Egyptian Revolution Was Against Neoliberalism- The Best Opinion Piece I've Seen In A While
505 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489302]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]
no he's just following the only truth that exists
ayn rands truth
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489305]So if consciousness begins with existence and I exist then there are objectives because of the definite nature of identity.[/QUOTE]
already addressed this
not objective
[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]
objectivists hate ayn rand as well
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489305]So if consciousness begins with existence and I exist then there are objectives because of the definite nature of identity.[/QUOTE]
huh
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489297]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]
I understand the brain in the vat argument but reality and philosophy begin with consciousness I am only aware of what I can be conscious and define through sensory input.
You can't propose any philosophy with the allegory of the cave because it is merely a what if scenario.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489305]So if consciousness begins with existence and I exist then there are objectives because of the definite nature of identity.[/QUOTE]
I never supposed such a thing so where you going with that...?
The only thing you can know is you exist. You can't know sensory information or anything like that, you only know you exist and can think. How do objectives come into this?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489323]I understand the brain in the vat argument but reality and philosophy begin with consciousness I am only aware of what I can be conscious and define through sensory input.
You can't propose any philosophy with the allegory of the cave because it is merely a what if scenario.[/QUOTE]
You. Don't. Get. The. Argument.
If you think "sensory input" works, then that's not the brain in a vat argument. The sensory input can be faked.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489327]I never supposed such a thing so where you going with that...?
The only thing you can know is you exist. You can't know sensory information or anything like that, you only know you exist and can think. How do objectives come into this?[/QUOTE]
If you exist then reality and identity have a definite nature.
Definite nature = objective
i'd like you guys to know you aren't really saying anything anymore
Anyways, I'm truly done arguing with someone who believes the objective truth they dogmatically follow is beyond criticism and beyond us, but is still objectively and undeniably true.
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489343]If you exist then reality and identity have a definite nature.
Definite nature = objective[/QUOTE]
No they don't, only as defined by sensory input... If sensory input can't be trusted then how can you know the nature of reality?
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489343]If you exist then reality and identity have a definite nature.
Definite nature = objective[/QUOTE]
why does thought prove that everything has a definite nature
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489327]I never supposed such a thing so where you going with that...?
The only thing you can know is you exist. You can't know sensory information or anything like that, you only know you exist and can think. How do objectives come into this?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
You. Don't. Get. The. Argument.
If you think "sensory input" works, then that's not the brain in a vat argument. The sensory input can be faked.[/QUOTE]
The brain in a vat argument only works to criticize using sensory input as a way to discover objectives.
However regardless of if the brain in a vat argument were true then reality would still have to exist objectively independent of consciousness.
bar rules, throw peanuts at the people you don't like
[QUOTE=thisispain;28489346]i'd like you guys to know you aren't really saying anything anymore[/QUOTE]
i feel like im having to replace that part of his brain that thinks logically
i feel so used
[QUOTE=thisispain;28489346]i'd like you guys to know you aren't really saying anything anymore[/QUOTE]
I've been saying that for the last two pages.
All philosophy is fundamentally flawed so why its in an argument about government in the first place, I don't know.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28489360]why does thought prove that everything has a definite nature[/QUOTE]
You think therefore you are.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite nature, if you exist then reality has a definite nature. If something is definite then it can be discovered.
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28489350]Anyways, I'm truly done arguing with someone who believes the objective truth they dogmatically follow is beyond criticism and beyond us, but is still objectively and undeniably true.
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
No they don't, only as defined by sensory input... If sensory input can't be trusted then how can you know the nature of reality?[/QUOTE]
I can put a mask over your face your entire life and tell you that color doesn't exist. Does that mean reality does not have a definite nature because you can't trust sensory input? If something exists it is definite, if something is definite reality is definite, and if reality is definite it can be discovered simple as that.
The question isn't how you can know objectives wasn't it are there objectives?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
Yeah but I'm off to bed, toodaloo.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489377]
I can put a mask over your face your entire life and tell you that color doesn't exist. Does that mean reality does not have a definite nature because you can't trust sensory input?[/QUOTE]
If you are viewing from an objective standpoint, You could die tomorrow and for all intents and purposes everything that is to you is gone, except that is probably not the case; if it were, the universe would cease to exist when you cease to have consciousness. That's the folly of objective reasoning and why it doesn't work.
lol at facepunch trying to solve over a thousand year philosophical problem.
MAYBE WHEN YOU GUYS ARE DONE WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT VIRTUE IS
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28489377]You think therefore you are.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite nature, if you exist then reality has a definite nature. If something is definite then it can be discovered.
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
I can put a mask over your face your entire life and tell you that color doesn't exist. Does that mean reality does not have a definite nature because you can't trust sensory input? If something exists it is definite, if something is definite reality is definite, and if reality is definite it can be discovered simple as that.
The question isn't how you can know objectives wasn't it are there objectives?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
Yeah but I'm off to bed, toodaloo.[/QUOTE]
What.
You did not just use Descartes in an attempt to prove the existence of objective truth and nature.
protip, all cogito ergo sum proves is that you are capable of doubt, not that you are capable of thought.
if anything, if we take descartes to be anywhere near correct, fuck all this talk about definitive traits, we don't even know if the thing we are assigning traits to exists in the first place
Also the question is still very much how the fuck can we know objectives thanks. You don't just say "There exists Objective truth!" and then not explain how we come across them or why we come across them.
I also find it frankly fucking hilarious how you have the nads to quote Descartes, and then fucking go on about trusting sensory input. What the fuck. If you put a mask over my face for my entire life, then colour does not exist to me, as I have no concept, nor no imagining of what it could possibly be. Only through sensory input could you show me that colour exists, and even then that can't be trusted. So even if I have the mask on, or off, I cannot conclusively argue that colour objectively exists. Here's another question for you, how can we discover objectives if we know nothing about them? How can we be pointed at Objective truth if we have no launching point for the search?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[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]
baby's first philosophy.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28490490]lol at facepunch trying to solve over a thousand year philosophical problem.
MAYBE WHEN YOU GUYS ARE DONE WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT VIRTUE IS
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
What.
You did not just use Descartes in an attempt to prove the existence of objective truth and nature.
protip, all cogito ergo sum proves is that you are capable of doubt, not that you are capable of thought.
if anything, if we take descartes to be anywhere near correct, fuck all this talk about definitive traits, we don't even know if the thing we are assigning traits to exists in the first place
Also the question is still very much how the fuck can we know objectives thanks. You don't just say "There exists Objective truth!" and then not explain how we come across them or why we come across them.
I also find it frankly fucking hilarious how you have the nads to quote Descartes, and then fucking go on about trusting sensory input. What the fuck. If you put a mask over my face for my entire life, then colour does not exist to me, as I have no concept, nor no imagining of what it could possibly be. Only through sensory input could you show me that colour exists, and even then that can't be trusted. So even if I have the mask on, or off, I cannot conclusively argue that colour objectively exists. Here's another question for you, how can we discover objectives if we know nothing about them? How can we be pointed at Objective truth if we have no launching point for the search?
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
baby's first philosophy.[/QUOTE]
rational logic and deductive reasoning of course! You can totally see the definitive nature of anything! Descartes said so. [/strider*]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw how terrible it is of him to use descartes to prove objectivity.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28490490]I also find it frankly fucking hilarious how you have the nads to quote Descartes, and then fucking go on about trusting sensory input. What the fuck. If you put a mask over my face for my entire life, then colour does not exist to me, as I have no concept, nor no imagining of what it could possibly be. Only through sensory input could you show me that colour exists, and even then that can't be trusted. So even if I have the mask on, or off, I cannot conclusively argue that colour objectively exists. Here's another question for you, how can we discover objectives if we know nothing about them? How can we be pointed at Objective truth if we have no launching point for the search?[/QUOTE]
You know, I was pretty surprised when I looked at my "read threads" and found several hundred posts arguing about this. And I was not surprised that strider defaulted to the blind Ayn Rand fanatic arguments.
