PH's (et. al.) Thing is a Thing-in-Itself

[Iwannaplato]

His entire thinking is an inescapable strawman. How does one even get into a mindset where it's impossible to imagine anything other than direct perception? It's baffling.

Maybe VA came out of a serious psychosis and had a total chaos in his mind, and then read the CPR for 3 years, and what he read totally shaped his mind?

I have definitely seen the direct/indirect realism raised you and how this didn't really sink in somehow for VA. I think there is also an ongoing lack of clarity in his posts. I certainly don't think his disagreements are based on miscommunication (alone). But I think his lack of clarity complicates all his discussions. Partly, he uses the thoughts of others and AIs so much without, I think, really integrating the ideas in them. So, people see him asserting things he either doesn't intend to OR doesn't understand. And this just creates a swamp, in which the actual disagreements get bogged down in. If he actually responded by carefully quoting people here, and then addressing the points in what he quotes, it might move things in the direction of a discussion.

[Age]

That's not what Flannel Jesus was saying. That's not what I was saying. I took no position, in that post, on realism/anti-realism. I suggested a communication problem. What you wrote here is utterly incorrect in relation to my post.

Age did take a specific realist stance on the issue.

Will you elaborate on this absolute claim of yours here, or will you, once again, leave whatever 'it' is that you are presuming and believing here up to others to, once more, just imagine what 'it' is that you are even talking about here?

Which claim? There were a few claims in that post of mine.

The claim you made that I did take a 'specific realist' 'stance' on 'the issue'.

So, will you 'now' elaborate on what 'specific realist' thing, and are you absolutely sure that 'it' is a 'stance' that I did take? Also, what is 'the issue' exactly, which you are alluding to, here?

Thank you for asking a clarifying question here also, by the way.

What about my claim makes it absolutist?

The words that you used in expressing your claim, specifically the 'did take' words.

And could you explain what you mean by absolutist?

But I never said nor used the 'absolutist' word above here.

[Iwannaplato]

The claim you made that I did take a 'specific realist' 'stance' on 'the issue'.

Ok, thank you.

What about my claim makes it absolutist?

The words that you used in expressing your claim, specifically the 'did take' words.

And could you explain what you mean by absolutist?

But I never said nor used the 'absolutist' word above here.

Could you explain what you mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'?

When you wrote 'this absolute claim of yours here' was that an absolute claim on your part?

[Age]

The claim you made that I did take a 'specific realist' 'stance' on 'the issue'.

Ok, thank you.

What about my claim makes it absolutist?

The words that you used in expressing your claim, specifically the 'did take' words.

And could you explain what you mean by absolutist?

But I never said nor used the 'absolutist' word above here.

Could you explain what you mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'?

Yes. And, I have partly done so, already.

Could you and will you answer the clarifying questions I asked you here?

[Iwannaplato]

Could you explain what you mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'?

Yes. And, I have partly done so, already.

Actually you didn't. You did answer my question about what made my statement absolutist:

The words that you used in expressing your claim, specifically the 'did take' words.

. but unless I am missing something I don't see an explanation of what you meant by 'absolute'. If you did this in a post elsewhere I am happy to follow a link. If I missed it in the post above, please point out where it was.

Further: what is it about using those two words that makes my claim absolute?

Could you and will you answer the clarifying questions I asked you here?

I can elaborate on what I wrote. But I'm still trying to understand what you are saying my claim was. I wouldn't know what to elaborate on given your description of my claim.

In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist. I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.' I hope you can clarify further by answering my questions above.

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

[Age]

Could you explain what you mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'?

Yes. And, I have partly done so, already.

Actually you didn't. You did answer my question about what made my statement absolutist:

Okay, so I have already answered your question about what made your statement absolutist, but you cannot work out, from that answer, any explanation in regards to what I mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'.

The words that you used in expressing your claim, specifically the 'did take' words.

. but unless I am missing something I don't see an explanation of what you meant by 'absolute'.

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

Obviously, if one says, 'you did take some thing', then that is expressing an 'absolute' point of view, as they, obviously, have not left anything here open to being any thing else.

If you did this in a post elsewhere I am happy to follow a link. If I missed it in the post above, please point out where it was.

As I have already said, it is in your words, 'did take'.

Surely, you did not miss this as well, right?

Could you and will you answer the clarifying questions I asked you here?

I can elaborate on what I wrote. But I'm still trying to understand what you are saying my claim was. I wouldn't know what to elaborate on given your description of my claim.

Okay.

Here is a another prime example of why it took these human beings, back then, when this was being written, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, so I have already answered your question about what made your statement absolutist, but you cannot work out, from that answer, any explanation in regards to what I mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'.

I could certainly work out something, yes. But to be very clear what you meant, I asked a clarifying question.

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

It was a cautious approach, certainly

Obviously, if one says, 'you did take some thing', then that is expressing an 'absolute' point of view, as they, obviously, have not left anything here open to being any thing else.

What do you mean by 'have not left anything here open to being anything else? Does this mean one thinks one's claim cannot possibly be false?

And why does using those words mean what you say it does?

If you did this in a post elsewhere I am happy to follow a link. If I missed it in the post above, please point out where it was.

As I have already said, it is in your words, 'did take'.

That's not defining 'absolute'.

And this part which I wrote above...I didn't see any answers to my questions....

I wrote: In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

I then quoted you:

You wrote: Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist. I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.'

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

Did you think I misrepresented what you said when I referred to is as realist?

I do not consider VA's reaction our posts, including yours, to be justified.
I also do not think my claim was necessarily infallible. I have asked you above to see if you see your post as realist. Let me know. Perhaps if you think it was not realist, I will be convinced your are correct.

Was it an absolute claim on your part that my claim was one that I was certain I would never revise?

You have asked me many times about specific assertions I made to see if I meant them as absolute claims that could not possibly be incorrect. I repeatedly said I did not consider those assertions absolute or said I considered it possible they might be incorrect. You tended to respond something like 'good' so I know you noticed my answers.

I find it odd that you continue to interpret my assertions as absolute.

It's quite uncharitable.

[Iwannaplato]

Here is a another prime example of why it took these human beings, back then, when this was being written, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

Is this an absolute claim on your part?

[Age]

Further: what is it about using those two words that makes my claim absolute?

you added this after I responded to your previous response. Hopefully, I have answered this do you in my last response, already.

In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist.

Just because someone identifies some thing as some thing, then does this mean that thing is that thing, irrefutably?

I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.'

I am not sure how you not knowing what the word 'absolute' above means, or is referring to, exactly, here, how this effects your ability to just elaborate on on what you have actually said, and meant.

I hope you can clarify further by answering my questions above.

I have already. But, maybe not, or never, to your satisfaction.

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

I neither agree, nor disagree, with the views of others, when they cannot prove what they are saying and claiming is even True.

If most people who would use terms like 'realism' and 'antirealism' would consider what I said above here as being so-called 'realist', then so what?

What would this matter on what is actually, really, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct here?

[Age]

Here is a another prime example of why it took these human beings, back then, when this was being written, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

Is this an absolute claim on your part?

If I answered, 'Yes', or, 'No', here, then either way you would not know what I was meaning, nor referring to, exactly, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Here is a another prime example of why it took these human beings, back then, when this was being written, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

Is this an absolute claim on your part?

If I answered, 'Yes', or, 'No', here, then either way you would not know what I was meaning, nor referring to, exactly, right?

You gave me more information in the previous post. But, in any case, that isn't an answer to my question. Do you consider it an absolute claim on your part?

[Iwannaplato]

Further: what is it about using those two words that makes my claim absolute?

you added this after I responded to your previous response. Hopefully, I have answered this do you in my last response, already.

Not to my satisfaction, no. You claimed those words 'did take' meant that it was absolute, but you did not justify it or, as you would say, prove it. I am asking about the justification for/proof of your claim.

In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist.

Just because someone identifies some thing as some thing, then does this mean that thing is that thing, irrefutably?

No.

I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.'

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

I neither agree, nor disagree, with the views of others, when they cannot prove what they are saying and claiming is even True.

OK, I understand that at this point you do not disagree with what I asserted about what you wrote being realist.

[Age]

Okay, so I have already answered your question about what made your statement absolutist, but you cannot work out, from that answer, any explanation in regards to what I mean by 'absolute' in the phrase 'absolute claim'.

I could certainly work out something, yes. But to be very clear what you meant, I asked a clarifying question.

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

It was a cautious approach, certainly

Obviously, if one says, 'you did take some thing', then that is expressing an 'absolute' point of view, as they, obviously, have not left anything here open to being any thing else.

What do you mean by 'have not left anything here open to being anything else?

What 'that' means is that 'that one' is not open to anything else being possible.

See, what is not very common knowledge at all to you human beings, in the days when this is being written, is that the words that you say, write, and use have far, far more power and control over you, then is yet recognised and realized by you human beings.

Whenever absolutely anyone uses words like 'you did take', then they have, literally, closed "themself" off, completely, to anything else being 'the case'.

They have, literally, not left "themself" open to anything else, possibly, being 'the case'.

Hopefully you are starting to see and understand here, now

Does this mean one thinks one's claim cannot possibly be false?

That would all depend on the 'thinking', at the time.

