The Democrat Party Hates America

[attofishpi]

Atto, saying something mysterious does not qualify as wisdom or knowledge

Is there something mysterious in comparing of walking on our SOLES for all our days and walking metaphorically upon our SOULS for all our days?

Your history of confusing puns with messages from God does not inspire confidence in your posts.

Do NOT use 'confusing' with me Belinda when you don't even comprehend cumulative evidence within the English language that has merit for my argument...that a 3rd party intelligence formed IT.

Try saying something simple in plain simple English. I enjoy a pun as much as anyone but you are obsessed with puns as indications of truth. Puns are about language, puns are not about wisdom.

..U R not about wisdom either tho R U?

HELL O?


I didn't die for naught

No wisdom here Belinda..

Venus:- https://www.androcies.com/Music/Venus.mp3

[Immanuel Can]

. Your jumping man will not be "explaining" anything at all, if he meets the real ground. And his Idealism will not save him the splat.

You clearly have no idea what Idealism is.

No, I know your story. And I understand Idealism. But reality is reality. And our ideations about it are, in a normal mind, produced by the interaction between our subjective state and the objective realities around us. The latter elicit the former. Our ideations don't float free of those (far less command them) except in the cases of abnormal mind states, such as hallucination or schizophrenia, and dreaming.

If you don't know that, don't go hang gliding. It won't end well.

[Will Bouwman]

. Your jumping man will not be "explaining" anything at all, if he meets the real ground. And his Idealism will not save him the splat.

You clearly have no idea what Idealism is.

No, I know your story. And I understand Idealism.

Well, I suppose you could chalk it down to your new favourite word. 'Idealism' means different things in different contexts. When it is used in the same context as dualism, anyone familiar with philosophy would understand we're talking about ontological idealism. That is the idealism you show no evidence of understanding.

But reality is reality. And our ideations about it are, in a normal mind, produced by the interaction between our subjective state and the objective realities around us.

Well, in ontological idealism, the objective realities around us are still real, they just happen to be made of something more like mind than matter.

The latter elicit the former. Our ideations don't float free of those (far less command them) except in the cases of abnormal mind states, such as hallucination or schizophrenia, and dreaming.

You've left out some exotic interpretations of quantum mechanics. You don't have to be mad or asleep to be an ontological idealist. You know about Bishop Berkeley, and I have mentioned Bernardo Kastrup and his analytic idealism. The point is that those two idealists, like many others, can maintain their beliefs because they are not contradicted by any evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

You clearly have no idea what Idealism is.

No, I know your story. And I understand Idealism.

Well, I suppose you could chalk it down to your new favourite word. 'Idealism' means different things in different contexts. When it is used in the same context as dualism, anyone familiar with philosophy would understand we're talking about ontological idealism. That is the idealism you show no evidence of understanding.

You're right: Idealism means different things. Several, in fact. So you'd best go ahead and spell out exactly which form of it you're backing, so we disambiguate the discussion.

But reality is reality. And our ideations about it are, in a normal mind, produced by the interaction between our subjective state and the objective realities around us.

Well, in ontological idealism, the objective realities around us are still real, they just happen to be made of something more like mind than matter.

If you go hang gliding, it won't be your mind that kills you.

The latter elicit the former. Our ideations don't float free of those (far less command them) except in the cases of abnormal mind states, such as hallucination or schizophrenia, and dreaming.

You've left out some exotic interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Again, spell out what version of Idealism you're backing.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, I suppose you could chalk it down to your new favourite word. 'Idealism' means different things in different contexts. When it is used in the same context as dualism, anyone familiar with philosophy would understand we're talking about ontological idealism. That is the idealism you show no evidence of understanding.

You're right: Idealism means different things. Several, in fact. So you'd best go ahead and spell out exactly which form of it you're backing, so we disambiguate the discussion.

I'm not backing any form of ontological realism, I am simply expressing the rudimentary philosophical principle that the same information can be interpreted in different ways. That is pretty much why philosophy exists; different philosophers look at the same information and create a theory that is compatible with that information. The same is true of science; exactly the same data can, and frequently is interpreted by different individuals and research groups in different ways. In both cases it's a bottom up process, here are some facts, now weave them into a narrative. Since the facts are the same, the different narratives philosophers or scientists create will be compatible with those same facts. The only way they can be separated is by the predictions they make, which can then be tested, potentially falsifying one or several of the rival narratives. Now though, there is a modified set of facts, and the process of narrative creation starts again.

[attofishpi]

..truly, sometimes you are a breath of fresh air Will.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I suppose you could chalk it down to your new favourite word. 'Idealism' means different things in different contexts. When it is used in the same context as dualism, anyone familiar with philosophy would understand we're talking about ontological idealism. That is the idealism you show no evidence of understanding.

You're right: Idealism means different things. Several, in fact. So you'd best go ahead and spell out exactly which form of it you're backing, so we disambiguate the discussion.

I'm not backing any form of ontological realism...

Idealism: which form of Idealism are you backing. I said nothing that would warrant your last answer.

[Will Bouwman]

So I say:

I'm not backing any form of ontological realism...

And you ask:

Idealism: which form of Idealism are you backing.

I am not backing any form of idealism.
I think it is time to leave you to your blissful ignorance with the other nut jobs on this forum who are incapable of understanding rudimentary philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

So I say:

I'm not backing any form of ontological realism...

And you ask:

Idealism: which form of Idealism are you backing.

I am not backing any form of idealism.
I think it is time to leave you to your blissful ignorance with the other nut jobs on this forum who are incapable of understanding rudimentary philosophy.

The attempt at verbal shaming ad hominem and the "no true Scotsman" effort are very much noted...and appreciated. They signal the bankruptcy of thought, as surely as anything could.

In other words, though you admit there are many kinds of Idealisms, you don't have any form of Idealism specifically in mind. Are we to conclude, then, that you never had any idea what you were talking about?

And now, you're "taking your ball and going home"? We've seen that before.

[mickthinks]

Are we to conclude, then, that you never had any idea what you were talking about?

Manny is of course free to draw any conclusions he feels inclined towards. The first amendment was never intended to apply only to the soundly argued theses of competent philosophers.

[Immanuel Can]

Are we to conclude, then, that you never had any idea what you were talking about?

Manny is of course free to draw any conclusions he feels inclined towards. The first amendment was never intended to apply only to the soundly argued theses of competent philosophers.

Interesting. A man who doesn't know what "Idealism" he's even talking about is a "competent philosopher" "arguing" a "thesis soundly"? From a rational perspective, you've set your bar far, far too low, if that's all you expect. But as you say, the first amendment doesn't play favourites.

[mickthinks]

A man who doesn't know what "Idealism" he's even talking about is a "competent philosopher" "arguing" a "thesis soundly"?

I’m guessing that’s intended as a reference to Will and his part in the limping dialogue between you. I say I’m guessing, not because I recognise it as a description; I don’t; but because otherwise it makes no sense at all for you to have offered it in this context.

Did you really think that Will has been arguing a philosophical thesis? He hasn’t. Unless you count “Manny is out of his depth” as a philosophical thesis requiring special knowledge and arcane methodologies for its imputation.

[Immanuel Can]

A man who doesn't know what "Idealism" he's even talking about is a "competent philosopher" "arguing" a "thesis soundly"?

Did you really think that Will has been arguing a philosophical thesis?

No. But it seems he thinks that's what he's been doing. He is, after all, on a philosophy site, and I don't suspect he's just dropped his compass and ended up here by accident.

What he's really doing, I would say, is trying to defend a personal preference by attempting to confuse any critiques, a stratagem which has now been reduced to a string of ad homs and no-true-Scotsman fallacies, plus attempting to end the discussion before it can take him where he doesn't want to go.

[mickthinks]

But it seems he thinks that's what he's been doing. He is, after all, on a philosophy site, and I don't suspect he's just dropped his compass and ended up here by accident.

The reasons someone first comes to a site and the reasons one takes issue at some later date with a contribution to the site from someone else can be different.

You do see that, Manny? Please tell me you see that!

[Immanuel Can]

But it seems he thinks that's what he's been doing. He is, after all, on a philosophy site, and I don't suspect he's just dropped his compass and ended up here by accident.

The reasons someone first comes to a site and the reasons one takes issue at some later date with a contribution to the site from someone else can be different.

You do see that, Manny? Please tell me you see that!

What you're pointing out is that none of that has to do with reason.

Yes, that can be true: but on a philosophy site, it's a bug not a feature.