If you wanted a serious answer to that question, that kind of thought leads nowhere. It must be acknowledged, but left alone lest you argue each other into a circle for the rest of your lives. True objectivism, and anything that relies on objective thought (including sciences, both natural and human), rests on the ideas that your senses are perceiving the universe and that the universe is knowable. Both of those ideas rest on the thought that you exist (or more accurately I, since at this level I can only be sure of my own existence, for if I did not exist, none of this would be happening).
I love how you all are having a pissfest that I used a Descartes quote in favor of consciousness, I wasn't implying his work supports objectivism or absolutism.
I think and therefore am conscious. In order for me to be concious there must be something for me to be conscious of, this is reality. If reality is composed of entities of definite nature then reality is objective and ultimately knowable.
-snip- posted twice over phone
[QUOTE=Strider*;28498030]I love how you all are having a pissfest that I used a Descartes quote in favor of consciousness, I wasn't implying his work supports objectivism or absolutism.
I think and therefore am conscious. In order for me to be concious there must be something for me to be conscious of, this is reality. If reality is composed of entities of definite nature then reality is objective and ultimately knowable.[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works though, you can't just twist an argument and say this is how it works and expect us to accept it.
And don't say you do anything else, you're arguing philosophical points, all you can do is talk points. right now, you're saying you know better than I can't even count how many philosophers who discount "objective truth".
Keep digging that hole son
Will an admin change the thread title to: "Let's all rage at Strider* for being a retard"?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28498695]That's not how it works though, you can't just twist an argument and say this is how it works and expect us to accept it.
Keep digging that hole son[/QUOTE]
I'm not twisting any argument, you are against objective truth and I am showing the infallibility of it's existence.
[quote=Human Abyss]right now, you're saying you know better than I can't even count how many philosophers who discount "objective truth"[/quote]
You're implying then that truth is made merely from arithmetic and addition at that?
Keep digging which hole, you act as though I am seeking for any of you to accept my belief system.
I argue here to find an intellectual capable of challenging my thoughts, but as always no one appears to be adequate for the task.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28498030]I love how you all are having a pissfest that I used a Descartes quote in favor of consciousness, I wasn't implying his work supports objectivism or absolutism.
I think and therefore am conscious. In order for me to be concious there must be something for me to be conscious of, this is reality. If reality is composed of entities of definite nature then reality is objective and ultimately knowable.[/QUOTE]
WHAAAAAT
sorry do you actually know what descartes was trying to prove with cogito ergo sum
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499044]I'm not twisting any argument, you are against objective truth and I am showing the infallibility of it's existence.
You're implying then that truth is made merely from arithmetic and addition at that?
Keep digging which hole, you act as though I am seeking for any of you to accept my belief system.
I argue here to find an intellectual capable of challenging my thoughts, but as always no one appears to be adequate for the task.[/QUOTE]
sorry an intellectual capable of challenging your thoughts? You don't even know Descartes, and that's simple fucking philosophy right there, who the fuck do you think you are.
Also, how can we search for objective traits if we have no starting point for the search?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499210]WHAAAAAT
sorry do you actually know what descartes was trying to prove with cogito ergo sum
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
sorry an intellectual capable of challenging your thoughts? You don't even know Descartes, and that's simple fucking philosophy right there, who the fuck do you think you are.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, do you?
Cogito ergo sum shows that reality exists.
It doesn't show that I as a man exist in the universe I perceive myself as but it does show that in the very least my consciousness exists and my mind exists.
Therefore if reality exists and it has a definite nature then it is knowable and objective.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499323]I'm sorry, do you?
Cogito ergo sum proves that reality exists.
It doesn't show that I as a man exist in the universe I perceive myself as but it does show that in the very least my consciousness exists and my mind exists.
Therefore if reality exists and it has a definite nature then it is knowable and objective.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Try again.
