mirh t1_iu2304p wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?
The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.
iiioiia t1_iu24xy4 wrote
> This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?
The text I quoted suggests otherwise.
> > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
"I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision."
Are we in the same thread?
> > > > It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.
This seems like sound advice.
mirh t1_iu2f7pa wrote
> The text I quoted suggests otherwise.
He replied to a dude suggesting that with a high enough bar for asserting knowledge, then everything becomes dogma.
> Are we in the same thread?
Yes. And nobody was claiming any absolute (whatever the word may even mean in the context). Except the example where somehow "having different experiences" is supposed to be a good reason not to trust others (and not in the simple sense that you are "unsure" about what to believe, but specifically that you decide to dismiss them because they aren't you and fuck them).
iiioiia t1_iu2frvf wrote
I quoted the text to which I replied, that you claim does not exist. I don't mind if you pretend as if I did not, it's even more fun that way!
mirh t1_iu3nf5w wrote
... you understand every sentence has to be interpreted, right?
iiioiia t1_iu41es5 wrote
I do, yes.
mirh t1_iu41qiu wrote
Then I don't know why you think I denied the existence of the words themselves.
iiioiia t1_iu43a17 wrote
Because I quoted physical text that contains content that does not require non-common interpretation to illustrate that your claim is incorrect:
> > This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic? > > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
From earlier in the thread:
> >>I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.
> Luckily, evolution found a solution: belief.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments