Outside the philosophy seminar...
"Reality" is a term which only arises in negotiation about relationships. It has no status other than contextual agreement. We don't go around talking about the "reality of trees" because our common physiological apparatus ensures agreement about our physical relationship with them. On the other hand "reality of God" is questionable because of differing relationships.
...to reiterate a point made elsewhere....the philosophy seminar is an artificial social situation where games are played about hypothetical statements about "the world" which are never uttered outside the seminar.
fresco wrote:Outside the philosophy seminar...
"Reality" is a term which only arises in negotiation about relationships. It has no status other than contextual agreement. We don't go around talking about the "reality of trees" because our common physiological apparatus ensures agreement about our physical relationship with them. On the other hand "reality of God" is questionable because of differing relationships.
...to reiterate a point made elsewhere....the philosophy seminar is an artificial social situation where games are played about hypothetical statements about "the world" which are never uttered outside the seminar.
You didn't answer any of my questions, all you did was expose how ******* stupid some modern philosophers are.
Davidlg,
My post was to demonict. I don't answer vacuous questions.
Pearls before swine, Boss . . . (my apologies to unoffending swine everywhere) . . .
Here, have a Fresca and relax . . .
Thanks...Just what I needed !
fresco wrote:Davidlg,
I don't answer vacuous questions.
Nor do you make any sense
fresco wrote:Outside the philosophy seminar...
"Reality" is a term which only arises in negotiation about relationships. It has no status other than contextual agreement. We don't go around talking about the "reality of trees" because our common physiological apparatus ensures agreement about our physical relationship with them. On the other hand "reality of God" is questionable because of differing relationships.
...to reiterate a point made elsewhere....the philosophy seminar is an artificial social situation where games are played about hypothetical statements about "the world" which are never uttered outside the seminar.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I see what you mean now.
DavidIg wrote:demonicturtle wrote:[ Due to our opinionated nature, reality can only be viewed through a subjective lens. )
Yep, and that neither of us can fly is just a coincidence
I said it can only be
viewed as such. I did not say that reality could function subjectively. You fail to comprehend even the simplest terms.
demonicturtle wrote:DavidIg wrote:demonicturtle wrote:[ Due to our opinionated nature, reality can only be viewed through a subjective lens. )
Yep, and that neither of us can fly is just a coincidence
I said it can only be
viewed as such. I did not say that reality could function subjectively. You fail to comprehend even the simplest terms.
On what basis do you make any distinction chump.
DavidIg wrote:demonicturtle wrote:DavidIg wrote:demonicturtle wrote:[ Due to our opinionated nature, reality can only be viewed through a subjective lens. )
Yep, and that neither of us can fly is just a coincidence
I said it can only be
viewed as such. I did not say that reality could function subjectively. You fail to comprehend even the simplest terms.
On what basis do you make any distinction chump.
I make my distinctions on the assumption that I am right, as we all do.
Was that your question?
demonicturtle wrote:
I make my distinctions on the assumption that I am right, as we all do.
Was that your question?
You questioned how I knew reality existed and or was absolute...and as I told you a number of times, one uses their senses to confirm reality exists, and then uses logical deductions to determine whether it's absolute, ie, we have no evidence of anything other than reality, no supernatural, no God of any form, so all we're left with is the basic fact that reality exists, and FYI, reality cannot be reduced to anything, it's the bedrock of ALL knowledge.
DavidIg wrote:demonicturtle wrote:
I make my distinctions on the assumption that I am right, as we all do.
Was that your question?
You questioned how I knew reality existed and or was absolute...and as I told you a number of times, one uses their senses to confirm reality exists, and then uses logical deductions to determine whether it's absolute, ie, we have no evidence of anything other than reality, no supernatural, no God of any form, so all we're left with is the basic fact that reality exists, and FYI, reality cannot be reduced to anything, it's the bedrock of ALL knowledge.
You must be hearing voices. I never implied that reality did not exist.
You claim that reality holds all knowledge, and I agree. But this means that in order to make infallible arguments regarding reality, we must fully understand it. According to your definition, we must obtain all knowledge to completely understand reality (since that is what reality consists of), or else we are making assumptions. Assuming that rights exist as you understand them is a fallacy, unless you are omniscient. Sorry to disrupt the convenience of your theory.
Actually squid....I think it's time I terminated discussions with you on these matters, mainly because you constantly fail to comprehend, and make inaccurate assumptions about what I mean and about metaphysics and epistemology.
