Terror Management Theory

[Iwannaplato]

Then 'prove' demonstrate or justify what is you claim, i.e. the thing [indirect realized] that is absolutely mind-independent is really real?

Prove that there isn't. Unlike Kant you claim all noumena don't exist.

There is no way you can demonstrate or justify it, your desperate claim is merely to soothe the existential terrors, pains and angsts driven the the existential crisis and TMT.

Any existential terrors he has are noumena to you. You really don't understand ANY of the implications of your own beliefs.

Mr. I am an empirical realist, Please demonstrate empirically Atla's existential terror is what is driving his philosophical position.

If you like the idea, you don't care if it fits your epistemology or Kant's, you just declare it exists or doesn't and you know this, lol.

[Impenitent]

Terror management... when I saw this I was reminded of the IRA about 40 or 50 years ago...

people would see an unaccompanied backpack in parts of Northern Ireland and be terrorized...

but thankfully, they are figments of Kantian imagination and have no existence outside of the observer's mind...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

Terror management... when I saw this I was reminded of the IRA about 40 or 50 years ago...

people would see an unaccompanied backpack in parts of Northern Ireland and be terrorized...

but thankfully, they are figments of Kantian imagination and have no existence outside of the observer's mind...

-Imp

The past is definitely noumenon

[Atla]

VA can look at something like this:

if X then Y

and have no idea what that means. That must be so strange.

[Iwannaplato]

VA can look at something like this:

if X then Y

and have no idea what that means. That must be so strange.

I suppose that's another way of saying what I kept saying to him about how people were often writing about what his position entailed, and that when he responded that this was a strawman - because he never said Y - he did not understand something rather basic in philosophical discussions. And he certainly never addressed the X entails Y arguments we presented. He never tried to to show that his position X does not entail Y, nor pointed out a weakness in our argument. He just knew he never said Y was the case. Discussion over. 'Strawman' A little knowledge and all that.....

[Atla]

VA can look at something like this:

if X then Y

and have no idea what that means. That must be so strange.

I suppose that's another way of saying what I kept saying to him about how people were often writing about what his position entailed, and that when he responded that this was a strawman - because he never said Y - he did not understand something rather basic in philosophical discussions. And he certainly never addressed the X entails Y arguments we presented. He never tried to to show that his position X does not entail Y, nor pointed out a weakness in our argument. He just knew he never said Y was the case. Discussion over. 'Strawman' A little knowledge and all that.....

He has no idea what an entailment, an implication is. He can't grasp it. His life must be so weird.

Hey I think we figured him out.

[phyllo]

Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death.

So people actually ignore death rather than being terrorized by it.

Kind of punches a hole in your TMT.

[Iwannaplato]

VA can look at something like this:

if X then Y

and have no idea what that means. That must be so strange.

I suppose that's another way of saying what I kept saying to him about how people were often writing about what his position entailed, and that when he responded that this was a strawman - because he never said Y - he did not understand something rather basic in philosophical discussions. And he certainly never addressed the X entails Y arguments we presented. He never tried to to show that his position X does not entail Y, nor pointed out a weakness in our argument. He just knew he never said Y was the case. Discussion over. 'Strawman' A little knowledge and all that.....

He has no idea what an entailment, an implication is. He can't grasp it. His life must be so weird.

Hey I think we figured him out.

Well, the other large issue is the lack of responding to arguments. Like 'in your argument you said ______________________ but this is not the case. Here's why it's not the case.' You know, find a piece you think is faulty, quote that specific piece, and show why it is faulty. What we get is a global assessment 'this argument is weak'. 'Strawman' and then, usually, a direct reassertion of his position. He may phrase it differently. He may bring in a new line of justification or defense, but he doesn't connect these to what you said.

He does justify, though not always well. But he doesn't seem to get that what he writes needs to related to the arguments he is faced with. He just did this with me related to 'comprised'. I'm sure he does this on occasion. But in general, I find he doesn't tailor fit his responses to what he responds to.

It boils down to a kind of 'that's wrong, here's why I'm right.' Without justifying the global assessment of the other person's criticism.

I think this connects also with his not seeming to read what he posts from outside sources. I've noticed you pointing out where he responds to your criticism with Chatgpt and in the very response he is 'rebutting' your criticism, there are serious problems either for the very position he is asserting or problems with other positions he has.

It's like there is a general and vague sense that Atla just disagreed with me - but not any sign about any particulars. Or there is a general vague sense that the AI didn't agree with Atla or me or PH, etc, but no sign he understands how. Nor does he seem to notice any problems the way the AI or article criticizes you would apply as well to his positions, sometimes even better. It's near-sighted, metaphorically. The general thrust is understood: bad, disagrees with me, good, disagrees with Atla, say. But only awareness at a very general level.

Deciding if this is a can't or won't is beyond my scope. I just see it not happening. And even when this is carefully pointed out it is never acknowledged. Now this may cause some short term gains. No need to admit anything, but in the long term what learning is taking place at the non-global assessment level?

I am pretty sure people would deal with him extremely differently if these patterns weren't in place, regardless of whether they agreed or not. At least, many people. The occasional 'Good point, let me try another tack here,' would change the entire dynamic. And leaves so much room to learn. And then there's asking a question: what led you to this line in the argument?

