Hi bud! Welcome back 
Let’s say you are almost 15 and you’re just using a translator… I hope you understand it’s still very unlikely you can write multi-paragraph responses faster than I can read one and consider the epistemics of what you’re writing 
Checking for spelling mistakes is fine, just don’t let it think for you.
Actually, to be honest, the metaphorical images or core ideas I’m refuting are all my own creations; no AI came up with them for me. In fact, to put it simply, I’m just incredibly enthusiastic, fueled by the energy of youth, and understanding the relative helps me identify the key points to refute everyone’s opinions!
You need to read TPF Guidelines before you write any more.
Actually, if we consider not using AI anymore, I think I’m ready to be someone who wants to debate!
I had a good chuckle over this! Thank you. 
I thought we were in the business of trying to grow our understanding, but it seems you’re dead set on knocking opinions down.
Remember there’s also another side to that coin of youthful exuberance: there are tremendous epistemological gaps in your knowledge.
And a final thought: To truly become a master of debate, you need to understand your interlocutor’s position better than they do.
Good luck kid, go get 'em
Thank you for the advice, but I always have my own unique formula, derived from ancient philosophies, which I then upgrade and turn into my own exclusive weapon. That’s why I always find a precise way to refute arguments. I hope we won’t be hindered by age differences so that we don’t look down on each other and can express our full opinions, helping both sides understand each other better!
Well, weapons forged from ancient philosophies are pretty damn impressive.
I don’t look down on you for being young. I’m pointing out there’s a hubris to your demeanor that’s typical for your age. That’s not a slight; it’s a reminder that an older person might know something you don’t, just by the sheer fact of having lived longer than you.
Let’s say we’re all born into a dark house. An older person knows their way around the basement better, because they’ve had more time to feel everything out; to develop patterns to move around more confidently when something unexpected happens.
… Just a thought.
Looking forward to seeing some epic ancient weapon debates from you.
Here’s a text from one of my works:
“Let’s consider an example from the history of science. Humanity has known for centuries that objects fall to the ground, but it wasn’t until the 16th century that Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation. This allowed us to determine the acceleration due to gravity, deduce its consequences, and create technologies—from airplanes to spacecraft—that have overcome gravity. However, there remains no reliable and precise explanation of the phenomenon of gravity itself. What is the essence of gravity? The answer to this question may allow humanity to conquer new horizons. Humanity still doesn’t objectively know whether a “carrier” of gravity exists (just as the photon is the carrier of electromagnetism). However, although the nature of gravity remains unknown, we can understand, model, and predict its effects.”
This is an example of how knowing the essence isn’t necessary to simply live. Knowing the truth isn’t necessary to do the right thing. Adorno, in his negative dialectic, recommends maintaining the tension between opposites without fully reconciling them. I would add that one should maintain the tension between both negative and positive dialectic.
It’s incredibly difficult to live in a world where everything is merely a relation. But perhaps this is just a matter of habit? For example, for Christianity, maintaining this essence (primordial essence) is crucial. Blurring this essence leads to chaos and the Fall (this is precisely how Christianity describes modernity). No one has yet succeeded in demonstrably identifying the essence itself: it’s a matter of time – today everyone agrees that it is God, tomorrow that it is “objectivity,” and in the future that it is relational.
The question is how far can this relativism be taken before it begins to destroy the human capacity for meaningful choice and resistance to evil. Your “theory of relativity” is a good cure for dogmatism, but it requires a counterbalance—otherwise it itself becomes a new dogma.
Actually, to put it simply, relativity is merely a tool for perception, not your true self. The choice you make in situations where you truly understand good and evil is what elevates you and keeps you unwavering!
And I assert that relativity doesn’t follow a fixed, iron cage with only one dark side; it’s a collection of two sides of an object or entity within each frame of reference. Most importantly, the only lesson relativity teaches is that you always need a true self and your own understanding to avoid mistaking relativity for truth; relativity is merely an inherent characteristic!
At this point, I don’t exactly agree with you, but rather clarify my position:
Existential choice—for example, in Sartre: man is a project; values are not given in the world, they are constituted by choice. I don’t dispute this. But I would add: not just any choice, but a choice born from the act of holding contradictions together.
A genuine descriptive ontology does not derive the ought from the is—we know this from Hume. Therefore, the ought is born only from the want—the subject’s projection onto a desired future. And here I propose going further: desire doesn’t simply “choose,” it is rooted in an ontology of rupture. You can’t want whatever you want, however you want—you want in a situation of discrepancy. Desire is not free from ontology, but it is also not determined by it.
All possibilities are present simultaneously, and their discrepancy gives rise to a specific situation of wanting. It’s not just a choice, but a mutual determinism and indeterminism at the same time. That is, the act of choosing isn’t necessarily what should be; it may not happen, and many things remain unresolved for centuries, millennia, and this in no way prevents everything from continuing to exist.
And so I would add: Choose while maintaining the contradiction, knowing that your choice will never be pure, and the conflict may not be resolved.
Actually, you’ve hit the nail on the head. My point is that, from a relative perspective, everything has its good and bad sides, and the essence of our choice of action lies in that opposition. However, at that very moment, even though the relative perspective helps us see the potential impact of our next action, ultimately it’s my ego that makes the choice, not the relative perspective.
At that moment, what was called the sentence of freedom was merely an extreme, a loss of self-awareness to make one’s own choices.
It could be said that Javert in “Les Misérables” partly exemplifies this; the moment he was rescued by Jean, the so-called absolute law he clung to as his self-identity became nothing but emptiness. This emptiness, in turn, rendered him incapable of doing anything in the face of freedom because he lacked his own individuality.
Can you explain this “ego” that ultimately makes the choice?
This ego is the foundation upon which we make our final decision. Because, from a relative perspective, when the world always has two sides, black and white, why would we question what we would choose? Perhaps if we start asking that question, we are only turning ourselves into existentialists.
The ego I’m talking about is formed from objective values combined with our own beliefs and goals, the goals we believe in and choose. It is the key to freeing us from the status of “a person condemned to freedom” and becoming “a person who possesses pure freedom.”
I’m sorry, but this comes very close to unintelligible gibberish…
Where are these “objective values” coming from? Can you give me an example of such a value?
And these privately held beliefs and goals… they are subjective values? Or are they like a prism, distorting the objectivity of the values?
I’ve got the distinct feeling you’re trying to magically insert yourself into the comfortable middle there, but you haven’t explained to me what you’re doing exactly and why you’d want to be doing that. What’s in that nifty little box you call “ego” and why are you so determined to build a wall around it?
Maybe try writing it in your own language… i’ll run it through a translator myself and see what rolls out.
Actually, for me, objective value always goes hand in hand with subjectivity. If everything in this world were just a reality, wouldn’t it be absolutely meaningless? The connection between reality and goals, between belief and reality, creates a true self, a true ideal.
Moreover, the ego I’m talking about isn’t a closed wall; it’s the key to a relative perspective, to what’s called choice. It doesn’t force me to follow a path, but rather shows me which direction I should go.
Why are you pivoting away? I asked you for an example of an objective value. Saying that it goes hand in hand with subjectivity is a dodge, and not a meaningful one. I’m still no closer to understanding what you’re talking about, whether you’re describing the essence of something or the mechanisms of something; no clue.
I can appreciate you’re moving to poetry, but we’re still no closer to understanding. Do you think poetry is the relative position between hard-nosed philosophy and conceding?
More poetry… Beautiful, but also a pivot and seemingly a misunderstanding of my earlier characterization: I asked what’s in the box that you call “ego”, and why are you building a wall around that closed box? Obfuscation? Why can’t you present what’s actually in that box?
Without clarifications this nothing more than pivoting around the same circular definition of nothing.
And just one final thought: Words are tools; we want them to do something.
Please consider what it is you want words to do for you here.
You asked me to explain the mechanism of the ego – a mental concept? The problem might be that you sees the ego as merely a series of nervous conflicts, but I see it as a transition before actual events. It’s a collection of thoughts, emotions, and feelings. But that’s a subjective ego, whereas the ego I’m talking about also combines with objectivity: laws, religion, circumstances, society, etc. – that’s the ego with a relative perspective. Without a clear explanation, what he said leaves us revolving around meaninglessness. Each person is a unique universe, with hidden complexities that even modern humans cannot comprehend. So, what logic does you use to assert that the ever-changing universe out there is nothingness?
Perhaps we should reconsider the idea that someone who thinks living in darkness for too long without a flashlight is only narrowing their field of observation to zero. Is you perhaps thinking that human beings are a measure that can be weighed? Literature is always connected to life and reflects human nature. I am very grateful for the praise in the field of poetry, because you has touched upon the very core of human nature that I was talking about.
I’m not even going to bother reading that… I saw you changing “he” to “you”.
Turns out the ancient weapon was just AI after all.
Bye
Honestly, I don’t know what to say, but when I use “ông”, Google Translate turns it into “he”, even though in my country it’s simply “you”, so I changed it.
Stop lying already.
I actually scrolled back up to read all your earlier messages: not a single pronoun error.
Your last message is suddenly riddled with pronoun errors.
You’ve been lofty and throwing around big words this entire time, but at least you had no problems committing to your ideas.
Now, suddenly, you can’t even answer a straightforward question without regressing into pure slop.
I’m not going to report you… If you want to melt your brain with AI, be my guest.
But I can promise you this: you’re never going to learn anything substantive from this artificial game you’re playing.
I don’t get it… What a waste of time.