Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:08 pm
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
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 12:05 pm
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?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:22 pm
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?