Egyptian Revolution Was Against Neoliberalism- The Best Opinion Piece I've Seen In A While
505 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499568]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]
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.[/QUOTE]
No! You're making a logical jump here! You are capable of doubt, however this DOES NOT IMPLY you are somehow now a fully fledged mind. ALL IT MEANS is that you are A: Capable of doubt B: Capable of observing this doubt. THAT IS IT.
What in the hell do you mean by a reality that is more objective?
Stop making statements without substantiating them. How do we come across Objective truth strider?
Discard what Descartes believes I'm building on top of one of his statements not his philosophy.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499662]Discard what Descartes believes I'm building on top of one of his statements not his philosophy.[/QUOTE]
So when you say building on top of, you mean discarding the one part that is a logical tautology, and creating your own unsubstantiable bollocks on top?
Fan-fucking-tastic.
Also once again, How do we come across Objective truth strider?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499633]No! You're making a logical jump here! You are capable of doubt, however this DOES NOT IMPLY you are somehow now a fully fledged mind. ALL IT MEANS is that you are A: Capable of doubt B: Capable of observing this doubt. THAT IS IT.
What in the hell do you mean by a reality that is more objective?
Stop making statements without substantiating them. How do we come across Objective truth strider?[/QUOTE]
Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?
You're arguing that we must be skeptical that we know reality and yes this is something we must understand. However if we are mistaken it implies that there is a truth and that we have it wrong!
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499700]Also once again, How do we come across Objective truth strider?[/QUOTE]
Universal knowledge 2+2=4.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499737]Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?
You're arguing that we must be skeptical that we know reality and yes this is something we must understand. However if we are mistaken it implies that there is a truth and that we have it wrong!
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
Universal knowledge 2+2=4.[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps it implies that what we believe to be true currently, isn't. It makes no claims about whether or not truth exists, just that what we currently hold as true, potentially isn't.
Also show me where 2+2=4 exists in the universe, and it isn't just a human concept.
(protip, you can't, philosophy of maths is an ongoing firestorm of argument)
[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]
:psyduck:
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499766]Or perhaps it implies that what we believe to be true currently, isn't. It makes no claims about whether or not truth exists, just that what we currently hold as true, potentially isn't.
Also show me where 2+2=4 exists in the universe, and it isn't just a human concept.
(protip, you can't, philosophy of maths is an ongoing firestorm of argument)[/QUOTE]
If nothing is true then nothing can exist*.
If what we currently hold isn't true then what must exist to show that it is not true?
If nothing is true then nothing exists and because I exist truth must exist.
And because for something to exist means it has to be differentiated from non existence it thus must have a definite identity.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28499914]If nothing is true then everything is true.
If what we currently hold isn't true then what must exist to show that it is not true?
If nothing is true then nothing exists and because I exist truth must exist.
And because for something to exist means it has to be differentiated from non existence it thus must have a definite identity.
Law of identity.[/QUOTE]
What must exist to show it is not true? Nothing, however, what must exist to show that it is not [I]necessarily[/I] true? Reasonable doubt.
Substantiate your first claim.
Your existance does not imply objective truth. Why do you think it does?
And what do you even mean by your existance?
Strider's Strategy: for arguing the validity of complete bullshit
Step 1. Make claim
Step 2. Quote philosopher that contradicts your claim
Step 3. Ignore all thoughts of philosopher that contradict your claim by stating that you're more intelligent than they are
Step 4. State that you are more intelligent than everybody in the thread and that they are inferior
Step 5. [B][I]INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE[/I][/B]
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499985]What must exist to show it is not true? Nothing, however, what must exist to show that it is not [I]necessarily[/I] true? Reasonable doubt.
Substantiate your first claim.
Your existance does not imply objective truth. Why do you think it does?
And what do you even mean by your existance?[/QUOTE]
ive been asking him this shit for five pages, maybe you'll have more luck
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28499985]What must exist to show it is not true? Nothing, however, what must exist to show that it is not [I]necessarily[/I] true? Reasonable doubt.
Substantiate your first claim.
Your existance does not imply objective truth. Why do you think it does?
And what do you even mean by your existance?[/QUOTE]
The only thing I can be sure of is that I exist consciously.
In order for something to be conscious there must be something which exists for it to be conscious of.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite identity to distinguish itself from non existence.
Definite identity is objective truth.
I'm just reiterating my points because you haven't seemed to grasp them.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500040]The only thing I can be sure of is that I exist consciously.
In order for something to be conscious there must be something which exists for it to be conscious of.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite identity to distinguish itself from non existence.
Definite identity is objective truth.
I'm just reiterating my points because you haven't seemed to grasp them.[/QUOTE]
No, the only thing that you can be certain of is that you are an entity capable of doubt and observing it. Believing the cogito argument to be anything more than this, is making logical steps that you cannot substantiate. Let's build this up by what is logically certain.
Your second point is invalid, as your consciousness is something that can be held in doubt and questioned. Thus if you are not conscious, then there is not something you are necessarily conscious of.
Why is definite identity objective truth? Explain this.
You're reiterating your points because you can't answer my question, you fundamentally cannot explain what objective truth is.
Strider, do you want to know why there has been an argument in philosophy over objective truth basically forever? It's because it can't be simply argued for on an internet forum by people who have a slight grasp of philosophy. As much as you would love to believe in Objective truth, there's no way you could possibly prove it without asking me to make a logical step that cannot be justified. If it was as easy as that, it would have been done and we'd now be searching for ways to get at this objective truth (whatever IT is), but we aren't, because we don't know.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500040]The only thing I can be sure of is that I exist consciously.
In order for something to be conscious there must be something which exists for it to be conscious of.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite identity to distinguish itself from non existence.
Definite identity is objective truth.
I'm just reiterating my points because you haven't seemed to grasp them.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that you're just making a series of bald faced assumptions and then calling them objective truth, right?
Or are you so narcissistic that you are completely unable to make even the most basic observations about yourself?
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500040]The only thing I can be sure of is that I exist consciously.
In order for something to be conscious there must be something which exists for it to be conscious of.
In order for something to exist it must have a definite identity to distinguish itself from non existence.
Definite identity is objective truth.
I'm just reiterating my points because you haven't seemed to grasp them.[/QUOTE]
:psyduck: x2
Hey strider, how old are you anyway?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500091]No, the only thing that you can be certain of is that you are an entity capable of doubt and observing it. Believing the cogito argument to be anything more than this, is making logical steps that you cannot substantiate. Let's build this up by what is logically certain.
Your second point is invalid, as your consciousness is something that can be held in doubt and questioned.
Why is definite identity objective truth? Explain this.
You're reiterating your points because you can't answer my question, you fundamentally cannot explain what objective truth is.[/QUOTE]
How can I be doubtful of my conscious if I am conscious?
I can be doubtful of others' conscious but not my own.
Objective truth is the universal laws of the definiteness of identity and ultimately reality.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28500126]Hey strider, how old are you anyway?[/QUOTE]
47
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500091]
You're reiterating your points because you can't answer my question, you fundamentally cannot explain what objective truth is.[/QUOTE]
I've restated it several times.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500149]How can I be doubtful of my conscious if I am conscious?
I can be doubtful of others' conscious but not my own.
Objective truth is the universal laws of the definiteness of identity and ultimately reality.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
47
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
I've restated it several times.[/QUOTE]
You can be doubtful of your consciousness, because your doubt does not necessarily infer your consciousness. It infers that you are capable of doubt, that's it.
Objective truth is the universal laws of the definiteness of identity and ultimately reality? Right, so what do you actually mean by that. Universal laws? Laws to our universe? By what? Says who? Where are these laws, and how do they exist?
Laws of reality? What reality? What about other realities? Does this truth exist in them?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500235]You can be doubtful of your consciousness, because your doubt does not necessarily infer your consciousness. It infers that you are capable of doubt, that's it.[/QUOTE]
In order to be capable of doubt you must be conscious, doubt is a conscious awareness and can't exist independently.
[quote= Cloak Raider]Objective truth is the universal laws of the definiteness of identity and ultimately reality? Right, so what do you actually mean by that. Universal laws? Laws to our universe? By what? Says who? Where are these laws, and how do they exist?
Laws of reality? What reality? What about other realities? Does this truth exist in them? [/quote]
Here we go again.
In order for something to exist it must have specific definite traits to distinguish itself from nothingness.
Identity asserts that reality is objective because it must be definite.
The traits and characteristics that encompass identity are objective.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500345]In order to be capable of doubt you must be conscious, doubt is a conscious awareness and can't exist independently.
Here we go again.
In order for something to exist it must have specific definite traits to distinguish itself from nothingness.
Identity asserts that reality is objective because it must be definite.
The traits and characteristics that encompass identity are objective.[/QUOTE]
Why can't doubt exist independently of consciousness? You're arguing that truth is capable of existing seperate of objects and mind.
Does nothingness have a trait that makes it nothingness?
You're not answering the questions, you're repeating yourself as though it answers them.
Why does reality have to be objective? Why is it impossible to imagine a reality that isn't, where objects still have identity? What do you even mean by objective reality in the first place? Why do you think that questions over objectivity still are argued over if your argument is right?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500415]Why can't doubt exist independently of consciousness? You're arguing that truth is capable of existing seperate of objects and mind.[/QUOTE]
Self doubt can't exist independently of consciousness because you need to be conscious to exhibit doubt of your conscious and by doubting your conscious you are confirming your conscious.
[quote]Does nothingness have a trait that makes it nothingness?[/quote]
Nothingness is the absence of identity.
[quote]Why does reality have to be objective? Why is it impossible to imagine a reality that isn't, where objects still have identity? What do you even mean by objective reality in the first place?[/quote]
Objects only have identity in the definiteness of their traits and characteristics.
You can't have an identity and be unobjective that's nonsensical.