Or, in other words, whether one, "itself", is thinking or believing some thing, and how they "themself" are defining the words that they are using, will affect what is, or is not, possible, to 'that one'.

And why does using those words mean what you say it does?

I think you, still, have some more, or maybe a lot more, to learn and understand here before I could explain, efficiently, all of the actually subtitles that exist here.

After all you, still, believe, absolutely, some things are absolutely true, again because of the very beliefs that you have and hold onto.

If you, still, cannot,yet, see and recognise the actual power that comes from the word 'belief', itself, then you are, still, some way off see, recognizing, learning, and comprehending, and understanding, the power other more subtle words have over you.

If you did this in a post elsewhere I am happy to follow a link. If I missed it in the post above, please point out where it was.

As I have already said, it is in your words, 'did take'.

That's not defining 'absolute'.

Did you, ever, ask me to define the 'absolute' word anywhere?

If yes, there where, exactly?

And this part which I wrote above...I didn't see any answers to my questions....

I wrote: In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

I then quoted you:

You wrote: Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist. I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.'

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

Did you think I misrepresented what you said when I referred to is as realist?

The reason you are not, yet, seeing any answers to your questions is because you are re-replying/responding before you even give me a chance to answer them.

I do not consider VA's reaction our posts, including yours, to be justified.
I also do not think my claim was necessarily infallible. I have asked you above to see if you see your post as realist. Let me know. Perhaps if you think it was not realist, I will be convinced your are correct.

Once more, you seem to have gone completely and utterly so off track, and onto some other tangent, again.

Was it an absolute claim on your part that my claim was one that I was certain I would never revise?

Obviously, one, and even you, could 'revise' their claims. As I have been continually pointing out and exclaiming.

you, once again, "iwannaplato" seem to keep missing the actual point and claims that I keep making here l. And, once more, this is mostly because of the beliefs, and to a lesser extent the presumptions, that continue to persist to hold onto here, very, very tightly.

Once more, for you, while you are holding onto a belief, or believing some thing is true, then you are not open to anything else contrary.

I am not sure how many time you have to be informed of this before you will begin to comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact.

You have asked me many times about specific assertions I made to see if I meant them as absolute claims that could not possibly be incorrect.

Okay, if you say so.

I repeatedly said I did not consider those assertions absolute or said I considered it possible they might be incorrect. You tended to respond something like 'good' so I know you noticed my answers.

Again, okay.

I find it odd that you continue to interpret my assertions as absolute.

I could also find it, quite, odd that someone with 'your calibre' and who processes to be as 'good' as you in the "english language" has much trouble and issue with the 'absolute' word here. But I do not

Also, if you are not absolutely certain about 'your assertions', then why do you even assert them, in the beginning, as being true?

It's quite uncharitable.

Also, if it annoys you when another is continually telling you that you say or do some thing, which you claim you do not, then why do you keep doing the exact same thing to others?

[Age]

Is this an absolute claim on your part?

If I answered, 'Yes', or, 'No', here, then either way you would not know what I was meaning, nor referring to, exactly, right?

You gave me more information in the previous post. But, in any case, that isn't an answer to my question. Do you consider it an absolute claim on your part?

What do you mean with your use of the 'absolute' word, here?

[Age]

Further: what is it about using those two words that makes my claim absolute?

you added this after I responded to your previous response. Hopefully, I have answered this do you in my last response, already.

Not to my satisfaction, no. You claimed those words 'did take' meant that it was absolute, but you did not justify it or, as you would say, prove it. I am asking about the justification for/proof of your claim.

I did,.previously, as well as also since then, again.

Maybe you are, again, missing things here.

In any case, most people, who would use terms like realism and antirealism, would consider

Obviously, the earth existed BEFORE human beings did. So, the thing, 'earth', could be labelled, named, and/or referred to as a 'thing in itself', which, obviously, did not and will not ever need human beings existing for 'it', itself, to exist.

realist. Especially in the context of a response to VA who has asserted things like the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and did not exist before humans arose while he clearly identifies is position as antirealist.

Just because someone identifies some thing as some thing, then does this mean that thing is that thing, irrefutably?

No.

Great. So, we agree that what "veritas aequitas" identifies here as some thing may not be 'that thing' at all right?

I considered it a specific claim because it focused on an example: the existence of the earth prior to humans. And also indicates one facet of realism. I have no idea if this elaboration is what you are looking for, since I do not know what you mean by 'absolute.'

If you disagree that those assertions of yours are realist, please let know. If that is the case, in what ways do you think they are not realist?

I neither agree, nor disagree, with the views of others, when they cannot prove what they are saying and claiming is even True.

OK, I understand that at this point you do not disagree with what I asserted about what you wrote being realist.

Great.