Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

I've got you marked down as beta.

That should make the boss inside your head very happy!
.

Mark me as what you will but if I was a revolutionary hiding behind a mask I would only expect a boss to ask me to remove it.

You can dismiss entire libraries with a few sentences.

Say something relevant.

creative wrote:

Sigh...

Yet again, you've missed the point entirely. Yes, mistakes in thought/belief are real, and they have real effects/affects upon those who make them. It does not follow from the fact that we are/have been mistaken about some things that we are/have been mistaken about everything.

Satyr:

You mean like you just mistakenly assumed that this is what I said?

Explaining the point that you missed is not assuming you said it. Your rejoinder indicates that it is still the case that you've missed the point.

creative:

Of course that particular line of thinking(what constitutes making a mistake) necessarily presupposes that which you've overtly denied the existence of, so I suspect that it may not 'sit well' with your own personal conviction(s).

Really?
You mean degrees of awareness excludes a mistake?

Yet another relevant point being missed - and called out ahead of time, none-the-less. Mistake presupposes truth... necessarily so. Of course becoming aware of this requires talking about that which you purportedly deny the existence of. Interestingly enough, when you then go on to attribute 'superiority' to your viewpoint, it renders the term "superiority" meaningless; as if such a thing could even exist without necessarily presupposing that which connects/relates thought/belief and reality(truth). It is an empty assertion. I mean what else could a "superior" viewoint consist of if it is not thought/belief that matches up to the way things are, thought/belief that corresponds to known fact, that is coherent? And if that is what you mean by "superior", then you are indeed talking about truth, just as I am. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Regarding your ambiguous phrasing "degrees of awareness": It is a meaningless combination of marks, an incoherent string of symbols. Degrees are a matter of quantifiability. Awareness/consciousness are not quantifiable in such increments. Yet another failed attempt to put thought/belief into meaningful and coherent terms. I know, I know, that that is - according to your self-proclaimed 'superior' viewpoint - a consequence of how language works. As if something necessarily followed which lends support to your self-pronouncement.

I think your God, this truth, must have been mistaken to create one such as you.

I think rhetoric is all you've shown.

You've managed to ignore or misunderstand everything that was being said. Excellent.

I know what it would take for your claims to be true.

A secular form of the absolute, once this ideal of god was killed, has been that it emerges in many other forms, like: particle, thing...and your "truth". Minds need certainty.

This kind of thinking is a result - a cancerous vestige in thought - of the Church usurping truth with a capital "T" and placing "the" in front of it. Truth, which is capitalized here for grammatical purposes only, was and still is wrongfully attached to the God concept via habit(historical precedent) alone. It does not follow from the fact that the God of Abraham has been falsified, that everything which was/is attributed to that deity falls as well. Trust, truth, belief, faith, morality, and many other things can stand without the God concept.

Satyr wrote:

I came here to be lynched by a man defending the masses.
Are you not he?
Are you not their hero?

creative:

See what happens when expectations are grounded upon false presupposition(s)?

A mistake?

Very good.

Satyr:

Like all simple minds you have a problem in thinking in degrees.

As I've already explained, I think that the phrase "thinking in degrees" is meaningless metaphorical/rhetorical nonsense - a fill in the blank and 'choose your own adventure' sort of poetic sophistry. Don't get me wrong, metaphor is powerful, but just rather useless in terms of making a concise, coherent, and meaningful philosophical point. That is what you're attempting to do with it, and it cannot be done. If my thinking that constitutes adequate evidence/reason to warrant the belief that I have a "simple mind", then I stand guilty as charged.

Step it up, will ya?

creative:

Given the fact that we can literally look between the lines of the written English language and clearly see for ourselves that there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the meaning of the words in question, we can confidently conclude that 'reading between the lines' is not meant to be taken literally. Figuratively speaking, if by "read between" the lines we are talking about deliberately attempting to divulge, or expose some sort of covert, perhaps even necessarily implied intention and/or meaning, then once again we have nothing to work with, except the sum total of our thought/belief according to how we have internalized own past experience(the belief system) and it's role in current apperception.

Satyr:

Nice synopsis, boy...it is based on your obsession with the absolute truth which forces you into an all or nothing position.
In this case ALL are equally guilty of what you just said...Like everything boy, it must be applied or it must be observed and judged as to how the prediction you make using your conclusions are supported by the behavior.

"Nice synopsis, boy..." sufficed. It was based on universal truth that is being confirmed again and again.

creative:

Now, here we are at an interesting place, so to speak. A listener(hence forth - a linguist) comes to an experience such as the one that we are currently engaged in, with untold amounts of preconceived notions. That is a universal truth. It is the case across humanity, as far as we can know, without exception.

You are projecting your errors, boy.

Every opinion, boy, is an assertion of a superior probability, not an absolute fact. Only an idiot would claim to know truth, in the absolute, or that this truth is accessible to a human mind or that it even exists as anything but human concept.
Universal is an interesting concept...I would get into it but you've failed to meet my demands: SEX?....AGE?...LOCATION?

You function from a top down, delusion, dear boy, where I function from a bottom up.

Ever heard of Godel?

...a binary way of thinking.

You do realize that in Boolean logic there are no false statements? Again, a failed attempt to say something profound and/or meaningful.

It's like you do not believe in your own beliefs.

