Philosophy is Important

"The very definition of misosophy is a contradiction to this claim."Please explain how the definition contradicts the 'claim'."Each of these is axiomatic. It is impossible to consider their opposite. If reality isn't true, it isn't real; if truth is real, it has to be so absolutely, for all people, in all countries, and forever true." You are simply reasserting your claims as "self evident." Saying it's axiomatic doesn't justify anything or tell anyone what your concept of "Truth" is. In misosophy, we do not accept wisdom on faith, wisdom needs a rational explanation. "Con's response to "This is common wisdom in philosophy," seems imply, that these self-evident claims are mere opinions. "Mere opinions alright, unjustified at that. Why are they self-evident? "And how can Con, indeed anyone, conclude that "truth" and "absolute," could be contradictory?"I justified that it was contradictory by definition last round. You have not provided contention or argument in support of your claim."Let's be clear. There are very few absolute truths."Rare like the unicorns, yes? "A whole is the sum of its parts; nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time, for example."Not an absolute truth. You are invoking a condition, dependency, referencing and relating something else.And these are predefined and justified BY DEFINITION! It has nothing to do with your concept of validation called "truth"."reality exists;"That's tautological rhetoric, not an absolute truth.Existence exist, waters wet, fires firey, poops poopy, a horse is a horse of course of course!"Evident truths on the other hand require reason and argument to defend."But "self-evident" truths are sacred and holy and are true just because you say so? What a bunch of baloney!"Most scientific conclusions fit this definition. I think that Con has confused absolute with evident truths."Define, "Truth" and then define "Evident truths". Every claim requires reason and argument to defend, what is special about evident truths?And if you think by me questioning your "absolute" truths, I am mistaking it for the ones that "require reason and argument to defend"you are mistaken, I think they ALSO require reason and argument to defend. They aren't sacred and holy to me. You may be able to play this with a philosopher, but I am a misosopher, I do not play these games."If you cannot accept that truth exists, I recommend that you get off of that plane before it takes off."Common sophist trick. Planes being able to fly is not dependent on your concept of truth.Please define truth so we can evaluate it rationally. We do not evalute TRUTH with TRUTH, that is self-referential and circular. Stop with the mumbo jumbo please?"On to Practical Truths: Con seems to be arguing that Practical Truth isn't possible because man (an individual man, appears to the the assumption), isn't timeless and universal."Nor is the "collective" man."Philosophy"s concern here is not with man the individual but rather, with the concept of man as a representative of all mankind."Concepts are not timeless and absolute."So, my argument that we (mankind) need a Practical Truth based upon the same line of reasoning, or "as close to them as possible" to those developed for Truth about the world of reality,is a sound argument and a reasonable goal."But you haven't 1) defined truth in unambiguous terms 2) defined practical truth."My use of "as close to them as possible" should be your clue that this does not meet any definition of religious dogma."If I said alphabet soup is as close to God and his holy mission of gluttony as possible, would it cease to be religious dogma? "When we acknowledge that man alone uses reason to make judgements"It is not a fact humans are the only animals capable to use reason to make judgements."it is a logical step to the concept that his judgments should be in his own best interest."You are jumping from an is to an ought. What 'he' does and is doesn't automatically inform what 'he' ought to do."To think that man the individual, or man as a member of a society (local or global), should make decisions that are not in man's best interest, is a contradiction."No it is not, it's an opinion. A contradiction is a statement that is opposite to one already made.In the above, there is no conflicting statement given, you use a single statement on it's own and say it is a contradiction.Thinking man should make decisions that are not in man's best interest is not an internally contradicting opinion.And what if man's best interest is to make cute pandas extinct?"This is your non sequitur."Don't give it to me! You keep it. "Finally, since you ask, "The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]" means that man should be the best ['good'] he can be. Of course, we are talking both about the individual man as well as mankind." According to what standard?? What is the best good?"Non-being is absolute evil" refers to the idea that it is evil (and a contradiction) for man to make choices that are not in the best interest of man."I seriously want to know. Did you honestly expect people to just automatically think all of this nonsense from the incredibly vague wax poetry you wrote? Nothing you are explaining was clear in the first place. And to make it worst your arguments don’t provide any explanation or clarification.To recap.We are still waiting for you to:Define your concept of validation "Truth" in unambiguous terms.Define your concept of "Practical truth" afterwards.Rationally justify your "axioms" claiims.