• Egyptian Revolution Was Against Neoliberalism- The Best Opinion Piece I've Seen In A While
    505 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489161]A is A![/QUOTE] Unless you think they aren't. Considering that the alphebet is an abstract concept invented by people and therefor defined by people.
You have to understand that reality either exists or it does not. If reality exists it is knowable and it has a definite nature. Read up on some Aristotle specifically the law of identity.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489188]You have to understand that reality either exists or it does not. If reality exists it is knowable and it has a definite nature. Read up on some Aristotle specifically the law of identity.[/QUOTE] Why. Why can't people be unable to know things with 100% certainty. Tell me.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489188]You have to understand that reality either exists or it does not. If reality exists it is knowable and it has a definite nature. Read up on some Aristotle specifically the law of identity.[/QUOTE] Yeah... About that... Plato came after him and Plato changed his views. Then other philosophers built on his views or disagreed. You act like who you cite is true, but whatever I think is false. At least I acknowledge we both just have different views.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489188]You have to understand that reality either exists or it does not. If reality exists it is knowable and it has a definite nature. Read up on some Aristotle specifically the law of identity.[/QUOTE] For the last time, Philosophy =/= Reality
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489180]Unless you think they aren't. Considering that the alphebet is an abstract concept invented by people and therefor defined by people.[/QUOTE] The alphabet is an abstraction of man it doesn't follow the laws of reality in the same sense that art doesn't. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489197]Why. Why can't people be unable to know things with 100% certainty. Tell me.[/QUOTE] If reality exists it has a definite nature. If it has a definite nature it can be discovered. Shazam.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489204]The alphabet is an abstraction of man it doesn't follow the laws of reality in the same sense that art doesn't.[/QUOTE] hey genius it doesn't follow the "laws of reality" because it's [I]imaginary[/I] much like your sense of superiority
In short, you're the most arrogant, contrived, self deceptive, hilariously misinformed and funniest little objectivist I've ever met. It's just too cute you believe in objective truths
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489199]Yeah... About that... Plato came after him and Plato changed his views. Then other philosophers built on his views or disagreed. You act like who you cite is true, but whatever I think is false. At least I acknowledge we both just have different views.[/QUOTE] I disagree with Plato and place Aristotle above both him and Socrates.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489204]The alphabet is an abstraction of man it doesn't follow the laws of reality in the same sense that art doesn't. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] If reality exists it has a definite nature. If it has a definite nature it can be discovered. Shazam.[/QUOTE] Why does it have a definite nature and how can you know that All you said was the same thing you just said, you didn't state or explain why.
Okay.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489213]I disagree with Plato and place Aristotle above both him and Socrates.[/QUOTE] Cool, and I guess in your world view where what you see = objective, and unobjectionable truth that might work, but to the rest of the world, there's only subjective and differing views.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489213]I disagree with Plato and place Aristotle above both him and Socrates.[/QUOTE] So this is the part where you have a fit and say "im right caus i am and yr rong caus i knoo you ar"
Also, socrates would have mouth slapped the shit out of aristotle. Aristotle thought he knew things, and the birth of skepticism came with socrates. You don't even like skepticism and can't accept skepticism of your own views.
If something didn't have a definite nature it wouldn't exist at all.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489238]So this is the part where you have a fit and say "im right caus i am and yr rong caus i knoo you ar"[/QUOTE] He's basically just said I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong I'm right and you're wrong Say it enough times to yourself and you'll have his ego and you'll always be right.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489250]If something didn't have a definite nature it wouldn't exist at all.[/QUOTE] how do you know that
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489229]Cool, and I guess in your world view where what you see = objective, and unobjectionable truth that might work, but to the rest of the world, there's only subjective and differing views.[/QUOTE] No that's a pretty subjective opinion you're right.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489188] Read up on some Aristotle specifically the law of identity.[/QUOTE] objectivists hate aristotle
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489256]how do you know that[/QUOTE] Think about it in order for anything to exist it must have a exact nature. Sound, light, color, air, carbon, nitrogen, ect ect ect.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489256]how do you know that[/QUOTE] the edges of our universe and reality are clearly known to him
This is also the part where all of Striders internal contradictions and inconsistencies cause his world view to collapse and his brain just shuts down.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28489265]objectivists hate aristotle[/QUOTE] Grabbing before you snip. Objectivists deem Aristotle as the first intellectual. You are so wrong.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489267]Think about it in order for anything to exist it must have a exact nature. Sound, light, color, air, carbon, nitrogen, ect ect ect.[/QUOTE] What point does this play to anything? Having a definite nature doesn't mean it exists, but you do need a definite nature to exist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28489265]objectivists hate aristotle[/QUOTE] "If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements." - Ayn Rand Herp derp
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489250]If something didn't have a definite nature it wouldn't exist at all.[/QUOTE] Not exactly true, at that point the definition of the word "exist" and how you use it really comes under close scrutiny given the nature of a lot of things in the universe.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489267]Think about it in order for anything to exist it must have a exact nature. Sound, light, color, air, carbon, nitrogen, ect ect ect.[/QUOTE] How do you know with absolute certainty that any of those things have an absolute nature.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489289]How do you know with absolute certainty that any of those things have an absolute nature.[/QUOTE] sensory input defines reality to him. the brain in the vat argument, which he's clearly not really understood, allows all those to be subjugated and meaningless.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489285]"If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements." - Ayn Rand Herp derp[/QUOTE] so you admit that objectivism is a dogma dictated by ayn rand that no one can call themselves an objectivist and disagree with, invalidating your earlier point that it wasnt
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489280]What point does this play to anything? Having a definite nature doesn't mean it exists, but you do need a definite nature to exist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE] So if consciousness begins with existence and I exist then there are objectives because of the definite nature of identity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.