But I'll finish up with........
For whatever reason, you want to go thru the motions of recognizing reality and IR's, but philosophically, you want to cast doubt over both.......this is both foolish and the exact reason why intelligent criminals behave without regard for the law, ie, they agree with you and your kind that IR's might be a good idea, but they aren't objective, therefore I can choose to reject them if it takes my fancy.
DavidIg wrote:Actually squid....I think it's time I terminated discussions with you on these matters, mainly because you constantly fail to comprehend, and make inaccurate assumptions about what I mean and about metaphysics and epistemology.
But I'll finish up with........
For whatever reason, you want to go thru the motions of recognizing reality and IR's, but philosophically, you want to cast doubt over both.......this is both foolish and the exact reason why intelligent criminals behave without regard for the law, ie, they agree with you and your kind that IR's might be a good idea, but they aren't objective, therefore I can choose to reject them if it takes my fancy.
Oh well... you know the mistakes of your reasoning. Everyone here has pointed those out.
Why don't you just run along to another forum and spread "The Legacy of the Individual Rights Fallacy"? Lord knows that I will be the last to reply to this thread (unless someone is more tolerant than me out there), so this thread is pretty much finished. While you're at it, maybe you should spend some time conversing with your fabled reality.
I would like to thank all of the Jews and the mere concept of God for making this guy squirm.
Sincerely,
Demonicturtle
Actually considering your attitude...let me finish off with "you're an idiot who knows nothing about nothing", and all genuine truthseekers know it.
Keep smiling Jew
DavidIg wrote:Actually considering your attitude...let me finish off with "you're an idiot who knows nothing about nothing", and all genuine truthseekers know it.
Keep smiling Jew
Err... double negative? *coughmoroncough*
Our boy David here sounds so much like the semi-literate right-wing gun nuts at this site when he prates about "collectivism." He constructs a single elaborate example from nature, which he stupidly supposes describes the attitudes of all animals toward self-preservation. In so doing, of course, he must ignore all the examples from nature of animals who work cooperatively to accomplish their collective survival. It is necessary for him to ignore all the examples of animals who band together to discourage or drive off predators, all the examples of animals who will risk their own lives to distract a predator from their off-spring. Apparently, he thinks that one or two examples of his tortured "logic" about animal behavior are sufficient to authorize his phony assertions about moral rugged individualism, which he is pleased to call and sufficiently self-deluded to call objective.
So one wonders--does David grow and hunt all the food which he eats? Does he clothe his nakedness in the skins of the animals he has killed? Did he go about looking for stones to smash together until he found those which were sufficiently fissile to shear off, leaving a useful edge? Did he hew down the trees to make his home, and to make the shafts of his spears, and the hafts of his axes? Surely he must, since he so despises "collectivism."
Would not someone who heaps such scorn on collectivism eschew the benefits of electric power generation? Would not such a noble example of self-realized man refuse to stoop to buying electronic instruments manufactured in a factory, staffed by slaves to collectivism? How could such a noble character deign to employ the world-wide web to come here an pour obloquy on our devoted pates?
JJ is, obviously, nothing more than David's bulldog, come here to fling vile epithets at anyone who has the temerity to dissent from the gospel according to David. As she so clearly relies on "David says" for her moral guidance, is she not precisely the same kind of vile, baby-killing, Zionist Jew criminal she so roundly execrates?
Does JJ labor in the fields beside her inamorata to get her daily bread in the sweat of her brow? I think not.
So what could account for this puzzling failure of JenHen to live up to the rigorous standards by which they judge all of us? What will account for this cowardly and criminal submission on the part of JenHen to the collectivist mentality?
Oh, wait . . . i know . . . they're both great barking hypocrites.
What a funny post......you must be pretty stupid if you think the concept of individualism rules out cooperation amongst groups or that I'm unaware of the common activity of the lower animals, in fact I have an interest in both biology and ecology dummy.
Nevertheless, you stooped to a stupid attempt at analogy by asserting that animals only act in their own self-interest, and suggested that as a basis for such a principle among humans.
Moron.
Hypocrite.
No David...Setanta did a pretty slick demolitian job on you despite the fact that your "interest" constituted buying a couple of biology and ecology books. Why not read Capra ?..its the one in the middle of your photo...then read Maturana (one of Capra's sources).