But all that's fantasy. I see your conclusion about logic. I get that. But it seems like something even more general.

[Atla]

I suppose that's another way of saying what I kept saying to him about how people were often writing about what his position entailed, and that when he responded that this was a strawman - because he never said Y - he did not understand something rather basic in philosophical discussions. And he certainly never addressed the X entails Y arguments we presented. He never tried to to show that his position X does not entail Y, nor pointed out a weakness in our argument. He just knew he never said Y was the case. Discussion over. 'Strawman' A little knowledge and all that.....

He has no idea what an entailment, an implication is. He can't grasp it. His life must be so weird.

Hey I think we figured him out.

Well, the other large issue is the lack of responding to arguments. Like 'in your argument you said ______________________ but this is not the case. Here's why it's not the case.' You know, find a piece you think is faulty, quote that specific piece, and show why it is faulty. What we get is a global assessment 'this argument is weak'. 'Strawman' and then, usually, a direct reassertion of his position. He may phrase it differently. He may bring in a new line of justification or defense, but he doesn't connect these to what you said.

He does justify, though not always well. But he doesn't seem to get that what he writes needs to related to the arguments he is faced with. He just did this with me related to 'comprised'. I'm sure he does this on occasion. But in general, I find he doesn't tailor fit his responses to what he responds to.

It boils down to a kind of 'that's wrong, here's why I'm right.' Without justifying the global assessment of the other person's criticism.

I think this connects also with his not seeming to read what he posts from outside sources. I've noticed you pointing out where he responds to your criticism with Chatgpt and in the very response he is 'rebutting' your criticism, there are serious problems either for the very position he is asserting or problems with other positions he has.

It's like there is a general and vague sense that Atla just disagreed with me - but not any sign about any particulars. Or there is a general vague sense that the AI didn't agree with Atla or me or PH, etc, but no sign he understands how. Nor does he seem to notice any problems the way the AI or article criticizes you would apply as well to his positions, sometimes even better. It's near-sighted, metaphorically. The general thrust is understood: bad, disagrees with me, good, disagrees with Atla, say. But only awareness at a very general level.

Deciding if this is a can't or won't is beyond my scope. I just see it not happening. And even when this is carefully pointed out it is never acknowledged. Now this may cause some short term gains. No need to admit anything, but in the long term what learning is taking place at the non-global assessment level?

I am pretty sure people would deal with him extremely differently if these patterns weren't in place, regardless of whether they agreed or not. At least, many people. The occasional 'Good point, let me try another tack here,' would change the entire dynamic. And leaves so much room to learn. And then there's asking a question: what led you to this line in the argument?

But all that's fantasy. I see your conclusion about logic. I get that. But it seems like something even more general.

I think you might not realize how general an issue logic actually is. For example the three fundamental laws of logic shape all of our thinking. The sentences I've written in this comment so far were fundamentally shaped by them too.

The other large issue you mention is actually once again the same issue, the issue of logic. You say "You know, find a piece you think is faulty, quote that specific piece, and show why it is faulty." But that presumes that you have previously arranged (in your mind) the things you've learned throughout your life into a structure according to the rules of logic. But VA never did that because he can't. He just sees a set of all things he has ever learned, and the set has no internal structure. They all blend together. The best he can do is put them into computer folders, half-randomly guessing which one goes where.

This would also explain his speed-reading habit: we read slowly because we have to digest what we read, figure out how new info fits into what we already know. But nothing in VA's head fits to anything else, so he just throws new info into the jumbled set of all things.

To show that something is faulty, you take that something and show that it doesn't logically fit into your established worldview. But VA has no established logical worldview, nor can he relate that new info to his worldview using logic.

[Flannel Jesus]

What is VA so terrified of, that drives him to try to psychologise everyone who thinks differently from him?

[Iwannaplato]

What is VA so terrified of, that drives him to try to psychologise everyone who thinks differently from him?

Well, to be fair to him, I am sure he was insulted quite a bit for his views and this may just be his way of getting back. His early days with his attacks on Islam might have started a habitual way of posting.

But actually I'm not sure he knows that some of his posts are insults and general ones, rather than tit for tat as he says. IOW I'm not sure it's a sign of some great degree of fear.

It comes off fragile to me, but who knows?

But mostly I was simply aiming the idea back at VA himself. Not that I have any hope this will wean him of these not so subtle insult/ad hom threads.

[Atla]

What is VA so terrified of, that drives him to try to psychologise everyone who thinks differently from him?

Imo of the return of his God.

[Flannel Jesus]

What is VA so terrified of, that drives him to try to psychologise everyone who thinks differently from him?

Imo of the return of his God.

I don't think Michael Jackson is coming back

[Atla]

What is VA so terrified of, that drives him to try to psychologise everyone who thinks differently from him?

Imo of the return of his God.

I don't think Michael Jackson is coming back

VA used to be a theist for a long time, knowing him, a fairly rabid theist. I imagine nowadays he still has to concentrate all day everyday to keep his crippling existential terrors at bay. One wrong move and he slips, and his God will be back in full force and with a vengeance. Everyone else must follow his example.

[Iwannaplato]

VA used to be a theist for a long time, knowing him, a fairly rabid theist.

How do we know this? I want links!