Cogito ergo sum proves that you are an entity at the very least capable of doubt. In fact, cogito ergo sum is bringing up cartesian doubt of reality. The absolute opposite of what you're arguing here, it doesn't mean that your mind exists, it doesn't mean this reality exists, it only means that you are an entity capable of doubt, an extremely limited form of self.
and stop saying therefore reality exists it has a definitive nature that's a colossal fucking logical leap and there's no way you could possibly argue it.
I find it hilarious that you seem to think you're some philosophical genius when you don't even understand the nuances of the cogito principle.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499323]I'm sorry, do you?
Cogito ergo sum shows that reality exists.
It doesn't show that I as a man exist in the universe I perceive myself as but it does show that in the very least my consciousness exists and my mind exists.
Therefore if reality exists and it has a definite nature then it is knowable and objective.[/QUOTE]
brilliant, i'm going to show this to my philosophy proff and see what he says about it, you say you're objectively right so he'll have to agree with you
not to mention, none of us are up to the task? Really? How many of our arguments do you skip over because you can't deal with them? How many of your arguments rely on ideals you hold?
Cogit ergo sum is clearly beyond your level, why are you talking about it.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499369]Nope. Try again.
Cogito ergo sum proves that you are an entity at the very least capable of doubt. In fact, cogito ergo sum is bringing up cartesian doubt of reality. The absolute opposite of what you're arguing here, it doesn't mean that your mind exists, it doesn't mean this reality exists, it only means that you are an entity capable of doubt.
and stop saying therefore reality exists it has a definitive nature that's a colossal fucking logical leap and there's no way you could possibly argue it.
I find it hilarious that you seem to think you're some philosophical genius when you don't even understand the nuances of the cogito principle.[/QUOTE]
If you can doubt then you can think, and if you can think you are.
I find it extremely hilarious that you believe you have some higher understanding of Descartes than me when you can't even understand his most famous claim.
Doubt of reality implies there is a reality we are blind to and does not discredit the existence of an objective reality, in fact it suggests it! It rather questions the one we perceive through senses.
[editline]8th March 2011[/editline]
In order to be conscious there must be something to be conscious of.
This is so basic that I'm honestly questioning the mental capacity of all who oppose it.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499494]If you can doubt then you can think, and if you can think you are.
I find it extremely hilarious that you believe you have some higher understanding of Descartes than me when you can't even understand his most famous claim.
Doubt of reality implies there is a reality we are blind to and does not discredit the existence of an objective reality, in fact it suggests it! It rather questions the one we perceive through senses.[/QUOTE]
What.
If you can doubt, it means that you are an entity that can doubt. Descartes was trying to set a foundation from which we can create a body of knowledge based on certainty. ANYTHING above the action of doubting, is capable of being doubted.
How in the fuck does doubt of reality imply there is a reality we are blind to?
holy shit if you seriously have no idea here, read the fucking wikipedia article
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28499427]not to mention, none of us are up to the task? Really? How many of our arguments do you skip over because you can't deal with them? How many of your arguments rely on ideals you hold?
[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of the arguments people throw at me are not really arguments but rather jabs they throw in in the absence of their ability to logically critique my ideas.
And to be honest I'm not required to respond to anyone, you do realize that in the majority of threads I post in it devolves into a state of multiple people questioning me.
It is much easier to respond when you are arguing directly with a single person.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499533]What.
If you can doubt, it means that you are an entity that can doubt. Descartes was trying to set a foundation from which we can create a body of knowledge based on certainty. ANYTHING above the action of doubting, is capable of being doubted.
How in the fuck does doubt of reality imply there is a reality we are blind to?
holy shit if you seriously have no idea here, read the fucking wikipedia article[/QUOTE]
Because if you are doubtful of this reality it implies there must be another reality which is more objective.
In order to doubt there must be consciousness and in order for there to be consciousness there must be something to be conscious of.
What is knowable is objective truth.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
Law of identity, educate yourself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.