Jeez, be a little more patronizing and condescending. The violence I was exposed to watching Predator and playing Grand Theft Auto 4 didn’t turn me into a murderer automatically.
I am skeptical. I constantly expose what I take in to criticism. Everything I (or you, or anybody) thinks is a product of our perception of reality (if that even exists), not of some external “fact”, because nobody knows definitively that the external world is even there! Prove it! Go ahead! You can’t. You believe it’s there, you have faith that it exists. That’s all. I am comfortable in admitting that, because in the end, it is of no real consequence. I will experience whatever this is.
As I typed in an earlier post, ideologues (slaves to fixed ideas) see the world in black and white, right and wrong. If you are so small-minded and such a zealot for your set of beliefs, I don’t really understand why you would want to even bother discussing anything with anyone (besides fellow brothers of the faith) but there was the giveaway:
Ah, you either:
Want converts to help validate your faith when occasional doubt might come creeping into your (swollen) head, causing some actual soul-searching,
Are a bully who likes to attempt to embarrass those who you believe are mentally inferior. (Makes sense, I don’t see you tangling with Lilburne or Knott very often)
Either way, when trapped by the crappy position you so desperately cling to, instead of saying “I guess there really is no way to prove an objective anything”, or “OK, well agree to disagree”, you throw a petulant shit-fit, and start insulting me! That is really quite pathetic that you can’t even have some respect for others who don’t fall in line with your assumptions about the world.
Keep your damn equations and (huge) sense of self-satisfaction for doing so. I’ll keep my freedom.
enjoy your freedom from logic and truth. may it serve you well. What is your perspective on praxeology? that its empty formalism leaves it a barren faith that is inferior to the positivist approach to economics?
Ask Lilburne what he thinks of me of you want to. Lilburne feel free to post your opinion.
I doubt what is doubtful and am sure in what is certain, to do otherwise is madness. A is A is certain, or do you doubt it? do you have a blind faith in it? tell me about the law of identity… is it just a rule that logicians adopt? a game they define so that they enjoy their play?
is that the freedom to think free from bias or the freedom to think free from logic?
Deny your own existence, go on why don’t you…freedom from logic. such japes.
Such arrogance.. There are things I can’t know, and can’t explain.
It’s freedom from the pretension that I have to take a side.
It sounds reasonable, but I’m in no position to command people to believe it. If it’s good for you, isn’t that good enough?
What of quantum physics? Many occurrences at the smallest, fastest level of the physical world work against “logic”, but it happens. There is an uncertainty in everything, it’s a fact (if that’s what it takes to get you to consider something). Now, if all the constituents of the universe are at their very core uncertain, how can you divine certainty?
If we want to reduce everything to pedantic denial and quibbling your complaints about “freedom” are simply laughable. Just imagine that you are “free” and viola!
Reject the world completely or accept it, you cannot have it both ways.
‘commanding’ people to believe it is not the issue. demanding they believe it if they are to be taken seriously as people worth talking to is eminently sensible. For oneself, to consistently recognize its objective truth is simply to remain sane. My hope in engaging the ‘supreme’ skeptic is to put others on watch for the absurdities inherent in the position. if this leaves you cold and faithfully committed to your dogged skepticism, so be it.
I don’t know what the obsession about “universal this” or “absolute that” is all about anyways. Isn’t it good enough to just take things at face value?
Before you go crazy spouting math and science, remember the distinction about laws that are deniable yet undefiable, and ones that are both deniable and defiable.
It helps to figure out the ones you can’t defy, so you can get around them toward your aim (the whole impulse surgery, flight to overcome gravity, etc.)
What does figuring out the pointless ones accomplish? Peace of mind? A pretense for violence? No matter what, the result is only your self-satisfaction. Why bother with converts?
Hoo boy, I can hear the showers and the ovens starting up now.
Do you have a problem with the state? Or is the problem that you aren’t the final authority of “right” and “wrong”.
How is that not arrogant, by the way?
This is from Webster’s:
“arrogance - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner”
Who are you to decide “sane” and “insane”?
And you still haven’t explained how you know that your perception of reality is coherent with actual reality. All I’m saying is that each proposition is equally absurd.
Face value? Only someone who accepts reality would accept things at face value, not us extreme nihilists.
If its defiable it isn’t a law, please try and “remember the distinction.”
Whatever do you mean? It is merely an opinion that there are laws at all! There is nothing to get around, as its only an opinion, doing so would be an admission of reality.
(And flight does not overcome gravity at all… at all!)
Because its fun; reading “converts” backtrack, equivocate and just squirm is just too amusing to pass up.
I don’t understand this bizarre allusion. Are you appealing to the notion that might makes right and that because my relatives, Jews were butchered, and lacked the power to prosper then, ‘move along theres nothing to see here’?
yes
no. A is not A because I am the authority on its truth. it is just true. I am not writing to you as though you might understand. These words are here so that those who find scepticism enticing but are still sane, might assess the danger/inanity of the path they tread.
it is *merely ‘*your’ opinion that I exaggerate anything. (are you watching people?)
no; A is A is not absurd whereas A is not A is absurd. (Have we had enough fun with this fella yet?)
I’m saying that once you have become so married to a concept that you begin to view fellow human beings as inferior for not sharing it, ugly things can happen.
How do you know? Still haven’t answered that one (is he afraid?)
What exactly is the danger of critical thinking (will he have an answer? Tee hee, I’m so much smarter than this schmuck, maybe I’ll boot him off the forum because he doesn’t agree with me)
Well you must be exaggerating something, your implication that I wasn’t worth talking to earlier would’ve made you stop by now if that wasn’t an exaggeration. Maybe that isn’t true. You tell me, Padre.
How do you know (Still no answer! Oh, I am a cheeky little monkey, aren’t I?)
I wont kill my fellow jews; that will have to remain the pet trick of the socialists, statists, polylogists and nihilists.
because it is a necessary truth. to deny the law of identy is to be a fool. if one actually believes the denial (and doesnt merely parrot the words of denial) then one is insane.
look. just be honest that you are arguing in bad faith. you don’t believe that there is the possibility in even being right. yet you argue, and claim to be arguing with me. you laugh at the thought of objectivity, ‘logic’ ‘truth’, that i might be ‘correct’ about… well… anything. hence you have no grounds for declaring me wrong, the word ‘wrong’ is meaningless unless you want to steal a concept of objective right and wrong. You are left to declaring me ‘wrong’ on whatever topic we discuss simply as an article of your subjective faith in the uncritical dogma of scepticism. how can you assert you are critically thinking when you would deny the possibility of ‘critical thinking’ which must depend on logic and truth. you make a mockery of your own positions and affirm the truth of mine with every post. and you haven’t yet even noticed that!
I know because to deny ‘A is A’ is to assert its objective truth.
The denial of the law of identity is SELF REFUTING.
Your missing an important distinction. As you say, I agree with almost everything you are saying. It makes a lot of sense. But to say that anything is an absolute, doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t understand how you could prove it, and you still have no explanation.
I don’t think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute. I’m sure there were guys like you 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, who had it all figured out. Do you think they did, by modern standards?
if you are not asserting I am wrong. then there is no basis for disagreeing with me in matters objective. have you been agreeing with me this whole time?
it is proved by its necessity. its undeniability. if you don’t get it I wouldn’t worry, you must have bigger problems.
what is this statement? is it something you believe to be true?, something you believe to be false?, something you believe to be probable? we know for sure that it could not be the case that ‘we could never claim anything absolutely’, why ? because this is self-refuting. its…whooops. just making an absolute claim.
polylogists, absurd sceptics, and insane people have been with us a long time too. thanks for bringing history into it.
Sure they make sense, and I’d be willing to say “more than likely” or “almost surely” they will turn out as you expect, but it has proven scientifically that A will equal A almost every time, but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while.