Philosophy 101
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2015, 01:51 PM
Philosophy 101
Introduction

So, as I mentioned in another thread recently, I've been considering starting up a thread like this for a while now. Philosophy is something that is going to come up a lot on a forum like this, but not everyone who wants to take part in the discussion has necessarily taken classes on the subject. This means that a lot of threads here get very confusing very quickly for a lot of people.

Hopefully, this thread will help with that.

I'm going to go over what I see as the very basics of philosophy, such as how to formulate an argument, valid and invalid statements, the importance of clear definitions, and so on. I will then open the floor to anyone who wishes to ask questions about anything they are unclear on, but I would appreciate it if everyone would keep the actual debating to a minimum in this thread. If an argument arises, please take it somewhere else; my hope is that this thread will become a repository of helpful questions and answers for those looking for them, and that gets difficult if we get wrapped up in side discussions.

Now, before we begin, one last note for those who were curious about my qualifications: I did not major in philosophy at college. I studied, in succession, engineering and literature. I did, however, minor in philosophy, and took a great number of courses in it beyond the requirements to reach that minor. I have also studied philosophy extensively outside of formal institutions, and it is worth noting that my courses in engineering also included several classes on formal logic. It's not strictly relevant, since most of what I say here can be researched for yourselves if you want reassurance, but there you are.

Let's get started.

The Philosophical Trivium

Philosophy is a slightly nebulous concept, and you'll get a lot of different definitions of it depending on who you ask. Some people say that it's the study of the fundamental nature of reality. Others say it's the pursuit of wisdom. Some say it is the search for the truth regarding metaphysical questions, ethics, and the like.

Personally, I've always considered philosophy to be the art of thinking.

You've all heard that the brain is a muscle. It needs to be exercised constantly and rigorously trained in order to be effective. Most people are much, much more intelligent than they realize. They've just never really taken the time to learn to think.

Since this is a philosophy thread, I'm going to post a slightly pretentious quote from Socrates now, just to keep up appearances:

"No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."

The same goes for your brain, and philosophy is the means by which you do that training.

Philosophy itself is, broadly speaking, divided into three parts: logic, grammar, and rhetoric. These three components were first defined and formalized by Aristotle, and were jointly referred to as the trivium. Each of them has their place in philosophy, though our understanding of them has evolved greatly since Aristotle's time.

Grammar is the place where philosophy starts. It deals with definitions and meanings. Statements like "a fish is a fish, and not a stove" are grammatical statements. Grammar's role in the trivium is to ensure that the arguments made actually have meaning; one must have a clear definition of whatever they are speaking of in order for anything said about it to be meaningful.

Logic is the meat of most philosophy. What work isn't done by grammar is done by logic. Once terms are properly defined, logic is the means by which one draws conclusions and constructs arguments around them, or by which one identifies flaws in another's argument. Most of this thread will be about logic.

Rhetoric is the art of communicating clearly and persuasively. Having an idea is great, but if you can't communicate that idea properly, you have a problem. Rhetoric is, however, the least formalized of the three parts of the trivium, and the one which it is easiest to learn; understanding logic and grammar will make your ability to communicate them clearly much stronger.

Each of the three parts builds on the last. Without proper grammar, logic has no definitions with which to construct arguments. Without a sound argument, no amount of rhetoric will be able to make your position any more tenable.

From here, we will go over each of the three parts of the trivium in more detail. I will place important points in bolded text for ease of reference. These bolded points will generally be simple, easy-to-understand ideas, because, as I have mentioned in other places, philosophy is not as complicated as it appears so long as you can keep your head on straight.

Let's begin.

Grammar

"Our job," said the count, "is to see that all the words sold are proper ones, for it wouldn't do to sell someone a word that had no meaning or didn't exist at all. For instance, if you bought a word like ghlbtsk, where would you use it?"

"It would be difficult," thought Milo - but there were so many words that were difficult, and he knew hardly any of them.

"But we never choose which ones to use," explained the earl as they walked toward the market stalls, "for as long as they mean what they mean to mean, we don’t care if they make sense or nonsense."

"Innocence or magnificence," added the count.

"Reticence or common sense," said the undersecretary.
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth


As mentioned above, grammar is the first part of the philosophical trivium, and the point upon which all other parts must build. The basic idea is this: you must know exactly what you mean in order for what you say to mean anything at all.

Like I said, this is an extremely simple concept, but it's also one of the places where many philosophers trip up. A lot of arguments which appear irrefutable are actually anything but, because they have not properly defined their terms, and thus mean nothing.

There are three principle concepts in philosophical grammar, referred to as the "laws of thought": the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. Each is quite simple, but together, they form the basis of everything in philosophy, so it's important to understand what they are and keep them in mind at all times.

The law of identity is this: A equals A. A thing is itself, and nothing else. A does not equal B; if it did, it wouldn't be A.

The law of non-contradiction is this: A thing cannot be both true and false. If a statement A is true, not-A must be false, and vice-versa.

And the law of the excluded middle is this: A thing must be true or false. There is no third option; anything that is not true is, by definition, false.

Now, all of these things are pretty straightforward and obviously true. If I say "the sky is blue", I did not say "the sky is an apple", but I did say "the air above my head reflects light with a wavelength of, on average, about 470 nanometers", because that is what "the sky is blue" means. "The sky is blue" is not both true and false at the same time - that would require it to be both blue and not blue at once. And if the statement "the sky is blue" were, for some reason, not true, it would be false, because false means "not true".

Simple, isn't it? We have clearly defined our terms. We know what "sky" and "blue" both mean, and so we can examine the statement "the sky is blue" and evaluate its truthfulness appropriately.

Where this becomes problematic for a lot of would-be philosophers is that it isn't always obvious when something is in violation of one of these rules. A lot of people fail to define their terms properly and don't realize it, or violate one of the three laws of thought accidentally.

I'm sure you've all seen me, in various other threads on the site, state that a certain argument or statement is "incoherent" or "meaningless". This is what I am referring to when I say that; a statement which has not properly defined its terms is nonsensical, and a statement which violates one of the three laws is false by definition.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the term "soul". Theists use this term quite often, but none of them actually seem to be able to define it, other than that it is some sort of vague, non-physical force which contains your "true self", or something of that kind. But without an actual description of what kind of force that might be, how it interfaces with our physical body, and what "true self" means, this is a nonsense statement. It fails the requirement for coherent definition, and is thus discarded.

Violating one of the three laws of thought is less common, but it does happen. Carl Sagan's hypothetical garage dragon is one of these examples. We had a thread on this previously, so you can read the opening post of that for a definition of "garage dragon".

The garage dragon concept violates the three laws in a way that also illustrates the need for clear, coherent definitions, so it's very useful here. In the hypothetical scenario, Sagan proposes the existence of a fundamentally undetectable entity when he says "there is an undetectable dragon in my garage".

Let's put aside for the moment that Carl's definition of "dragon" must be very loose indeed to include something weightless, incorporeal, and entirely without fire breath, and focus on the idea of an undetectable entity existing.

It is important to note that the garage dragon is fundamentally undetectable - that is, it isn't just a matter of finding better equipment, but that nothing we have, no matter what, will ever be able to give us evidence of the dragon. But the only way for this to be true is if the dragon never, ever interacts with anything at all, not even in the smallest way - if it did, it would be possible (not easy, but possible) to detect it.

That's where the first law, A is equal to A, steps in: "exist" means "interact with other entities" (I can go over this in more detail in the questions if you wish, but for now just accept that this is true). The garage dragon statement is:

An undetectable entity exists.

Which, because "undetectable" means "non-interactive", the first law allows us to change to:

A non-interactive entity exists.

Take a moment to look over both of the above statements and see how they are grammatically equivalent. They have the same meaning. Once you understand that, we will make a final alteration:

A non-interactive entity interacts.

Remember that existence requires interaction with other entities, so again, the law of identity allows us to make this substitution without altering the actual meaning of the statement. Again, take a moment to look over each statement and see how they all mean the same thing.

Now, though, the problem is apparent. The statement is self-contradictory. It says "A equals not-A", which is in direct violation of the first law of thought - and all this because the person claiming that the garage dragon exists didn't understand what "exist" means.

Because the statement contradicts itself, in violation of the second law, it is not true - and, because of the third law, it must therefore be false. Thus, by definition, the garage dragon does not exist. It has defined itself out of existence.

This is a much more common problem than you might think. The need for clear definitions is present in all of philosophy, or else you end up in a mess like that. Many arguments which prove logically untouchable are, in fact, grammatically worthless; positions such as solipsism run into this issue, as do quite a few arguments for the existence of various gods or souls.

The thing to remember is to always know exactly what the words you use mean. If you don't, it will come back to bite you.

Logic

"I'm not very good at problems," admitted Milo.

"What a shame," sighed the Dodecahedron. "They're so very useful. Why, did you know that if a beaver two feet long with a tail a foot and a half long can build a dam twelve feet high and six feet wide in two days, all you would need to build Boulder Dam is a beaver sixty-eight feet long with a fifty-one-foot tail?"

"Where would you find a beaver that big?" grumbled the Humbug as his pencil point snapped.

"I'm sure I don't know," he replied, "but if you did, you'd certainly know what to do with him."

"That's absurd," objected Milo, whose head was spinning from all the numbers and questions.

"That may be true," he acknowledged, "but it's completely accurate, and as long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong? If you want sense, you'll have to make it yourself."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth


If philosophy were art, clearly-defined terms would be the paints, while logic would be the brush. It is the means by which you take your terms and use them to create new knowledge and understanding. It is, however, rather more formalized than painting, so, fortunately, it can be taught.

The basic purpose of logic is to construct arguments in order to demonstrate that a certain thing is true. A simple logical argument is as follows:
  1. If A is true, B is true.
  2. A is true.
  3. Therefore, B is true.

Arguments can get much more complicated and long-winded than this, of course, but this is the basic structure: two or more premises followed by a conclusion.

In order for a conclusion to be accepted as true, an argument must be both valid and sound. Valid arguments are arguments whose conclusion must be true if the premises are true, while sound arguments are valid and can demonstrate that their premises are true.

For example, the following argument is valid:
  1. All men are women.
  2. Adam is a man.
  3. Therefore, Adam is a woman.

It is, however, not sound, because its premises are not demonstrably true. In fact, they are demonstrably false, because they violate the rules of grammar given in the previous section. As such, its conclusion has not been shown to be true.

The basic idea is that in order to accept that a conclusion is true, it must follow from its premises and the premises must be demonstrably true.

There are a lot of reasons that an argument might be rejected. These errors in the formulation of arguments are called fallacies. A fallacy is any reason that a logical argument has failed to demonstrate that its conclusion is true. They range from the most straightforward and simple ones, such as bare assertion (not providing any reason to accept a premise), to the truly convoluted and tricky (circular logic, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and many more).

There are many excellent online resources which give a more in-depth explanation of the various types of fallacies. Two that I personally recommend are Your Logical Fallacy and the Nizkor Project database. I can go over any of them in more detail if requested, but there are simply too many to go over in this one post.

There are many different systems in place for formulating arguments, including mathematical and symbolic logic, but they all exist for the same reason and operate under the same basic principles of formulating arguments so that the conclusion can be shown to follow from the premises.

It is also important to note that arguments can be either deductive (the conclusion must be true if the premises are) or inductive (the conclusion is probably true if the premises are). Inductive logic is, by definition, weaker than deductive logic, as it does not demonstrate that its conclusion is necessarily true, but it still has its place.

The last principle of logic that we will go over in this section is that of parsimony - the idea that arguments should not posit the existence of any entities for which there is no evidence. It is, essentially, Occam's razor formalized, and, stated casually, means "don't make things up". This should be fairly obvious to everyone, as violating the principle of parsimony basically means that you've committed the bare assertion fallacy at the very least, but I feel that it's important enough to warrant its own mention.

Logical arguments should have conclusions that follow from their premises and premises which are demonstrably true. Everything else I've mentioned is just detail, and ways of formally stating exactly what you did wrong.

Rhetoric

"In this box are all the words I know," he said. "Most of them you will never need, some of them you will use constantly, but with them you may ask all the questions which have never been answered and answer all the questions which have never been asked. All the great books of the past and all the ones yet to come are made with these words. With them there is no obstacle you cannot overcome. All you must learn to do is use them well and in the right places."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth


Rhetoric is the least formal of all the parts of the philosophical trivium. It is that part of formulating an argument which deals with presenting your ideas clearly, understandably, and persuasively.

Personally, I prefer to use short, simple sentences, and usually no more than a handful at a time. It keeps things from getting cluttered, though, obviously, there are some times where I have to get a bit more lengthy - this post is a sterling example.

Everyone has their own style, of course. The thing to remember is that it doesn't matter what you are arguing for if you can't communicate your position clearly. Always be sure that you are understandable if you want to convince anyone.

Of course, there is a trap to watch out for here: never get the rhetoric and the logic confused, because, no matter how good someone is at making their idea sound attractive, perfect rhetoric is not a substitute for sound logic. Being able to separate the argument from the argumentation is a vital skill.

This is particularly problematic when dealing with a lot of classical philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, Plato, and so forth. Thomas Aquinas' arguments are quite often logically or grammatically worthless. He was, however, extremely skilled at dressing up his arguments in flowery, appealing rhetoric, which makes him appear as though he has presented something sound and unshakable. Being able to pick apart what has been said and find the actual argument is one of the most important things that you can do when presented with any new philosophy.

Opening the Floor

"But there's so much to learn," he said, with a thoughtful frown.
"Yes, that's true," admitted Rhyme; "but it's not just learning things that's important. It's learning what to do with what you learn and learning why you learn things at all that matters."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth


Obviously, this is nothing more than a bare-bones overview of the very basics of philosophy and logic. There are many more details to go over, and you should all feel free to ask whatever questions you might have. I'll do my best to answer them, and I'm certain that other posters will be of assistance as well - GirlyMan mentioned being willing to help out, for one.

The thing to remember is that everything follows from the above principles. Logic is not as complicated as it looks. Define your terms, don't contradict yourself, demonstrate that your premises are true, and show that your conclusion must follow from them. That's all that you have to do when making an argument of your own, and it's what everyone else has to do if they want to convince you of something.

So. I'm sure there are questions - people who want more details, or want something from above clarified, or just want an overview of a philosophy like idealism or something similar. Feel free; I'll do my best to answer.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-09-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
Thank fuck, finally a thread in the philosophy section that's actually about philosophy. Bowing

I hated philosophy in college, in fact I dropped the class twice before and finally had to take it.

I found it confusing and dull, I skated through and made a 80% -- barely.

That said, I'm totally interested in this thread.

I'm sure I'll come back and ask a few questions, once I've had time to absorb the information.

Thanks!


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
04-09-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I hated philosophy in college, in fact I dropped the class twice before and finally had to take it.

I found it confusing and dull, I skated through and made a 80% -- barely.

Same, actually (though I managed an A in the end due to realizing early on that I just had to regurgitate whatever the professor said). It's a sad fact that most philosophy courses in college are more accurately described as history of philosophy than courses on philosophy itself.

I found it extremely odd that none of the philosophy courses I took ever went over basic logic. They were just matters of memorizing names, dates, and terms, and then telling the professor that their favorite philosopher was of course the greatest thinker who had ever lived, without ever actually pointing out any of the glaring issues with their arguments. It didn't help that my professors were all huge fans of Thomas Aquinas, either, particularly since I tend to lean towards Nietzsche myself and slipped up in class once or twice by pointing out the problems with the arguments the professor was pushing.

Meanwhile, everyone in the engineering classes knew formal logic backwards and forwards by the time they finished Discrete Mathematics. Our professor in there was excellent, but good god was he demanding.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-09-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I hated philosophy in college, in fact I dropped the class twice before and finally had to take it.

I found it confusing and dull, I skated through and made a 80% -- barely.

Same, actually (though I managed an A in the end due to realizing early on that I just had to regurgitate whatever the professor said). It's a sad fact that most philosophy courses in college are more accurately described as history of philosophy than courses on philosophy itself.

I found it extremely odd that none of the philosophy courses I took ever went over basic logic. They were just matters of memorizing names, dates, and terms, and then telling the professor that their favorite philosopher was of course the greatest thinker who had ever lived, without ever actually pointing out any of the glaring issues with their arguments. It didn't help that my professors were all huge fans of Thomas Aquinas, either, particularly since I tend to lean towards Nietzsche myself and slipped up in class once or twice by pointing out the problems with the arguments the professor was pushing.

Meanwhile, everyone in the engineering classes knew formal logic backwards and forwards by the time they finished Discrete Mathematics. Our professor in there was excellent, but good god was he demanding.

Interestingly, one of my philosophy courses was The Philosophy of Logic. Actual logic was taught. The artsy types didn't care for it one bit. Big Grin

Here are a couple of the textbooks:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrIsILR_V9EqQyxpz4WU1...6Av2kT-GJK] [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy_C74Z73OFFcVmulhUdB...vZiL2OP5sz]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-09-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 02:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I hated philosophy in college, in fact I dropped the class twice before and finally had to take it.

I found it confusing and dull, I skated through and made a 80% -- barely.

Same, actually (though I managed an A in the end due to realizing early on that I just had to regurgitate whatever the professor said). It's a sad fact that most philosophy courses in college are more accurately described as history of philosophy than courses on philosophy itself.

I found it extremely odd that none of the philosophy courses I took ever went over basic logic. They were just matters of memorizing names, dates, and terms, and then telling the professor that their favorite philosopher was of course the greatest thinker who had ever lived, without ever actually pointing out any of the glaring issues with their arguments. It didn't help that my professors were all huge fans of Thomas Aquinas, either, particularly since I tend to lean towards Nietzsche myself and slipped up in class once or twice by pointing out the problems with the arguments the professor was pushing.

Meanwhile, everyone in the engineering classes knew formal logic backwards and forwards by the time they finished Discrete Mathematics. Our professor in there was excellent, but good god was he demanding.

Yes! I had to write a paper on Plato, just had issues with the whole thing.

There wasn't any talk of how philosophy applies today (or then when I took the class) or why it was important.

So yes, it was off putting, which is why I'm very interested in this thread.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 02:23 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Same, actually (though I managed an A in the end due to realizing early on that I just had to regurgitate whatever the professor said). It's a sad fact that most philosophy courses in college are more accurately described as history of philosophy than courses on philosophy itself.

I found it extremely odd that none of the philosophy courses I took ever went over basic logic. They were just matters of memorizing names, dates, and terms, and then telling the professor that their favorite philosopher was of course the greatest thinker who had ever lived, without ever actually pointing out any of the glaring issues with their arguments. It didn't help that my professors were all huge fans of Thomas Aquinas, either, particularly since I tend to lean towards Nietzsche myself and slipped up in class once or twice by pointing out the problems with the arguments the professor was pushing.

Meanwhile, everyone in the engineering classes knew formal logic backwards and forwards by the time they finished Discrete Mathematics. Our professor in there was excellent, but good god was he demanding.

Interestingly, one of my philosophy courses was The Philosophy of Logic. Actual logic was taught. The artsy types didn't care for it one bit. Big Grin

Here are a couple of the textbooks:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrIsILR_V9EqQyxpz4WU1...6Av2kT-GJK] [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy_C74Z73OFFcVmulhUdB...vZiL2OP5sz]

That was almost a running gag in our department back in the day - all the computer scientists tried to take the equivalent course as their elective. They might not have known Descartes from Derrida, but they know how to build a truth table!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-09-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
My opinion - learning philosophy in a classroom is like a biker trying to learn about freedom, by joining a gang.

You might as well join the Marine Corps. While an admirable organization - you're not likely to develop any new ideas.

As with the philosophy class -- you're just getting spoon fed someone else's original ideas.

Originality takes more time, is subject to more mistakes, and doesn't get a GPA...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 04:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That was almost a running gag in our department back in the day - all the computer scientists tried to take the equivalent course as their elective. They might not have known Descartes from Derrida, but they know how to build a truth table!

It still is. Computer science? You're learning logic, boys. Philosophy? Pah. You don't need it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
04-09-2015, 10:49 PM
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 04:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 03:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Interestingly, one of my philosophy courses was The Philosophy of Logic. Actual logic was taught. The artsy types didn't care for it one bit. Big Grin

Here are a couple of the textbooks:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrIsILR_V9EqQyxpz4WU1...6Av2kT-GJK] [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy_C74Z73OFFcVmulhUdB...vZiL2OP5sz]

That was almost a running gag in our department back in the day - all the computer scientists tried to take the equivalent course as their elective. They might not have known Descartes from Derrida, but they know how to build a truth table!

I know Descartes from Derrida and I also understand the arguments behind Gödel's theorems.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 10:52 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 10:57 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Philosophy 101
(04-09-2015 04:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 04:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That was almost a running gag in our department back in the day - all the computer scientists tried to take the equivalent course as their elective. They might not have known Descartes from Derrida, but they know how to build a truth table!

It still is. Computer science? You're learning logic, boys. Philosophy? Pah. You don't need it.

Most computer scientists would object. I took my master's in AI. Drinking Beverage

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: