User:Roberthvistendahl

Robert Hvistendahl is an Australian philosopher and entertainer, he is a close friend of Sydney socialite Spanian. He streams on YouTube the most cutting edge philosophy, psychology, liberal agendas, humour, motivational advice and help. He is the deepest thinker in the world according to SpanRob magazine's top 800 list. He has solved the Socratic Paradox, answered the two questions that are considered the most fundamental building blocks in philosophy. Those of:

1. What can a human being know? (Epistemology)

2. Are there objective moral facts? (Ethics)

He is also accredited with giving the first complete explanation of an argument that had baffled philosophers for now just over 1000 years. This being what is called 'Anselm's Ontological argument'. It is an argument for the existence of God written by a Benedictine monk who would become the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robert was, firstly, very clear to make sure any reader of his work on arguments for God's existence would certainly understand that it not show that there is *no* God. Secondly, it appears the solution leaves open an avenue that maybe it, by God, could work. He claims that a study of this argument could very well be the most thought provoking endeavour a man can undertake.

Robert streamed for a period of 6 years, 6 months and 72 days during a time when he was fluctuating between a dark suicidal hell and a medicinally-fuelled enthusiastic showmanship. He would stream regularly for 40 hours at a time (you did not misread this, he would talk for 40 hours straight with no or very short breaks), sometimes a little less, and sometimes up to 60 or even 80 hours. This means his work could not be done justice as summarised here, but a sample is given:

Regarding the age old inspirer, "If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?" he spoke and wrote at length about this, and it led him to question how the question would reach your ear? And at first, one might think that the person who posed the inspirer would have to know that the tree fell, or maybe is giving that guarantee anyhow, however, Robert was very hard on himself, very strict with the avenues that open up which need to be addressed in order to solve something completely...this sounds like a negative thing, and maybe he would agree that there was a somewhat negative feeling of pressure to get things right, however because of his style, the creativity that was produced given with an articulation, intonation and strength in deduction, he could be nothing but proud of all he did, here he proposed that maybe the inspirer would wash up on the beach in indents in the sand....what do you think?