It is about time you got something right. I do not, in fact, 'believe in' my own beliefs. Rather, I believe that they are true... just like you do. I believe X means I believe X is true, is the case, corresponds to known fact/reality. It is utterly foolish for anyone to claim that they do not think that their belief matches up to the way things are. The term "superior" most certainly does not apply to such a self-defeating claim.

Little boy, your reluctance to reciprocate says a lot.
I'm sure you have a good excuse though.

uncreativesoul wrote: Yet again, you've missed the point entirely.

It would be more honest to say that you missed the point, as you have no way of knowing the point I am making, given that you continuously fail to get it.

Now I understand admitting that you are stupid is hard to do, but I will only say that you are not absolutely stupid, as you have some "degree" of intelligence.
Well enough to learn language in the simplistic way that you did.

uncreativesoul wrote:Yes, mistakes in thought/belief are real, and they have real effects/affects upon those who make them.

Very good, coward, so you do not need to quantify a kick in the nuts, with a numerical figure you invent, but you experience it nonetheless.

Imbecile, there was light before man invented a standard to measure it with.
It is this standard which you take as an absolute, when it is nothing but a human invention based on human limitations reflecting human biological conditions.

uncreativesoul wrote:It does not follow from the fact that we are/have been mistaken about some things that we are/have been mistaken about everything.

Once more you are trapped in your dualistic, binary, crap.
Retard, we are right or wrong in degrees of accuracy, unless you wish to claim that man has reached, in any are some disciplines, a final and singular conclusion.
Theories change, trying to incorporate within their premises the growing details man becomes aware of using technologies that increase his perceptions...or his perceptual even horizons.

There is no definite knowledge you stupid fuck, as there is no end to human ignorance.
There is no certainty, except in the mind of a faith believer and a simpleton...like you.
Not even in the realm of mythology, like the concept of God, can any definite answer be given...not even by you "humble" souls who are not bullies.
See who the bully is, dear boy?

Man can only say "From what I know, and based on my experiences or the accumulated experiences of generations of men passed down to me in literature....in code in other words using the binary method... can I say that this or that is more or less probable".

Even Newton's Laws are placed into question, you stupid old fuck, when man becomes aware of the whacky world of quantum physics.
Only a naive simpleton, or a pompous arrogant fuck, one pretending to be humble to-boot, would say that man has come to an absolute conclusion on anything.
You are proposing an end, you nihilistic p****....do you even see it?
You are a nihilist.

uncreativesoul wrote:Explaining the point that you missed is not assuming you said it. Your rejoinder indicates that it is still the case that you've missed the point.

Imbecile, the point that I make has been understood by others, not many as the herd is always in the majority. That YOU do not get it does not make it false.
If a farmer does not understand Wittgenstein this does not make his works and thoughts meaningless.

uncreativesoul wrote:Yet another relevant point being missed - and called out ahead of time, none-the-less. Mistake presupposes truth... necessarily so.

Yes, retard, as I explained why in the post I made about language.
Imbecile, one must make a hypothesis to find it lacking, ergo only when a retard, like you, makes an absolute statement can it be absolutely wrong.
Only in the human mind, which constructs artificial absolutes, can the concept of truth and error exist....outside of it reality just is reality.

A supposition of truth, you retard, means an interpretation of something...something is being assessed. Truth is a projection of a mind's understanding...and since it is a projection it can be false or true, within the parameters the mind gives it or within the awareness the mind is capable of.
You are anti-empirical, you stupid fuck, as you imply that there is a final end to knowledge, an omniscient state, when science only deals in a hypothesis which is more probable or less so, given the current information available.

uncreativesoul wrote:Of course becoming aware of this requires talking about that which you purportedly deny the existence of.

Did you understand anything I wrote?
Nope.
Imbecile..the search for knowledge and understanding is the search for what man lacks...to presuppose that there is a finality to it, is your projection, akin to the faith in God.

If you are honest, which you cannot be since you are a simplistic coward, you would say that one man's perspective is superior to another's without this meaning that his perspective is the final word on anything.
Idiot, natural selection is not the search for an ideal form....it is a competition over a superior form within a given environment....since environments change this ideal alters.

uncreativesoul wrote:Interestingly enough, when you then go on to attribute 'superiority' to your viewpoint, it renders the term "superiority" meaningless; as if such a thing could even exist without necessarily presupposing that which connects/relates thought/belief and reality(truth).

"Truth" is a linguistic tool, you stupid fuck...not something that exists outside the mind.
Truth, like all absolutes, is a human projection of that which is absent in reality....to give the mind a direction, a goal, to orient it...to construct an ideal, an idea.
This is why they say "Will to power...." it is always a "to"...you stupid old fucktard. The term "Power" taken literally, means omnipotence, but this is absent or improbable.
We say "Search for knowledge" in this case the word "knowledge" can imply omniscience, which, again, is improbable and absent.
There is no Being, you stupid old fuck...only Becoming.

uncreativesoul wrote:It is an empty assertion. I mean what else could a "superior" viewoint consist of if it is not thought/belief that matches up to the way things are, thought/belief that corresponds to known fact, that is coherent?

Superior means more effective within a given environment, you cowardly, stupid christian.
Imbecile, in the natural sciences where they say "Survival of the fittest" what does fittest mean? Do they quantify it to your liking, you stupid fuck? What does "fit" mean then?
Is the a numerical value that has to be placed there...and then?

