How to deal (in terms of life)

[Flannel Jesus]

You wrote that cars aren't part of the universe.

No I didn't.

"In the real world a car has no parts and a car isn't a part of the universe"

[Atla]

You wrote that cars aren't part of the universe.

No I didn't.

"In the real world a car has no parts and a car isn't a part of the universe"

Yes because the universe has no parts, which doesn't mean that cars aren't part of the universe in the sense that they aren't real. Hello?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know why you're saying hello? like it should be obvious what you think. I have no idea what you think.

To me, I read you say "a car isn't a part of the universe" and it seems obvious to me that you think "cars aren't part of the universe", but when I said that you replied that you never said that. There's nothing obvious about your views in this conversation, so please don't "hello?" me.

It's not at all obvious what you mean by "real" when you're also saying they aren't part of the universe. You also haven't confirmed that you think they're fundamental, so it's extra not obvious to me that you think they're real, given what you said before.

[Atla]

I don't know why you're saying hello? like it should be obvious what you think. I have no idea what you think.

To me, I read you say "a car isn't a part of the universe" and it seems obvious to me that you think "cars aren't part of the universe", but when I said that you replied that you never said that. There's nothing obvious about your views in this conversation, so please don't "hello?" me.

It's not at all obvious what you mean by "real" when you're also saying they aren't part of the universe. You also haven't confirmed that you think they're fundamental, so it's extra not obvious to me that you think they're real, given what you said before.

Don't just take a few words out of context, read what I write.

[Flannel Jesus]

All of this is beside the point anyway, because regardless of whether Atla is a reductionist or thinks the universe has cars in it, the OP is still convinced that all reductionists think non fundamental things don't exist - despite the numerous actually reductionist sources saying otherwise.

That's the real part that needs ironing out.

There are reductionists who think that. They're called eliminative reductionists. However most people who have a reductionist view of reality don't consider themselves eliminativist, so it's a bit of a - is strawman the right word? - strawman to talk about reductionism as if they're all eliminativists, when they're clearly telling you they're not.

[Atla]

whether Atla is a reductionist

How about reading what I write?

[Flannel Jesus]

whether Atla is a reductionist

How about reading what I write?

What in particular would you like me to read? I've tried reading it before and, perhaps due to some failing of mine or perhaps not, I obviously didn't get it and you obviously don't want to put any effort into rewording it.

If you want me to understand your point of view, maybe try to word it in a different way. If you don't want me to understand it, please stop begging me to read it.

You said if cars aren't fundamental, they aren't real. You also said cars aren't part of the universe. I'm led to believe you neither think cars are fundamental, nor are real. If you don't think I've understood correctly, try with different words, or just stop asking me to read your words

[Atla]

You seem to be drunk.

[Flannel Jesus]

You seem to be drunk.

Anyway, now that we've talked about you for long enough, do you have thoughts on this?
---+
All of this is beside the point anyway, because the OP is still convinced that all reductionists think non fundamental things don't exist - despite the numerous actually reductionist sources saying otherwise.

That's the real part that needs ironing out.

There are reductionists who think that. They're called eliminative reductionists. However most people who have a reductionist view of reality don't consider themselves eliminativist, so it's a bit of a - is strawman the right word? - strawman to talk about reductionism as if they're all eliminativists, when they're clearly telling you they're not.

----

Do you, Atla, accept that not all reductionists are eliminativists? Should op change course on this one?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It feels like all the hope and magic of life is just gone...and it almost makes me cry...if I could. I just...can't deal with anything...it feels like my life eroded over time and there's nothing left...and nothing to look forward to...

Curious how the ideas we are presented with, and which we accept or give assent to, then define for us our existential possibilities or, as you seem to express, the dead-end and psychological trap of our own Construct.

But just as a view or vision was constructed, and we had to give our assent to it for it to be operative, it stands to reason that we can also negate it and bring about another alternative.

In the “history of ideas”, as most seem to realize, we have moved to a plane of general hopelessness. Simply because we gave assent that, due to the reigning predicates, it must be like that. There is no alternative.

We built our prison stone by stone. All the knots we tied are our own.

Thus I feel that we must face resolutely what our own Mr Determinism brings to our attention. The power in an absolutist, totalizing argument that — (this is my assertion) — destroys Man. It amounts to a totalizing reduction to which there is no alternative!

Naturally, man who senses his freedom, who knows that he has access to decisive power, rebels against such a sentence to a nihilistic existential prison. But also true (it must be so) that he will not make his prison disappear by merely wishing it to disappear. He worked over years to build the prison, and the prison is therefore an established consequence.

The Model of “what reality is” and is not must be reconstructed. It is no easy feat.

[Lacewing]

It feels like all the hope and magic of life is just gone...and it almost makes me cry...if I could. I just...can't deal with anything...it feels like my life eroded over time and there's nothing left...and nothing to look forward to...

Curious how the ideas we are presented with, and which we accept or give assent to, then define for us our existential possibilities or, as you seem to express, the dead-end and psychological trap of our own Construct.

But just as a view or vision was constructed, and we had to give our assent to it for it to be operative, it stands to reason that we can also negate it and bring about another alternative.

In the “history of ideas”, as most seem to realize, we have moved to a plane of general hopelessness. Simply because we gave assent that, due to the reigning predicates, it must be like that. There is no alternative.

We built our prison stone by stone. All the knots we tied are our own.

Thus I feel that we must face resolutely what our own Mr Determinism brings to our attention. The power in an absolutist, totalizing argument that — (this is my assertion) — destroys Man. It amounts to a totalizing reduction to which there is no alternative!

Naturally, man who senses his freedom, who knows that he has access to decisive power, rebels against such a sentence to a nihilistic existential prison. But also true (it must be so) that he will not make his prison disappear by merely wishing it to disappear. He worked over years to build the prison, and the prison is therefore an established consequence.

The Model of “what reality is” and is not must be reconstructed. It is no easy feat.

That's the most awesome thing I've ever seen you write.

[Darkneos]

When it comes to concrete objects such as cars, a resounding no. When a car is non-fundamental then it can't be "real".

So you believe cars are not real, right?

Why the hell would I believe that, how did you arrive at that?

You said so. That when it comes to concrete objects like that they don't.

[FlashDangerpants]

predicates

The way you use that word doesn't really work in a philosophical context. In this field, subject and predicate are components of a statement where predicate means that which can be said of the subject.

So in the proposition "Jacobi wears a brown shirt" brown is a predicate and shirt is a subject about which the brownness is being predicated, whereas Jacobi is a subject about which it is not.

[Atla]

So you believe cars are not real, right?

Why the hell would I believe that, how did you arrive at that?

You said so. That when it comes to concrete objects like that they don't.

No I didn't say that. I said non-fundamental cars aren't real. Again: I'm not a reductionist so there are no "non-fundamental" cars to me, there are only cars.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Flash, please! I have just crossed an inner Rubicon, cut a restraining Gordian knot, removed an irritating pebble from my interpretive shoe — and there you are a Dragon breathing fire standing right in my way! Have you no decency?!

Back! Away!

[Late Latin praedicāre, praedicāt-, from Latin, to proclaim : prae-, pre- + dicāre, to proclaim; see deik- in Indo-European roots.

[1400–50; late Middle English (< Middle French predicat) < Medieval Latin praedicātum, n. use of neuter of Latin praedicātus, past participle of praedicāre to declare publicly, assert =prae- pre- + dicāre to show, indicate, make known; compare preach]