Submitted by Maxwellsdemon17 t3_xsrx5g in philosophy
Reply to comment by iiioiia in “The objective requires the subjective as a foil if it is to play the scientific role late nineteenth-century philosophers assigned to it, not to mention to become accessible through our perceptual apparatus in new kinds of mathematical and logical symbolism.” by Maxwellsdemon17
Your uncertainty and posturing proves my point, though. So now I can replace "would" with "does", since you weren't able to provide any coherent refutation besides an unsupported and not very believable denial.
Your thinking style is fascinating.
Your flailing is still pointless.
This is a prediction/perception about reality, including the future, aka clairvoyance.
It is a reasonable presumption, which you've been kind enough to confirm was accurate.
There is an important distinction between "is" and "equals".
What?
What do you mean please?
You should explain the distinction, what makes it important rather than irrelevant in this context, and its relevance to my comment, along with what implications it supposedly has to the issue.
"Your flailing is still pointless."
You are speaking from a ~relative perspective ("is"), not an absolute perspective ("equals").
All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective; that is a factual certainty, given the nature of speech, consciousness, and metaphysics. Since I never used the word "equals" and it has nothing to do with the conversation, and it is rarely used except by tossers pretending to have absolute perspectives or someone pronouncing "=" out loud, your initial comment on the matter, and all your follow up comments, consititue flailing.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective....
False.
Also: requires omniscience.
> that is a factual certainty, given the nature of speech, consciousness, and metaphysics.
Actually, it is a belief.
> Since I never used the word "equals"
My complaint is that you seem to be using another word, but with that meaning.
> ...and it has nothing to do with the conversation...
This is a belief.
> ...and it is rarely used except by tossers pretending to have absolute perspectives or someone pronouncing "=" out loud, your initial comment on the matter, and all your follow up comments, consititue flailing.
This is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action.
> > > > Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
It does! And thank you for your time, as always.
>>All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective....
>False.
>Also: requires omniscience.
Unsubstantiated balderdash. Also: malarkey. How would speaking require omniscience, and how could it avoid a relative perspective?
>Actually, it is a belief.
As I've patiently explained to you several times, in different ways and across several conversations, and you have failed to address let alone refute in every instance, there isn't any absolute distinction between facts and beliefs you assume and wish there were. So yes, it is actually a belief that all speech is a relative perspective, and it is unavoidable fact, as well. Since it is unavoidable, the more you try to evade it, the more you appear to be flailing desperately.
>My complaint is that you seem to be using another word, but with that meaning.
Would the term "synonym" be applicable, perhaps? Yes, in this context, as in almost every other, 'is' and 'equals' can be considered synonyms, despite the fact they are not exactly the same. Either meaning or word would be sufficient, for my purposes, as they probably would be to any reasonable person reading my thoughts. Your flailing is both the cause and the effect of your inability to be a reasonable person, in that way.
>This is a belief.
It is your belief that it is a belief. But all truths are merely the belief that they are truth. This causes no problems to my position or in my philosophy, but it must to yours, or why else would you keep bringing up whether something is a belief as if were relevant, like that is a prima facie indication it isn't true or not also a fact?
>This is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action.
All text is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action. Yes. Once again, your observation does not provide a counter-argument to the statement.
Keep flailing!
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> >>All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective.... > > >False. > > >Also: requires omniscience. > > Unsubstantiated balderdash.
Please present your proof then...or at least some sort of evidence.
> As I've patiently explained to you several times, in different ways and across several conversations, and you have failed to address let alone refute in every instance, there isn't any absolute distinction between facts and beliefs you assume and wish there were.
Ok then, would you be comfortable with acknowledging that everything you say is merely your opinion then?
Also: would it be too much to ask for you to STOP READING MY MIND?
>Please present your proof then...or at least some sort of evidence.
I did.
>Ok then, would you be comfortable with acknowledging that everything you say is merely your opinion then?
Of course not. Most of my opinions here are based on facts and solid reasoning, very thoroughly considered and carefully constructed to be taken seriously in the context of philosophical discussions and presenting that reasoning honestly and at some length, despite the restrictions of the format. They are far more than "merely" opinions.
Your responses have been either parroting other people's opinions or flailing, in contrast.
>Also: would it be too much to ask for you to STOP READING MY MIND?
All I can do is read your words, and make honest and reasonable conjectures based on them. Crying about it without actually demonstrating (by something more than mere denials, while repeating the very behavior that led to those apparently well-justified conjectures) that my suppositions are inaccurate won't suffice to stop me from reading your words, and knowing that those words came from your mind.
If you don't believe identifying something a belief calls into question whether or is a fact, why do you keep blankly asserting, as if it were an informative observation, that my assertions are beliefs? Something about your argumentation is severely deficient in explaining the reason for your argumentation. I suspect I know exactly what it is. Does that bother you?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments