UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> My Current Project


3/27/06 4:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Mar-06 04:36 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6140
 
It's pretty slow around here :( Thus i am hopeing some of you folks might be interested in some kind of discussion on my current independent study (it's my first one, i'm pretty excited about that). Basically what i'm trying to do is take the metaphysics i believe in, and apply it to a theory of meaning some how. It goes a little something like this: P1: Abstract things do not exist. P2: For an object like a chair to exist, it's parts must stand in a particular relation, in this case a chair-relation, to one another. P3: Such object-relations are abstract, and thus do not exist. C1: Chairs and other objects depending on object-relations do not exist. Resulting question: Assuming this to be true, what does the word "chair" mean when i say it? NOW. I don't post the question as a means to lend (additional) doubt to the previous argument, but rather to extend its ramifications to a theory of meaning. My words can't mean chairs if chairs don't exist, so what do they mean? In a previous paper, i said that the meanings have more to do with the stuff in the world AND my thoughts of them both together, but i'm pretty sure this falls prey to the same question. What i was thinking was that, there was nothing to tie the chair together in the world as a single object except my thoughts of it without the relation, but it seems as though my thoughts of the chair are just as responsible to a thought-relation as the chair is to a chair-relation. Side note here, on the term "thought" as i am using it. Here i mean that a thought is was we would call what the nerves of my brain are doing. I do not mean something having to do with a mind that is separate from your body. I know that, as written, this can be attacked from a wide variety of angles, and that's good. Please do attack any and all of the premises, the conclusion, or the question as it relates to the conclusion. Also if you know of any good resources dealing with similar topics, let me know. -doug-
3/28/06 7:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Mar-06 07:42 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12962

"Resulting question: Assuming this to be true, what does the word "chair" mean when i say it? "

one suggestion is, that you yourself have hinted regarding the brain/mind-area, to use a functionalist definition of a chair.

3/28/06 7:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12963
sorry also for not being able to create any activety here lately, I have had alot to do at University and also just moved apartments.. I hope things calm down in my life soon, so I can return to really important stuff as internetdiscussions.. ;-)
3/28/06 12:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6151
LOL. Yeah, when i said slowed down, i only noticed because i haven't posted here in months. I am just as much to blame. Talk about this functionalist chair, and how it eludes my problem. Assume i am a really bad philosopher, because i pretty much am! -doug-
3/29/06 6:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Seul
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Mar-06
Member Since: 09/18/2002
Posts: 477
I would argue that without the abstract, once the pieces are assembled in the nonexistent chair relation they cease to be "pieces" and become a "chair". (In the absence of abstract) Calling it a "chair" implies that you have re-ordered your perceptual classification to the extent that the chair becomes the lowest form; the objects the chair consisted of are no longer considered with the chair. Your words imply that the chair has become the lowest common denominator of thought. To take it further: Change is arguably an abstract concept, in that the objects used to assemble the chair could have easily become something else. Change is possibility or potential by nature. It can't be considered until after change occurs; change doesn't exist. The pieces can't change into a chair, so the chair begins to exist at the same time the objects end. Your words do mean chair because that is what you're left with. Or: Calling it a chair refers to its function...wait, that's what you guys are already saying. I'm pretty sure I came at this from entirely the wrong angle, but i'm new to this.
3/29/06 7:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6159
Seul, Thanks for the reply! Being new is good, that means you've got a lot to learn like me :) The first part of your response is addressing a common argument, but one that i didn't make. Your discussion revolves around a particular theory of material constitution, or in other words, you are trying to describe a way in which parts come together to create a whole. However, this is fraught with hundreds (at least) of problems that metaphysicians are working hard to figure out every day. My position offers a different type of solution, in which objects can't come together to form new objects either in the way you present or in any other way. I think your first sentence sums up your confusion: "I would argue that without the abstract, once the pieces are assembled in the nonexistent chair relation they cease to be "pieces" and become a "chair"." Without the abstract, there is no chair relation. Thus, not only can't there be chairs in the world BUT, since there's no chairs, there can also be no chair parts, because to be a part of a chair assumes that a chair is also possible. Hopefully that makes sense. And as far as Fudo's Functionalist response, i may have to provide an argument for him if he doesnt respond soon :) However, in for now, let me ask you what is the function of a chair? Is it to hold open doors? But there are no doors either. Is it for people to sit on? Well, maybe (and this is where a lot of folks jump ship on me) there are no people either. So this is a potential defense using just my arguments above. There are other issues too, for example, if you break one leg off a chair, it doesnt work very well as a chair, does it? But wouldnt you still call it a chair, even though it isn't working properly? I'm not sure if these address Fudo's issue or not, hopefully he chimes back in. If not, i'll hash it out as best i can! -doug-
3/30/06 12:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6163
OK, so, let's talk functionalism a little. I can see that people are reading the thread, and just not responding, so maybe i can further the discussion a little for when Fudo gets back. Now the term Functionalism, as Fudo used it, does not mean exactly what Seul and i were talking about in the past few posts. As i read back, however, i realize that Fudo was probably offering a suggestion as to what "chair" could mean in the context i provided, rather than trying to argue against my points. I think what he was driving at was (very roughly, since i'm spotty on the ideas) that for every psychological state of the brain, there is a corresponding physical structure. I suspect that Fudo thus means that, when i'm talking about the chair, i'm talking about a psychological state (and, from my own hypothesis, you are also indirectly talking about the stuff in the world responsible for the stimuli being discussed), which has corresponding physical entities, that could further be explaned wholly by the terms i provide above. I DO honestly believe right now that some version of my above consideration applied by Fudo is correct. I provided a pretty piss poor account of this in a paper i wrote last year, while trying to create an account of word meaning, but i want to make it better. One of the nice things is that this does in fact clear up some nasty problems in language, like what am i refering to when i speak of vacuous terms, like "santa clause?" Well i'm refering to a brain state, simple as that. But it is still fraught with problems. One possible problem, i have yet to fully work out, was provided to me by Professor Christensen, a brilliant philosopher here at UVM. We were discussing a cup on his desk and he stood up and walked across the room, back to the desk, and he said something like "I want to be able to say that it is true that there is a cup on my desk, even without looking, but if i my words mean only my brain states then how can there be any truth to the matter unless i look?" And he's right. We want for looking to confirm the truth, but for there to be a truth to the matter even if i am not looking. It's an issue that is very exciting for me to work on right now, and i'm glad i've got the opportunity to put a lot of energy into it. -doug-
3/30/06 12:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12965
Sorry for being absent (again). Functionalism is a concept most used in the philosophy of Mind, but I can´t see why it couldn´t be applied on your chair-problem. So to make a long story short, what defines a chair does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays. Perhaps as a sittingdevice mainly for humans? Does it make any sense?
3/30/06 12:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06 12:54 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6167
Alright i guess maybe in my last post i got a little too much into the Functionalism as it relates to phil of mind.... Fudo, check out my post before last. It seems i can talk about "My favorite chair with a broken leg" despite the chair not functioning at all the way it's supposed to. In fact, it seems as though if you put a chair together that always had only three legs, and failed to function for its entire life time, that we'd still call it a chair with some degree of conviction. I'm sure that one could come up with responses to that, but again, there rests a further problem if you accept my original line of reasoning: What is it that said function rests on? Can you have a function that applies to an object that doesn't even exist? -doug-
3/30/06 1:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06 01:28 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12968
if you have a chair with a broken leg that doesn´t function properly, doesn´t that imply that a "normal" chair is expected to have a certain function? and that is what you are refering to when you are calling your three-legged chair a chair too. of course some things will not function as they are supposed to. but that expression " supposed to" is what tries to capture the function we normally think of regarding objects like chairs, cars or a pen. I don´t really understand what you mean with "Can you have a function that applies to an object that doesn't even exist?" how can something that doesn´t exist be an object at all?
3/30/06 1:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12969
hmm, I´m a bit slow today. maybe you were thinking of abstract objects, like mathematical concepts. Then my answer is: Yes, they can have functions. any matematical operator (like +, -, x, / etc) is a function as far as I know.
3/30/06 5:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6171
"how can something that doesn´t exist be an object at all?" "maybe you were thinking of abstract objects, like mathematical concepts." Sort of. The original argument is that chairs don't exist, because they would need to be abstract object-relations. So, if functionalism says "A chair is that which functions chair-wise" it seems that using the above argument i can reply, "what chair? Chairs don't exist, not even 'normal' ones." Unless of course you mean something different? Maybe you mean that the chair is a brain-state? This is the only thing i can see working at all. Otherwise you seem stuck with the same messy problems of macroscopic objects out in the world. -doug-
3/31/06 3:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Socrates
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Mar-06
Member Since: 08/02/2001
Posts: 809
I think you are overlooking many impossibilities that result if your first premise is true. I think you are right to say that a chair cannot exist if abstract things do not exist. However, you seem to think that the parts of the chair could still exist and that the only things that would cease to be are macroscopic things. On the contrary, it seems to me that everything would cease to be if your first premise were true. For instance, let's say that there are atoms, or quarks, or whatever microscopic 'part' you want. In saying that there are many atoms, you are saying that each "atom" is in some way the same as each other "atom" (otherwise they would not both be atoms). This sameness is an abstraction, though, because each one atom is actually a unique thing, with its own matter and location. The same can be said for every thing. Thought and language are based on our perception of things as similiar and our ability to group them as such. The completely unique is unknowable and unspeakable. But "similarity" is an abstraction. It is our abiltiy to abstract the sameness from the unique. Saying there are no abstract things is tantamount to saying there are no knowable, speakable or thinkable things. There would be nothing. And certainly there would be no meaningful speech. BUT, there are things, and thus abstract things do exist. I think your conclusion that there are no chairs if there are no abstract things is a reductio ad absurdum that shows that there are in fact abstract things. So, I would say that your first premise is simply wrong. Many impossibilities would follow if it were true. The question is not whether abstract things exist, but how do they exist. It seems like you will never be able to explain human experience with your premises.
3/31/06 1:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6178
Socrates, I like your points, but i'm not sure i agree with all of them. " However, you seem to think that the parts of the chair could still exist " There would be no such thing as "parts" on this view, so i don't quite follow you here. "In saying that there are many atoms, you are saying that each "atom" is in some way the same as each other "atom" (otherwise they would not both be atoms)." I like this point, and i'm not sure i have a good response as of this moment, but my intuition doesnt agree. It seems that maybe being required to talk about the "atoms" being the "same" is merely a limit to my ability to percieve and think about things, just like i percieve and think about the chair as a single object itself. However, these limitations do not mean chairs exist, nor do they mean that what does exist requires "sameness." It seems to me that what does exist just is. "Thought and language are based on our perception of things as similiar and our ability to group them as such." I feel this works against your argument. Indeed i agree that we group things together for simplicity and survivability reasons (this seems particularly noticeable if one were to use functionalism, and state that my chair thoughts all correspond to a particular region of matter in my brain, instead of all having their own regions, despite being obviously different matter that we are observing), and i think that this is merely a limit of our sensory capabilities. " The question is not whether abstract things exist, but how do they exist." You're right. But i didnt ask the former question. You are taking a stance: "Abstract things DO exist, now how is that possible," whereas i am taking the stance "Abstract things DO NOT exist, how is that possible." So maybe in this regard you are missing the point, but the rest of your argument is one in favor of abstraction, which is critical to your argument. "It seems like you will never be able to explain human experience with your premises." This is one of the most difficult parts of my argument to answer, no doubt. However, i am undaunted! Difficult does not mean incorrect ;) Let me ask you this, A la Quine. If such a chair-relation exists, how can i know anything about it since it exists independent of matter? (You may take the stance that a chair does not WHOLLY exist independent of matter, but in the very least, once some wood or metal is put together in just the right arrangement a new and abstract object is formed, that can persist despite a loss of its parts, and it is this new object that i am asking about). -doug-
3/31/06 7:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Socrates
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Mar-06
Member Since: 08/02/2001
Posts: 812
I think you misunderstood some of my points, which isn't your fault. I suspect that I'll have some trouble making my points clear via internet posts; it's a complex issue. But if you'll indulge me, I'll try to make the same points in a different way - through question and answer, my favorite method :) You conclude that, "Chairs and other objects depending on object- relations do not exist." What is an example of an object that does NOT depend on object- relations?
4/1/06 4:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6180
The only things that exist, of course. Objects with no parts.
4/1/06 4:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6181
Notice that i asked you a question first. In my last paragraph of the post before last. It's your turn to answer. -doug-
4/1/06 7:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Seul
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 09/18/2002
Posts: 479
What is an object with no part? If you're meticulous enough, you could say the pieces of wood and metal are in and of themselves object-relations; A collection of molecules that when joind together form something that we call wood (or metal).... The problem is where you cut things off as being macroscopic. "If such a chair-relation exists, how can i know anything about it since it exists independent of matter?" (I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to attempt an answer) I would say all that you can know of the chair comes from what we as a group agree on. Language, as an example, is arbitrary. Words only have value when they mean the same thing to all people involved. I think the chair is kind of similar. You can't know anything about the chair itself; chairs don't exist. You can only know about our general perception of chair-function. It doesn't exist in and of itself, it's meaning is dependent on what we create for ourselves. The concept of chair-function is fluid; things can become regarded as a "chair" depending on how we use them.
4/1/06 8:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Socrates
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 08/02/2001
Posts: 813
Sorry, I didn't mean to dodge your question. First, I would say that a "chair relation" isn't quite what I believe exists, mainly because this phrase seems to imply that the being of the chair (its chair-ness) is determined by a rather specific mathematical relation of its parts or, in other words, it's shape. However, we see that chairs come in all different kinds of shapes (and the shape of one chair can change, but its being as a chair does not, as you point out), so the phrase "chair relation" seems misleading. This is even clearer in examples that seem more abstract, like a just action; the shape of the physical material of one just action is nothing like the shape of the physical material of another, and yet both are just. So, I would say something like a form of chair exists (big surprise, hey?). This form isn't the same as the shape of the material, although the form can make itself manifest through the shape. This allows for different chairs to have different shapes and still be chairs, because they have the same form. This form is itself immaterial, making itself manifest through material. Sorry for that preface. I felt it was necessary to answer your question. So, to rephrase it in my terms, your question is: If such a form of chair exists, how can i know anything about it since it exists independent of matter? To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the question, but I've made you read my long ass preface, so I'll do my best to answer it. Every thing that exists is a co-mingling of the material and the immaterial. They are inseperable. We know the form only as it presents itself to us through material. We too are a co-mingling of the material and the immaterial. Perhaps the material and the immaterial could be thought of as two aspects of one thing; that is, two aspects of Being. In this case, I think any theory of knowledge that applies to matter could be extended to the immaterial. I don't understand why you think that the immaterial would be any more difficult to know than the material. There is also the possiblity the the immaterial forms exist in the human soul (or psyche, or mind, or whatever) and we impose them on material, which is itself unknowable. This is similar to Kant's idea that we impose catogories on the noumenal (sp?) world to create the phenomenal world. If this is not persuasive, perhaps you could explain why you think that the immaterial would be harder to know than the material, and I could try to respond again.
4/1/06 8:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Socrates
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 08/02/2001
Posts: 814
"The only things that exist, of course. Objects with no parts." Just to clarify: In your theory, is there only one type of thing? And when you say that this thing has no parts, do you mean that it cannot be divided? And if it cannot be divided, do you mean that it has extension, but just cannot be divided, like an atom (which originally was thought to be indivisible). Or do you mean that these objects are like mathematical points, which cannot be divided, but also do not have any extension?
4/2/06 1:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6184
Seul, I may have mentioned "macroscopic" objects at one point as an example of the type of objects i don't think exist. You are right that our language assumes that the wood that makes up some other thing, is itself a collection of yet smaller things. And those smaller things, are also a collection of even smaller things. However, that very consideration is one such reason why i reject object-relations. It seems unintuitive to me that where some raft rests (lets say this raft is made up of 5 logs and 2 pieces of rope) also rests 7 other objects, 5 of wood and 2 of rope (this is ignoring the further atomic and sub-atomic objects allowed by language). Once these 7 objects come together they generate a new object. Under most theories, now we have 8 objects (5 wood, 2 rope, 1 raft) in that one spot and such things make very little sense to me. Under the theory that you presented earlier, the 7 former objects disappear and only one object remains, but there are serious problems with a theory like this, such as The Ship of Theseus problem. Also, van Inwagen's slippery slope of connectivity leaves you wondering when exactly the object was created and why. "Words only have value when they mean the same thing to all people involved." Since you are new to philosophy, i'll just say that a statement like this would cast considerable doubt on any theory. I suppose you might need to define "involved." All in all, however, it seems like your answer to the question about knowing about the chair-relation, doesnt actually depend on a chair-relation, but rather moves in a direction similar to my own. You do pose an epistemelogical point about "what we can know" about a chair, but keep in mind that i am not asking a question like that, but rather a linguistic one. Since some of your questions are similar do Socrates's read my response to him for more info :) -doug-
4/2/06 1:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6185
Socrates, First let me discuss your last post, as a preface. What exists in my ontology? Let me state that i am certainly very unclear about the nature of it. I have certain relatively new and incomplete beliefs about what there really is in my ontology, but i do have a direction to move in based on what i feel i know doesn't exist. Yes, it does seem as though there is one type of thing. However, i'm not sure how to address things like dimensionality. Is space a thing too? I just don't know. How do i deal with extension and location? I also don't know. When i dig down through the stuff i don't think exists i realize i've gotten too deep in to really be able to understand what there is. It seems as though what does exist is some type of mereological atom (not meaning quite "not divisble" as the original definition of Democritus, but rather not itself a mereological sum of something else), and these mereorlogical atoms won't themselves be a mereological sum of anything else. I think that if the basic building blocks of matter do indeed come together to form new things, an account is needed of what type of connectivity is required to generate new objects (what conditions could exist in which the sum of a group of objects could not add up to the what exists when they are in some particular arrangment and why) which i have never seen or heard a good solid version of. Remember, though, that my original theory provided in the original post, was an attempt to deny the existence of certain things, but i did not take a stance on what remains. I did this on purpose, because i just don't know, but since you asked i thought i'd give you an even longer preface to return the favor ;) (that's a joke btw, preface, or discuss related issues all you want, i love it). continued in another post...
4/2/06 2:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
85 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Apr-06 02:19 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6186
Now to address socrates's second to last post. When you state that your examples are made clearer by even more abstract examples, i think you forget who you are discussing with. A just action example doesnt make it clearer for me at all, because in fact i do not think that justice, desert, blameworthiness, praiseworthiness, etc exist at all either. I'm a "Pereboomian." I highly recommend "Living Without Free Will" by Derk Pereboom. I nominated him for an award this year that he won, and he's giving a lecture on thursday. I wish you were around to see it! But i digress. So, why do i think the immaterial would be harder know than the material? Or further still, why don't i believe in them to begin with? I suppose i believe in some kind of empiricism. Probably some functionalist version, meaning i think that we can have some concepts that are aquired genetically, or by some means that isn't quite garnered via some sensory modality, but that all of our concepts correspond to a brain-state. As such, i think that my knowledge comes from particulars (non-abstracta). As Hume argued, i think that my ideas are particular, and "when we reason about what we call abstracta we are actually thinking about particular ideas delegated by the mind to represent an entire class of resemblant particulars.." And that class is a concept. Similarly, to address an earlier question of yours about "sameness" Ockham argued that objects can seem similar without needing to be abstract, and that this similarity (of our experience) is what causes us to give them the same name (or i think even delegate to them the same general concept). Hopefully this is enough to answer your question. Even if i allowed abstracta, and even forms, i wonder where my knowledge of the forms comes from? Since a Platonic Form manifests itself as physical things, my knowledge seems to come only from my experience of the physical. So what claims is it reasonable to make about the nature of the chair-form? This becomes especially important if all chairs were destroyed. What can i say about the chair form then? and how can i be at all certain? It seems like i couldnt actually know anything about the Form, only the physical. Also, if it seems reasonable to describe classes of things like chairs as a brain-state (keep in mind that this isn't necessarily my theory, just a hypothetical), that such a theory could have the same explanitory power of the Forms, without requiring something so seemingly bizarre and unintuitive (at least to me!). Out of curiosity, is a drawing of a chair also an instantiation of the chair form, or is it something else? Anyway, hope i could get some points across. -doug- PS. The observed views of other philosophers, and the quote were obtained from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.