You have misread my comment, yet again. I said I grasp the meaning of your definition, not of the phrase "for god's sake". I also explained why that is the case.Monistic Idealism said:I grasp the meaning of your definition
Great, then you were using a false analogy earlier. Glad we cleared that up.
I am not, as that is not something I am interested in. You gave me a definition of this "I", that is correct. You said it "is something we are directly aware of". Unfortunately for you, it does not take a genius to see the obvious flaw in that pseudo definition.Yes, actually. You were literally questioning how any definition get its meaning. I see what you're doing man: I'm going to give you a definition (which I already have) then you're just going to be obtuse and act like you don't understand again when I've given you a basic, general, average joe understanding, of the term and you won't even concede this...I keep catching you in this lie as well where you claim you don't know what the word "I" means but then you'll say shit like "I don't know"... wtf do you mean by "I" in that sentence?? You're not making any sense, you're just blatantly contradicting yourself... You're being obtuse, you're going too fundamental, you're going off topic. Your problem is not with the first premise, it's with philosophy of language. Stop de-railing the thread and start a new thread.
In response to that, you then, and now, are requesting me to explain that which I am asking you to explain. Which is plainly ridiculous since I would not require you to explain anything in the first place, nor would you require me to explain this "I" in the first place, were you to be in a position of knowledge about its nature.
My problem is very much with the first premise. And the fact that, until now, you have been unable to explain what "mind" is, tells me my line of inquiry is very much in line with the topic.