Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iiioiia t1_iqxqeom wrote

Reply to comment by TMax01 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

> >>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?

1

TMax01 t1_iqy2v66 wrote

>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?

2