Define the #1...without looking like the douche-bag that you are.

uncreativesoul wrote:And if that is what you mean by "superior", then you are indeed talking about truth, just as I am. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

No, retard, "truth" is a static idea, so ambiguous that it can mean anything. In reality all it signifies is the convictions of the mind which is using it.

uncreativesoul wrote:Regarding your ambiguous phrasing "degrees of awareness": It is a meaningless combination of marks, an incoherent string of symbols. Degrees are a matter of quantifiability.

Only within the mind, you stupid fuck.
The mind sets up the abstractions and then invents the measuring standard.

uncreativesoul wrote:Awareness/consciousness are not quantifiable in such increments.

Then you are an absolutist thinker, boy...welcome to the Judeo-Christian and Parmenidian delusion.
Name one absolute, then.
One will do.
Is the One an absolute? Is One THE TRUTH?
Can it be considered a human abstraction so ambiguous that it can be applied to anything? Can it be infinitely divided when it is applied to the real world?
Then if it can, and if it does, it is an attempt to signify a singularity in a world that lacks it.
Between 1 and 2 there is no gap, you moron.....there is a continuity....Only the notion of degrees can express it. But when you start measuring the degrees, you are setting up new static points and so the degrees you set up using your human standard go into infinity.

uncreativesoul wrote:This kind of thinking is a result - a cancerous vestige in thought - of the Church usurping truth with a capital "T" and placing "the" in front of it.

That is what YOU are doing, imbecile. You do not even realize it.
Whether you put a capital "T" or simply imply an absolute Truth, you hypocrite, you are saying the same thing...and that is what I deny...your Christian church's stupidities.

Moron, you may be an atheist, but your secular mind is infected with monist doctrine. You are the modern adaptation of this infection.

uncreativesoul wrote:Truth, which is capitalized here for grammatical purposes only, was and still is wrongfully attached to the God concept via habit(historical precedent) alone. It does not follow from the fact that the God of Abraham has been falsified, that everything which was/is attributed to that deity falls as well. Trust, truth, belief, faith, morality, and many other things can stand without the God concept.

As you've proven, you stupid hypocrite.
You've done away with God but you've maintained the Absolute, the Ideal, the End and Beginning, He signified.
You've simply abstracted God down to a numerical value...and still call it ONE, you stupid fuck. No need for THE One.

uncreativesoul wrote:As I've already explained, I think that the phrase "thinking in degrees" is meaningless metaphorical/rhetorical nonsense - a fill in the blank and 'choose your own adventure' sort of poetic sophistry.

And you lack the poetic spirit to be a philosopher.

Flaubert, Gustav wrote:As a rule the philosopher is a kind of mongrel being a cross between scientist and poet, envious of both.

Imbecile, even your science is now using poetics to describe Quantum Physics.
Quantify a vibrating string.
Quantify a particle which only acts like one when you observe it.

Imbecile define the basis of your religion the #1.

uncreativesoul wrote:Don't get me wrong, metaphor is powerful, but just rather useless in terms of making a concise, coherent, and meaningful philosophical point. That is what you're attempting to do with it, and it cannot be done. If my thinking that constitutes adequate evidence/reason to warrant the belief that I have a "simple mind", then I stand guilty as charged.

And this is where your stupidity shines through, because even the language you use is metaphorical and only taken as being otherwise by imbeciles who can then provide no evidence for what they believe.

uncreativesoul wrote:Step it up, will ya?

Bravo!!!
I don't need to...I think I'm done with you.
You've served your purpose.

uncreativesoul wrote:Ever heard of Godel?

No...was he a Rock n' Roll singer?

Dear boy....you are dull...and so afraid.

No matter.....

p.s.
Oh and one last thing, douche-bag simpleton, before I leave you to pray to your new Lord the ONE....

---When you say "one apple" are you referring to the apple with all its forms throughout its ephemeral existence....are you referring to one of the billions of cells which make-up what you call "apple"....are you referring to the uncountable strings that may or may not be participating in its appearance or are you referring, you stupid imbecile, to the abstraction your mind has created from the sensual input simplifying and generalizing the phenomenon down to a thing...which you then give a name to, and a symbol?

---Imbecile you being "philosopher and all" quantify Dasien...quantify Will....quantify thing-in-itself....quantify Ideal.....quantify Idea....

Nothing but fluidity, you stupid old fuck, which you, with your simplifying gaze, reduce to a thing.

Sex?
Biologically male, but intellectually female.

Age?
Around middle-age, I would say.

Location?
Probably the good ol' U.S. of A. but any anglo-saxon cesspool will do.
With Globalization, another name for Americanization, it's hard to tell where this infection of stupidity has taken root, calling itself modernity, progress or, worse, liberalism.
Imbecile in natural selection superior/inferior determine which lives and which dies....good for you your stupidity is useful to a system that depends on morons to run smoothly. It rewards them well...I must admit...hedonism is rampant.

Political Views?
Liberal - scared shitless of anything which exposes you to a reality which would not be as kind as this humanitarian system which defends unfit mutations as a matter of self-preservation.
Your Judeo-Christianity has adapted to a modern world where the childishness of a God has given way to an even more uniforming, universal, abstraction...all viruses mutate.


Oh and ...you win...of course.
This was, from the get-go a given, like your Truth.
Something about arguing with a fool or a woman...or a child, was once said by someone...forget who.
Have you tried talking sense to a christian who thinks the Rapture is imminent? Might as well punch a wall.
Same thickness. No nuance...no intellectual flexibility. All rigid absolutes, culminating in the One; culminating gin one absolute Truth.

