Here is what I wanted to post:
Greeks talked lots of crap. Like some of the mathematical concepts, it’s based on hypothetical stuff. It was invented by Greeks so they had a license to talk ****. Although sometimes it does have a general application in life, I mean before you build a house you have to 'philosophize' about how it’s going to be so then you can make a blueprint of that.
But the Greeks went over the top with it and went a little crazy with it, I mean they would have an argument on a hypothetical issue, the funny thing about this is, if there was a normal person who didn’t understand it, he would assume this person who is arguing about a hypothetical issue is a genius, however if you really understood the concept you would realize he is somewhat full of ****, because a debate on a hypothetical issue is going to be what ever you want it to be. So in every case, its going to seem right, but the debate is based on a logical fallacy. Because (now let me get a little academic on you all) the argument (hypothetical debate) is independent of the legitimacy of the premises It is a fault in the formation of the argument as opposed to an inaccuracy in its premises. The Argument does not entail anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may essentially be factual, but the argument is still illogical because the conclusion does not follow from the premises using the deduction philosophy of the argument. And the sole reason behind that is, because it’s a hypothetical argument and this is what the Greeks did, they pretended to be smart asses in front of people who didn’t have a clue of what the hell they were talking about. So once people realized what was going on, many people shunned philosophers, and dismissed them as Walter Mitty characters, and the whole philosophy kind of died out. But there seems to be a new reassurance of the philosophy, as people realize logical philosophy does have an application in real life. I'm a big fan of logical positivism. Its tangible it has a real application in real life. hypothetical issue will not be able to prove. Now, if someone is going to have a hypothetical debate about flying unicorns then, no matter what I say he is going to believe that. And just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean we should believe in it. As what application would a flying pink unicorn have? it would even be pointless to debate it, its a from of a futile philosophical debate. This is the point I am trying to make, your philosophical debate has to be a logical one.
You can use a simple truth table or a deduction philosophy to see which is a logical debate and which is not.
As I belief a pink flying unicorn doesn’t do any good for anyone. There is no propose for it, if today you believed that flying unicorns existed you’d be labeled crazy. And why is that? Because it’s illogical in other words one is mentally incapable of perceiving reality and is disillusioned. Now I emphasize the point of disillusioned, for the reason that when one he is disillusioned he will precise his illusion as a reality. However, that still doesn’t make it reality! The point here I am trying to is that, no mater how much you believe in something it will not materialize into reality. We make a big distinction between illusion are reality. Reality is universal, and illusion is not, as two people will not have the same illusion.
What can be a better argument then reality? How can you even debate reality that is the illogicality of this really daft philosophy of believing any crap you want to believe regardless of what application it has. Am not a Student of philosophy I am more science oriented am just giving my opinion. I say, you illusion is what ever you want it to be, reality is not!