[quote] Why do you think that questions over objectivity still are argued over if your argument is right?[/quote]
Irrationality, I do not accept it but I recognize it.
You're kinda extending Objectivism past what it actually is: being a self serving selfish prick and justifying it as good.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500518]Self doubt can't exist independently of consciousness because you need to be conscious to exhibit doubt of your conscious and by doubting your conscious you are confirming your conscious.
Nothingness is the absence of identity.
Objects only have identity in the definiteness of their traits and characteristics.
You can't have an identity and be unobjective that's nonsensical.
Irrationality, I do not accept it but I recognize it.[/QUOTE]
And to that argument I posit that truth and objectivity cannot exist seperate of objects and mind, as they cannot exhibit the traits of truth and objectivity without having objects and mind to express them.
Nothingness is the absence of identity? Aren't we attributing a trait of nothingness, to nothingness, the trait of non-identity? Thus making it something? By your own admission, if something has a trait, has an identity, then it must objectively exist.
Ah, so you're already certain that your argument is perfectly correct, anyone who argues against is irrational?
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28500566]You're kinda extending Objectivism past what it actually is: being a self serving selfish prick and justifying it as good.[/QUOTE]
That is the ethics of Objectivism as set by Ayn Rand.
Ethics /=/ Metaphysics.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500576]Nothingness is the absence of identity? Aren't we attributing a trait of nothingness, to nothingness, the trait of non-identity? Thus making it something? By your own admission, if something has a trait, has an identity, then it must objectively exist.[/QUOTE]
Non-identity isn't a trait it is a concept of a negative, nothingness is the absence of identity and existence.
[quote]And to that argument I posit that truth and objectivity cannot exist seperate of objects and mind, as they cannot exhibit the traits of truth and objectivity without having objects and mind to express them.[/quote]
We do not create reality we discover it through man's senses.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500622]That is the ethics of Objectivism as set by Ayn Rand.
Ethics /=/ Metaphysics.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
Non-identity isn't a trait it is a concept of a negative, nothingness is the absence of identity and existence.
We do not create reality we discover it through man's senses.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm going to bed, but before I go.
Is a negative [I]something[/I] when it comes to reality? Can we honestly say that nothingness, is nothing by your definition if it was the concept of a negative within it?
I'd like you to prove to me that. But A: Man's senses are extremely dubitable and doubtable, and thus the objectivity and truth you are seeing could well be the result of a subjective deception. B: I still want you to explain how truth and objectivity can exist seperate of mind, objects and reality. Otherwise you do not believe they are objective.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;28500717]Well I'm going to bed, but before I go.
Is a negative [I]something[/I] when it comes to reality? Can we honestly say that nothingness, is nothing by your definition if it was the concept of a negative within it?
I'd like you to prove to me that. But A: Man's senses are extremely dubitable and doubtable, and thus the objectivity and truth you are seeing could well be the result of a subjective deception. B: I still want you to explain how truth and objectivity can exist seperate of mind, objects and reality. Otherwise you do not believe they are objective.[/QUOTE]
Nothing isn't really anything
It is a concept set forth by man to rationalize non-existence.
Nothing isn't anything more than the absence of existence, it does not follow the laws of identity because it is the lack of identity.
Truth and objectivity do not exist independently of reality because they are reality.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28500814]Nothing isn't really anything
It is a concept set forth by man to rationalize non-existence.
Nothing isn't anything more than the absence of existence, it does not follow the laws of identity because it is the lack of identity.
Truth and objectivity do not exist independently of reality because they are reality.[/QUOTE]
Are you going to do anything except parrot Ayn Rand? I swear, it's like reading the chapter "This Is John Galt Speaking" of Atlas Shrugged all over again. Repeating this does not make it true. WHY does something exist if you exist (is your consciousness all there is?)? WHY do you say that the world is knowable (is it not possible that the universe does not follow rules?)? You don't have to answer me, just contemplate it.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;28500927]Are you going to do anything except parrot Ayn Rand? I swear, it's like reading the chapter "This Is John Galt Speaking" of Atlas Shrugged all over again. Repeating this does not make it true. WHY does something exist if you exist (is your consciousness all there is?)? WHY do you say that the world is knowable (is it not possible that the universe does not follow rules?)? You don't have to answer me, just contemplate it.[/QUOTE]
Mirrored Ayn Rand? I'm defending the teachings of Objectivism on my own premises.
Besides, she didn't formulate the laws of identity that would be Aristotle.
If my conscious exists then there must be something to be conscious of or I would not be conscious.
Think about that.
So you take an ideal, and twist it around you?
Then it's not really objectivism anymore, it's Strider*ism* with a flavour of shithead objectivism.
I do not as far as I know disagree with any fundamental basis of Objectivism.
I have not formulated any new ideas either but have rather exhibited philosophical precedents through deductions so I'm not really at the forefront of a new philosophy either.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
Besides you're the one who couldn't distinguish between metaphysics and ethics.
so you think people should all be selfish and greedy and it's perfectly good?
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28501295]so you think people should all be selfish and greedy and it's perfectly good?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.