jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:As I've explained on numerous occasions, the sense/experience/observation of something, is not the reality of that thing itself.

Since you put 'experienced' in front of every noun, James, could we not simply take it as read that the word is there in your discourse, so you don't have to keep sticking it in, as if it were some sort of inflated intellectual dick?

Gotta do it, Cito. All meaningful outcomes of such a discourse, hinge upon it.

x + b = 1 + b, James. What does x equal? It doesn't matter what b equals, because we are solving for x. You claim you're solving for b, but you can't do it with your sentences, which all look like x + b = 1 + b. b stands for 'bollocks', and is not meaningful in the sentence. You know it, and I know it, and everybody else in your threads knows it. All you do is stand there like ET, humming "beeeeeeeeeeeeeee", or 'b is something, innit?' - it wouldn't be in the sentence if it weren't meaningful. That's what you say. For a metaphysician, 'b' is 'reality'.

The sentence indicates how external it is, which I find, er, meaningful. That's internet metaphysics for ya.

Well it certainly can't be proven that it is impossible to think of an external reality since external is not necessarily "completely alien to everything you can think of". ie if there are 2 blue circles one is external to another and both are blue.
I think it's more of a problem when you think about what you can perceive, etc.

asdfjkl wrote: there are 2 blue circles one is external to another

So you're thinking that you are one of the blue circles and reality is the other. You want to conceive of yourself as being external to reality? Be my guest. Lots of posters think that they are typing, and reality is what they see on the screen.

No, you say, that's not what I meant.

That's right. You can't fucking express it. Many intelligent commentators have passed this way before you. If you don't understand what they wrote, then I guess you don't.

asdfjkl wrote:I know it's related to the idea of an internal reality but if you can't visualize it or anything.
Is it still a meaningful concept or an empty phrase?

I'm looking at external reality right now. If I can see it and touch it what's the problem?

"Internal reality", on the other hand, I'm pretty sceptical about the meaningfulness of that. As Quine put it, it "does not cohere as an autonomous domain".

Cito di Pense wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: there are 2 blue circles one is external to another

So you're thinking that you are one of the blue circles and reality is the other. You want to conceive of yourself as being external to reality? Be my guest.

No, I mean I am PART of reality and the other circle is the other part.
For example 2 conscious perceivers.

x=y+z
always duality in identity.

jamest wrote:I'm a thinker, not a reader.

Yeah, and yet you expect people to come here to read your, err, deep thoughts. Such as:

What I do know of Kant leads me to think that he's responsible for fucking-up philosophy for the last 200+ years.

...a stupid thing to say since, as I and others have shown in the past (by the obvious means of asking you basic questions about Kant's work, evoking gibberish in response), what you know of Kant could be written with a large marker pen on the back of a stamp.

What puffed-up drivel, boasting that you're above all that pesky reading.

Matthew Shute wrote:

jamest wrote:I'm a thinker, not a reader.

Yeah, and yet you expect people to come here to read your, err, deep thoughts. Such as:

What I do know of Kant leads me to think that he's responsible for fucking-up philosophy for the last 200+ years.

Err, you just read it.

I don't 'expect' anything, Matt. I just harbour hope for intelligent conversation, sometimes.

...a stupid thing to say since, as I and others have shown in the past (by the obvious means of asking you basic questions about Kant's work, evoking gibberish in response), what you know of Kant could be written with a large marker pen on the back of a stamp.

I was talking about his central tenet, not his life's works.

What puffed-up drivel, boasting that you're above all that pesky reading.

What a disingenuous comment. I wasn't boasting about anything. I was merely responding to the question "James, have you been reading too much Kant?".

You're in a bad mood today, Matt. Cheer up, it's Friday tomorrow.

jamest wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

jamest wrote:I'm a thinker, not a reader.

Yeah, and yet you expect people to come here to read your, err, deep thoughts. Such as:

What I do know of Kant leads me to think that he's responsible for fucking-up philosophy for the last 200+ years.

Err, you just read it.

James, I'm not the person here expressing a dismissive attitude to reading, although I've been dismissive of a few of your post which I have read. You've implied: "Well, I don't read books. But that doesn't matter because I'm thinker. I should be writing the books and showing others how to think." It strikes me as hubris.

I don't 'expect' anything, Matt. I just harbour hope for intelligent conversation, sometimes.

Really? You usually affect the tone of a teacher trying to get through to a bunch of slow students. Bear in mind the context: the content of your (as Cito di Pense has put it) pseudophilosophical wankery.

...a stupid thing to say since, as I and others have shown in the past (by the obvious means of asking you basic questions about Kant's work, evoking gibberish in response), what you know of Kant could be written with a large marker pen on the back of a stamp.

I was talking about his central tenet, not his life's works.

"Central tenet"? I'm unconvinced that you know what you're talking about.

What puffed-up drivel, boasting that you're above all that pesky reading.

What a disingenuous comment. I wasn't boasting about anything. I was merely responding to the question "James, have you been reading too much Kant?".

You said, "I'm a thinker, not a reader." There's a certain arrogance in supposing yourself a thinker so adept, and an observer so perceptive, that you do not need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

You're in a bad mood today, Matt. Cheer up, it's Friday tomorrow.

Humbug, James. It would cheer me up if you would read a book before trying to write one, here on this forum.