the eyes of everyone, that has no bearing on my professional capacity.

In the words of my current smilie fav;

I think you are the most unqualified and most incompetent educator I have ever met and I think that everyone who you have educated has been a worse person for it and should seek reparations. I think you should be barred from whatever institution you 'teach' at, your stuff thrown out after you, and boo-ed by the students whose trust and respect you so violently raped.
I think a picture of you should be printed out and spread around the campus under which "We do not tolerate plagiarisers here".

Your professional capacity as an educator hinges upon your ability to maintain a standard of ethics. If you are unable to display ethical behaviour, which includes respect for source material (scientific or philosophical) and you are unable to, when pointed out, to genuinely apologise, you have shown that you lack the standards of any decent educational office.

If this forum gives me a warning for this, I'll fight it and if I lose, I'll leave. I have no intention of being part of a forum where I can't point out someone is a plagiariser and make the connection. If I'm here warned for holding up an educator to a standard of ethics, the administration here should ask where they are going with this forum. If you decide to take me to court, I'll subpoena this forum and I'll demonstrate that your plagiarism is true. That's grounds for dismissal, in case you were wondering.

You want my advice? Apologise and get out of this thread while the getting is good. This is only going to be more painful.

[Surendra Darathy]

I keep saying, the basis/grounds of metaphysics is to discover that there is 'actual existence'. The success of metaphysics would be in describing the qualities/attributes associated with it.

Well, your metaphysics is still fucked, James, because you've just laid off the problem of existence on stating the attributes of beings that exist. The empiricist is satisfied with the apparent attributes of empirical objects. The metaphysician doesn't say jack shit about how the attributes of "actual" metaphysical objects are detected, nor a means to state the distinction between "actual existence" and "apparent existence". Imaginary ducks and real ducks are both mathematical ducks.

"By means of pure reason", says the metaphysical wibbler, and goes back to the comforting nonsense of medieval philosophy. "I conceive of a being greater than which no other being can be conceived." We've been there and done that, James. It is called "extracting assertions from your hindquarters".

Did you do it yet?

It is [the] existence [of something] that makes metaphysics viable, not vice versa. That is, metaphysics doesn't become viable until the existence of 'something' [upon which the empirical is based] becomes established.

So there exists an actual something that "causes" the perceptions of the empirical. The "actual something" has some properties that are displayed empirically. But this is not good enough for you, because we cannot say what all the properties are all at once, since some of them remain undiscovered. What other properties does the actual something have, and how are those properties going to be discovered? Either by detecting them empirically or by extracting statements from your butt. Did you do it yet?

No? What does it take to "establish" your metaphysical entities, James? Appearances are just empirical, James, but what is apparently happening is that you are extracting your metaphysical entities from your butthole. That you try to appear as if you are doing this with zircon-encrusted tweezers is no redemption for you. That is also known as "obscurantism".

Applied obscurantism: Suppose your wife catches you jerking off. Just tell her, "It's nothing serious, sweetheart, my hand and my dick were just having a wee quarrel, and now they're hugging and making up afterwards."

Where do you get your warrant to talk about an "actually existing being that is eternal"? Saying, "It must be so" is like Darth saying to Luke, "Look within yourself and you will know that it is the truth." Congratulations, James. Your philosophy is a space opera.

[Surendra Darathy]

Little Idiot, your status as a respectable intellectual participant is compromised by your act of plagiarism and damaged unrecoverably by your insistence in rationalising your act once you have been caught at it. All we can take away from this is that you lack respect for those with whom you are conversing at the same time demanding respect for your (so-far undemonstrated) status as an educator. Come, come, Little Idiot, this is only an internet forum. You cannot possibly be having so much fun here that you would try to save your reputation here by means of such a stunt.

Yes, I cut n paste a few sentences from a website in a post on RDF some time back (which you may well recall, as you were in the discussion). That I admit.

In my opinion; modifying it and using it as factual statements of well known facts (kants position is hardly esoteric knowledge is it?) to support my view is not very wrong, nor stealing.

In replying to Artful Dodger, you used someone else's words verbatim and without attribution, and that is what constitutes plagiarism.

Little Idiot's plagiarised post

Google link to verbatim quotes of the following from Philosophy Pages

Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding

... Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

[FBM]

[Luis Dias]

People are so fucked up with plagiarism, so I'd guess it would be awesome if I did some of that myself.

Here, thus is my trooth:

Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting

Do you understand it now?