I leave you now to the resident pedophile, info, who found in my views a recipe to defend his sexual dysfunctions and rescue himself from what this obsession says about him and his entire family tree.
He's found a nice home here, amongst the herd.
Every herd needs a tick.

Ta, Ta...
It'll make some of you insecure twits feel superior, at the very least.

My job is done.

I also loved the bravado that followed.
Talk about rhetoric...Reminded me of this scene...
Put em Up
...or more so this scene...
Black Knight
My little black sheep.

Awww... come back 'an swing yer dick around some more. I was just about to show you how the absolutism espoused within our conversation belongs to you and your mental imaginings, all the while using your expressions to instantiate truth some more. C'mon... it'll be fun.

Or, I can show you exactly how truth is not just a linguistic tool, and certainly not a man-made concept. A priori style.

Game... or a cur? I'm a leg dog, in case ya can't tell. Are you gonna scratch or turn?

Satyr wrote: Have you tried talking sense to a christian who thinks the Rapture is imminent? Might as well punch a wall.

sounds like fighting the windmills?
have they ever tried talking sense to you? you know the "talkin sense"-voice?
do they have different views from what makes sense to you?

And you lack the poetic spirit to be a philosopher...

Hmmm... this he-she says, thinking in lieu
Where shall we go, what shall we do?
The bully has left and took with him the rope
His words becoming my twine, like an addict with dope

Now fiendishly wanting, I miss the 'ole chap
His Dasein stood strong, while truth took a nap
Martin had rendered... static his thought
As if because of "becoming", being was all for naught

"Look around you" he said, and listen to me!
There is no being. There is only becoming - you see?
Reality is fluid, and therefore subject to change.
To say there is truth would quite simply be strange."

But as strange as it seems, such queerness is not
A result of our language, but rather, of our having ought
To know the distinction between belief and the world
By acknowledging mistake, we see truth then unfurl

--

Damn dude, you're spot on I tell ya.

Now that we're done waving our dicks around(I presume), care to do some philosophy? You have said some interesting things, many of which I actually agree with. In between ad homs, that is. By the way, in case ya can't tell, those do not impress me much.

Alright,

Now that the show is over, let's put away the comedy/tragedy masks, make a point to give proper credit to Thespian Troupe 1709 and then saddle up and do some philosophy. From a few pages back, these things warrant my attention...

Satyr:

Because reality is fluid, any evaluation of it is obsolete once it is made, and so a man can only find an approach to certainty and this certainty must be judged in comparison to another man's and how the opinions offered reference a shared experience with reality.

I disagree, however, let me first say that I do not hold a position that demands immutable conclusions nor absolutism as I've heard it described. But, allow me to note here - using your terms - that corresponding to the degree of necessity and sufficiency, is my doubt of the existence of X. In fact, I argue against both absolutism and immutability in certain given contexts. Like you, I also do not find the need to attach a disclaimer to all of my posts in order to acknowledge a lack of absolute - unshakable - certainty on my part.

Be all that as it may, my objection here is simple... It does not follow from the fact that reality is dynamic(fluid) that "any evaluation of it is obsolete once it is made". In order for that to hold good, everything in the universe must be in a state of continual change in such a way that it renders all kinds of human evaluation to be immediately useless, outdated, and/or no longer accurate. That is just not always the case. For instance, my coffee cup is on the table in front of me. That is an empirical fact. Until it is acted upon by an external force in such a way that it changes it's position relative to it's own frame of reference, it will remain so. That is a bit of knowledge. There are events occurring that we know of, particularly molecular ones, that cannot be immediately registered within our minds even if the event is happening in the same spatiotemporal frame of reference and we are paying close attention. That is true because of the fact that we have expanded our access to the universe by offsetting the capability limitations inherent in human sensory perception with different man-made tools. My knowing that that molecular decay is occurring, unseen, right before my eyes does not produce either a mental affect which warrants my doubting that it will remain where it is, nor can it produce a physical effect that is negligible enough to be able to place reasonable doubt upon the belief that it will remain where it is unless acted upon by an external force. That is knowledge being put to use - or becoming useful if you prefer. This has held good since it was discovered. Of that, I am absolutely certain(to use the term in a casual way).

Now, because I am aware of the possibility(however large/small it may be I cannot say) that there could be external forces that act upon us in ways that are unbeknownst to us, I cannot say - nor need I be able to - that I have or need to have omniscience. The liklihood regarding the possibility that our knowledge is incomplete is much higher than not, if I were to guess. As I've already stated, knowledge is accrued. Language is but one of the tools that we have to gain knowledge. Therefore, "Where word breaks off, no thing may be." does not hold good. It confuses the map with the territory, so to speak. Although, it works fine IFF we are talking about communicating ones thought/belief to another. That is a distinction being neglected... not becoming so.

In still other words, an opinion is an assessment of what is most probable and it then must be continuously updated given that reality is dynamic, and/or tested with application - pragmatism.

Not all opinions are assessments of "what is most probable". I mean, strictly speaking I agree, however there comes a point in which self-doubt/radical skepticism completely deadens the senses. I mean, repetitive thought becomes internalized in such a way that it skews what parts of experience we perceive, distinguish, identify, and later recognize. That is part of the manner in which our own thoughts affect the quality of future experience that we have. The only reference point we have is our own past experience, specifically, the lasting affects that that experience has had upon us. Now, if we hold that we cannot know anything at all with absolute and unshakable 100% certainty, then we have just attained the level of certainty that we are attempting to deny. It is incoherent. We need only to note, that just because we have been mistaken about some things does not mean that we have been mistaken about everything. Ergo cogito sum presupposes sensory perception, distinction, and identification - these are the mental acts that, when combined with accessible memory produces actively working mental correlation(consciousness, if you prefer). That sets out that which is necessary and sufficient in order to constitute both, delineating the contingencies for, and the event of thought/belief formation itself.

STOP... re-read the above.

That last claim beginning with "Ergo" and ending the paragraph is another universal truth. Now, I'll be more than glad to entertain an intelligent objection that is void of ad hom. However, we must only think of one exception to the rule in order to negate it. There is no stronger justification for assenting to a belief than one which meets and offers such criterion.

Reality being the sum total of all interactions and that which is independent from all interpretations of it.

Remove the prepositional phrase following the conjunction and I agree. However, as it is stated, this is a prima facie example of affirming the consequent. Interestingly enough, it also adheres to the 'dualism' which you've been vehemently arguing against. My position holds that we are both, objects in the universe, and subjects taking an account of it. Our taking an account of the universe requires being included in any meaningful account of what constitutes being or becoming "the sum total of all interactions"... necessarily so.

creativesoul wrote:my coffee cup is on the table in front of me. That is an empirical fact. Until it is acted upon by an external force in such a way that it changes it's position relative to it's own frame of reference, it will remain so. That is a bit of knowledge.

maybe knowledge it would be. what about wisdom? is empirism what is stopping you to think other isms and stories about your cup of coffee? use the internal force of jedi church? butterfly dreaming to be coffee addict human? brains in a vat full of coffee? brainwashed ex-aempirist?..bear family!? someone's been drinking my coffee, and they're still there...oh, no! A HUMAN!" growled papa bear. yeah, sure! you are delusional, my old man. we are so poor american dreamers that we see coffee only in commersials and we sold your old mug to that poor philosophy student many years a go. i wonder if he is still alive and gay. why on earth he didnt buy that wastebasket with those nice pencils you sold him and we got that almost hot meal, do you remember? golden memories!..

maybe knowledge it would be. what about wisdom? is empirism what is stopping you to think other isms and stories about your cup of coffee?

Common sense is what is stopping me from 'seeing it' another way. I know how the plastic is made, how the cup is formed, where the beans have been grown, what they look like, the process involved in their harvest, and on and on. Human knowledge is limited to that which appears to us in time and space. What may or may not exist beyond that, we cannot know anything about. Thus theoretical physics and quantum mechanics are currently at an impasse. Is it possible that there exists some sort of external force, or some kinds of other things of which we are unaware... of course, but he fact that we are unaware stifles any reasonable attempt to build a belief system upon notions that are unknowable.

creativesoul wrote: Common sense is what is stopping me from 'seeing it' another way.

so, you have found yours? i bet that you love it? like those hare krishnas love to have skinheads and toga parties in public? if you laught at them, they laugh back! every bodies happy?

What may or may not exist beyond that, we cannot know anything about.

theres a cloud in every silver line, dont cry! like some religious people. cant do anything what religious sinners can, without losing their status as religious followers. and theres many versions of that too. some cant dance or watch tv. some cant get drunk and start shooting around heavy weapons. some cant even join any cable-tvs or pubs quizzes about celebrities or soap operas, imagine! and they are happy about it, officially.

Mark Question wrote: theres a cloud in every silver line, dont cry! like some religious people. cant do anything what religious sinners can, without losing their status as religious followers. and theres many versions of that too. some cant dance or watch tv. some cant get drunk and start shooting around heavy weapons. some cant even join any cable-tvs or pubs quizzes about celebrities or soap operas, imagine! and they are happy about it, officially.

I get it sort of...there's comfort in other people telling you right from wrong. That way you have a list of rules and you can't be held personally responsible for anything you do as long as you follow those rules. Then you can fit into society and when you die and face God and those weren't the actual rules he wanted you to follow, you can claim ignorance and innocence like a little lamb led to sin without a clue.

I think what keeps people from seeing the truth is to see the truth they would have to admit they are evil/wrong...and who wants to do that? Most people I know want to be good/right. I think even Hitler thought he was good/right.

Retard wrote:Alright,
I disagree, however, let me first say that I do not hold a position that demands immutable conclusions nor absolutism as I've heard it described. But, allow me to note here - using your terms - that corresponding to the degree of necessity and sufficiency, is my doubt of the existence of X. In fact, I argue against both absolutism and immutability in certain given contexts. Like you, I also do not find the need to attach a disclaimer to all of my posts in order to acknowledge a lack of absolute - unshakable - certainty on my part.

[/quote]Your certainty does not exclude error.
Nice.
You have the arrogance of a humble sheep.

Nice way of pretending to say something without saying anything.
You pretty much argue against everything, depending no how confident you feel within each context.
You are this and then you are that, depending on how it affect YOU. You are everything to everyone, because you wish to keep your options open and prevent the inevitable: being exposed as the stupid fuck that you are.

Retard wrote:Be all that as it may, my objection here is simple... It does not follow from the fact that reality is dynamic(fluid) that "any evaluation of it is obsolete once it is made". In order for that to hold good, everything in the universe must be in a state of continual change in such a way that it renders all kinds of human evaluation to be immediately useless, outdated, and/or no longer accurate.

This, by itself, exposes your stupidity.
You think that all rates of change are equal, once more resorting to an absolute to understand.
Retard, the different materials refer to different rates, degrees, of change, making human knowledge and civilization possible within a time span.
The universe is in entropy, you imbecile, but not at a rate that would render it all "useless"...but in one forcing a continuous update, making consciousness a tool and knowledge an ongoing process, rather than a one time fits all.

Imbecile, humans fluidity, if you wish to think it in that way, is not the same as metal fluidity.
Metal appears solid because it changes at a much slower rate in relation to human consciousness.

Imbecile, break free from your addiction to absolutes.
I know it feel good, but it makes you look like the cowardly moron that you truly are.
Patterns in fluidity change, but not at rates which would render all awareness useless...in fact that we exists means that our awareness is useful within the timescales we understand.

Retard, did you quantify Will? Did you quantify Dasein?
Did you quantify the notion of an Idea? Did you quantify ego?

No, you hypocritical moron, but you certainly avoided them, did you not?
IF, you stupid old fuck, the only things you recognize are what are quantifiable, then you just dismissed 90% of philosophy, begging the question: What the fuck are you doing here, other than comforting yourself and trying to avoid the realization of your own stupidity?
IF, on he other hand, you stupid idiot, you use numbers to quantify all the notions you choose to deal with, then define these numbers. Explain them, you idiot.
Justify the static models you use, and prove they are not human inventions.
Where are those a priori notions you promised, you hypocritical coward?

Moron, I know the idea of being known more than you know your own self, frightens the shit out of you but...but you imbecile, let u put it to the test.
I would say that you are arrogant bully who thought that belonging to a majority constituted a victory in itself...then you idiot, you thought I would be easy.
Having realized that I was not, you sought to cover your extended arse, backtracking, playing semantic games, covering both aspects of the argument, so that your stupidity was not exposed to the very herd you came here to defend, and to be worshiped as a hero for.

Retard wrote:That is just not always the case. For instance, my coffee cup is on the table in front of me. That is an empirical fact.

Imbecile, the cup is changing as you observe it. It is deteriorating at a rate that makes the cup seem to you, immutable, but it is in fact in a perpetual state of flux.
Degrees, you imbecile, degrees....think flexibly not with the rigidity of a religious charlatan.
You cannot point to one of your fabrications; not one of your "things" which is immutable.
All you can do is point o one which seems unchanging given the human life-span and the limitations of human awareness.
That's your BOX, you slave.

The cup's rate of change is different from the coffee's.
Do an experiment, douche-bag...place a cup of coffee on a table...leave it and go away....return after a week.
What has happened to the coffee? What has happened to the cup? Is it the same?
Imagine, now, you idiot, that you can return after a billion years, what has happened to the coffee cup?
Forget your measly little life-span and your pathetic human limitations in awareness.
What is in front of you, imbecile, if not a static table and cup and coffee which is altering? Everything is changing as you observe it....but you cannot perceive certain rates of change that exceed the limits of Your perceptions...your perceptual event horizon...you imbecile. What you observe, idiot, is sensual info you gather via a medium...light, air etc...which your brain interprets by simplifying and generalizing.

Retard wrote:Until it is acted upon by an external force in such a way that it changes it's position relative to it's own frame of reference, it will remain so.

Imbecile, there is no static state except in your puny little mind. That's what an abstraction is!!!
THAT is what a mental model IS!!!

The cup itself is active...but you cannot perceive it...and your mind can only simplify the rate of change in comparison to its own as solidity or hardness or color or whatever.
In fact, you idiotic buffoon, the cup is changing as you observe it; the table it sits on is changing; the table sits on a planet rotating in a galaxy which is itself in constant motion.All is fluid.
The illusion of a static state is in your mind and due to the limitations of your mind and your perspective.

Retard wrote:Not all opinions are assessments of "what is most probable". I mean, strictly speaking I agree, however there comes a point in which self-doubt/radical skepticism completely deadens the senses.

Moron, you agree but then you offer something which I never said...in fact I've said the opposite.
"Radical skepticism"?
Moron, what the fuck does that mean? What is radical? Quantify it.

Moron, did I say ALL interpretations are false? Did I, you stupid fuck, at any time even allude to the idea that all perceptions were absolutely wrong?
Did I not state that any absolute was wrong and that all was a matter of degree, and that all evaluations were judgments of probability?
Moron, WHAT is "radical" you fascist p****?
Moron, if you have a judgment and it is inferior to mine, will you, and only you, not face the repercussions?

Nothing of your bullshit applies, you imbecile...reality, nature, decides.
Natural selection, you moron.

Retard wrote:I mean, repetitive thought becomes internalized in such a way that it skews what parts of experience we perceive, distinguish, identify, and later recognize. That is part of the manner in which our own thoughts affect the quality of future experience that we have. The only reference point we have is our own past experience, specifically, the lasting affects that that experience has had upon us. Now, if we hold that we cannot know anything at all with absolute and unshakable 100% certainty, then we have just attained the level of certainty that we are attempting to deny. It is incoherent. We need only to note, that just because we have been mistaken about some things does not mean that we have been mistaken about everything. Ergo cogito sum presupposes sensory perception, distinction, and identification - these are the mental acts that, when combined with accessible memory produces actively working mental correlation(consciousness, if you prefer). That sets out that which is necessary and sufficient in order to constitute both, delineating the contingencies for, and the event of thought/belief formation itself.

Experience, idiot, is forever incomplete. It depends on predictability based on consistency, building a more or less probable outcome. Nobody is ever absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, you moron, except idiots like you. They think it is most probable given their experiences which base their "certainty" on the past.
They even become dependent and addicted to this certainty, as they are cowards and too stupid to be mentally flexible and forever vigilant.

What did I say about the mind understanding reality backwards or by looking back?

Idiot, it is YOU and your kind who are the bullies here.
It is YOU who have forced human potential and thinking into the gutter, using intimidation, dogmatism, and peer pressure.

Retard wrote: Now, I'll be more than glad to entertain an intelligent objection that is void of ad hom. However, we must only think of one exception to the rule in order to negate it. There is no stronger justification for assenting to a belief than one which meets and offers such criterion.

Then you would not object to me offering my true and honest opinion of you as a mind.
Shall I lie and call you intelligent or pretend that I "respect" you?

No, imbecile, those are lies you tell to your herd companions to preserve the idea of mutual appreciation, especially when there is a an external threat on the horizon.
Fucktard, you pretend to respect these imbeciles you call your ilk, just to maintain your participation and their support when someone like me arrives.

Now you are united against this "fascist", racist", "sexist" fiend...and THAT makes your bullshit for the rest of the time worth while.

Retard wrote: Remove the prepositional phrase following the conjunction and I agree. However, as it is stated, this is a prima facie example of affirming the consequent. Interestingly enough, it also adheres to the 'dualism' which you've been vehemently arguing against. My position holds that we are both, objects in the universe, and subjects taking an account of it. Our taking an account of the universe requires being included in any meaningful account of what constitutes being or becoming "the sum total of all interactions"... necessarily so.

If you actually understood what I was saying you would understand why this "dualism" occurs, imbecile.

Here are some hints:
Did I not say that the mind constructs what is absent in reality, i.e. absolutes?
These absolutes can then be called things but also ideals.

So, the mind constructs and then projects these absolutes, God being one, and Ideals being others. These offer the mind a direction, even if they are unattainable because they are human projections.
The mind is characterized not by the attainment of the Ideal but by its pursuit, you imbecile.

Therefore, moron, this represents a rejection of reality, as reality lacks an absolute yet the mind strives towards one....or the reality is characterized by entropy, fragmentation, whereas the mind constructs static ordered things, ideas...concepts.
The mind is an ordering process which contradicts the entropic disordering. This is what produces need/suffering, or accentuates it.

This is why most religious dogmas preach the cessation of these pursuits and the abandonment to the flow towards entropy....a surrender....
This produces a duality, as the mind wishes to find the absolute or to attain it in a reality which forever lacks it. The attainment, theoretically, would entail an end...Nihilism.

So, it is the mind which juxtaposes itself to reality, which is the second, the duo, in duality. Get it you imbecile?
Duality, you freak of nature, is the mind differentiating itself form reality...it is a discrimination.

-------------------------------------------------------------
But I wish to thank you, moron.
Thank you for further reducing the doubt I had about your stupidity.
Now it is almost a given.

I also thank you for teaching me the not semantic or rhetorical manner in which THE Truth was made different from Truth.

I also thank you for quantifying philosophical notions like "Will", "Desien", "thing-in-itself", "Idea", "Ideal", "ego", "nothing", "something", "substance", "one" etc.....reminding us that you are truly one stupid fuck, amongst a slew of stupid fucks, who will come to support you, no doubt, against one that reminds them of what they truly are, despite the crap.

Also thank you for dancing around the definition of #1, the bedrock of your quantifying and your overall religious convictions.

Thank you, lastly, for reminding me what anyone promising an end to knowledge or a final solution, a truth, truly is: a Nihilist.
Even the happy idea of a paradise or a utopia is a nihilistic idea....but I do not expect you to understand why that is...and I certainly will not waste any more time trying to explain it to ya.

Ta, Ta,

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

I think I understand.

You allow fear to override your desire to be truthful.


Arising, the whole point of using your real name is to integrate , what for you, is apparently two estranged worlds.


I am providing you an opportunity to use your legal, birthright name.

THE WHOLE POINT of doing that is so that your philosophical thoughts and feelings can be verbalized in a way that integrates the two worlds.

You should not be articulating anything with your real name that you would not want to be seen by your fellow work mates, boss, or family.

Don't use your phoney moniker to hide behind.

I think you do a good job now.

You are normally very mature and bright.

I really do look up to you.

If you think about it, that back & forth that you participated in earlier in this thread, did you really feel better after you did that?

I think not.

You, the man behind Arising_uk would be a wonderfully more beautiful philosopher if you would start using your legal, god given name.


I'm asking you to join Chaz Wyman and myself in this extremely freeing and beneficial approach to this board.


I know you, I respect you, and I think you would like coming out.




.

Whilst I think it a nice thought Bill I think it a naive one given the medium and todays workplace.

I have and may well in the future use my real name but authors have always posted under pseudonyms for many reasons and it does not necessarily distract from the truth or integrity of their thoughts.
p.s.
No better no worse as its just my natural response to return in kind.

Your certainty does not exclude error.

Correct! It includes the possibility for error - or the degree of possibility - if you prefer.

Nice way of pretending to say something without saying anything. you rpetty much argue against everything, depending no how confident you feel within each context.

What you think about my person is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We'll call this Issue #1.

creative wrote:

It does not follow from the fact that reality is dynamic(fluid) that "any evaluation of it is obsolete once it is made". In order for that to hold good, everything in the universe must be in a state of continual change in such a way that it renders all kinds of human evaluation to be immediately useless, outdated, and/or no longer accurate.

Satyr:

this, by itself, exposes your stupidity. You think that all rates of change are equal, once more resorting to an absolute to understand.

Issue#1. Besides that, it is also a non sequitur(it does not follow from what I wrote)... In order for this to be true, I must think that all rates of change are equal, which I do not. Thus, this attempt at a reasonable objection is grounded upon the false presupposition that you are somehow privy to the mental activities in my mind. We'll call that Issue #2.

Retard, the different materials refer to different rates, degrees, of change, making human knowledge and civilization possible within a time span. The universe is in entropy, you imbecile, but not at a rate that would render it all "useless"...but in one forcing a continuous update, making consciousness a tool and knowledge an ongoing process, rather than a one time fits all.

Issue#1. Issue#2. The rest of the above and my earlier objection are not mutually exclusive, nor incompatible. Neither, did I state that the fluidity renders all assessment useless, nor would I argue such a thing. You did. That is what I'm objecting to, and you're offering compelling reasons for my own position while contradicting your own claims. It is for this reason that the above constitutes a strawman fallacy, among other things. My objection did not deny the above. Rather it points out the unreasonability inherent in holding the belief that because reality is in a constant state of change, that all assessments of it are immediately obsolete. Unless we hold that an assessment can be both obsolete and useful, which is quite clearly a contradiction in terms, and to do so would render the term obsolete meaningless. Seeing how your premiss is grounded upon what constitutes being "meaningless", well...

Satyr:

Imbecile, humans fluidity, if you wish to think it in that way, is not the same as metal. Metal appears solid because it changes at a much slower rate in relation to human consciousness. Imbecile, break free from your addiction to absolutes.

#1. #2. It is never a good sign when an interlocutor begins to argue with him/herself. We'll call that Issue #3.

creative wrote:

That is just not always the case. For instance, my coffee cup is on the table in front of me. That is an empirical fact.

Satyr:

Imbecile, the cup is changing as you observe it. It is deteriorating at a rate tat makes the cup seem to you, immutable, but it is in fact in a perpetual state of flux. Degrees, you imbecile, degrees....thing flexibly not with the rigidity of a religious fanatic. The cup's rate of change is different from the coffee's. Di an experiment, douche-bag...place a cup of coffee on a table...leave it and go away....return after a week. What has happened to the coffee? What has happened to the cup, is it the same?

#1. #2. #3. None of this changes the fact that the cup is on the table, and will remain so until it is acted on by an external force, even if those forces constitute strong and weak nuclear forces, and the resulting molecular change is virtually imperceptible to human observation.

Imagine, now, you idiot, that you can return after a billion years, what has happened to the coffee cup? What is in front of you, imbecile, is not a static table and cup and coffee...everything is changing as you observe it....but you cannot reprieve certain rates of change that exceed the limits of Your perception...your perceptual event horizon...you imbecile. What you observe, idiot, is sensual info you gather via a medium...light, air etc...which your brain interprets by simplifying and generalizing.

Let's imagine... It is not the least bit compelling. More rhetoric.

creative:

Until it is acted upon by an external force in such a way that it changes it's position relative to it's own frame of reference, it will remain so.

Satyr:

Imbecile, there is no static state except in your puny mind...that's what an abstraction is. The cup itself is active...but you cannot perceive it or your mind can only simplify the rate of change as solidity or hardness. in fact, you idiotic buffoon, the cup is changing as you observe it, the table it sits on is changing, the table sits on a planet rotating in a galaxy which is itself in constant motion, the illusion of a static state is in your mind and due to the limitatinos of your mind and your perspective.

Again #1. #2. #3. None of the above changes the fact that the cup is on the table. Nor does the fact that both are currently in a state of molecular decay change that fact. In fact, the cup being on the table grounds the rest.

Experience, idiot, is forever incomplete. It depends on predictability based on consistency, building a more or less probable outcome. Nobody is ever absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, you moron, except idiots like you. They think it is most probable given their experiences which base their "certainty" on the past.

What did I say about the mind understanding reality backwards or by looking back?

STOP... re-read the above.

And??? As if this follows from or negates anything I've written. #1. #2. #3.

Satyr:

Reality being the sum total of all interactions and that which is independent from all interpretations of it.

creative:

Remove the prepositional phrase following the conjunction and I agree. However, as it is stated, this is a prima facie example of affirming the consequent. Interestingly enough, it also adheres to the 'dualism' which you've been vehemently arguing against. My position holds that we are both, objects in the universe, and subjects taking an account of it. Our taking an account of the universe requires being included in any meaningful account of what constitutes being or becoming "the sum total of all interactions"... necessarily so.

Satyr:

If you actually understood what I was saying you would understand why this "dualism" occurs, imbecile.

I do understand what you're saying, because I understand what it would take for your claim to be true. It is not as you say. Your position is incoherent, and self-contradictory. Interpretation is all we have, and the argument for that is impeccable. However, if we, by definition, exclude all interpretation from reality, then by default alone we invoke the false dichotomy of subjective/objective when talking about reality. We are both objects in the world and subjects taking an account of it. That is a fact. Everything(all interpretation) comes through a subject. It does not follow that everything coming through is equally subjective. Our acknowledging that curbs the radical skepticism which seems to ground your posiition, but you've overtly denied. So, denying the objective absolute reality on the one hand, and necessarily presupposing it on the other in order to define reality is self-contradictory...

That is why the position you're arguing for is utterly incoherent and meaningless.