On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1421  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 26, 2022 1:48 am

I concur: it's bad enough to have lied repeatedly, but to have done so just to get attention from strangers. Yuck.

Read the name of the forum - it's not irrational bollocks I quite fancy. Good luck finding somewhere suitable for the credulous pap you push.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1422  Postby newolder » Apr 26, 2022 8:09 am

Frozenworld wrote:...
I said I can't be sure if there is anything out of it. I never can be and it scares me.

This is an example of what you wrote (there are probably more examples):
Frozenworld wrote:... I don't want to think of all this as just in my head, ...

Seek help but not in internet chat boxes.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1423  Postby Frozenworld » Apr 27, 2022 5:27 am

Spearthrower wrote:I concur: it's bad enough to have lied repeatedly, but to have done so just to get attention from strangers. Yuck.

Read the name of the forum - it's not irrational bollocks I quite fancy. Good luck finding somewhere suitable for the credulous pap you push.

I haven't lied, I said that the fact I can't be sure if this is all real or not is what scares me and I don't really know how to be. It's not for attention I just can't get past this and the arguments I've seen have been debunked from those who argue (sort of) for solipsism (only in the sense of looking at whether the arguments against it have any merit).

The one about "if this is all in your head why can't you control it", the counter point is that there is already so much about our head we can't really control (dreams, thoughts, likes, etc) that assuming we have any sort of control over this (alleged) mental one is nonsense. It being all in your head doesn't mean you are god, as is the case in dreams. I used to think that but I found that argument wasn't as strong as I thought initially.

"When reality is interpreted based on our constantly fluctuating perception, providing any kind of absolute definitive proof of anything becomes a little more than speculation based on random data."

I've already said before, if calling it nonsense was enough I wouldn't be here.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 146

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1424  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2022 5:47 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I concur: it's bad enough to have lied repeatedly, but to have done so just to get attention from strangers. Yuck.

Read the name of the forum - it's not irrational bollocks I quite fancy. Good luck finding somewhere suitable for the credulous pap you push.


I haven't lied,...



I am not even going to give you the time of day to read past this bullshit.

Your lies are recorded in this fucking thread - your own words are impossibly contradictory unless you were lying.

As with everything else, despite believing you can just blather your way into obfuscatory confusion, the audience here is not so mindless as to be misdirected.

It's been bullshit all the way through, kindly fuck off now. Take your childish trolling elsewhere.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1425  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 27, 2022 6:25 am

Frozenworld wrote:I said that the fact I can't be sure if this is all real or not is what scares me


The problem is not whether all this is real or not; it scares you that you can't be sure, and it's no one else's job to fix that. First of all, it's not relevant to me whether or not you're scared. Second, I'm not about to treat you as if you're scared; I'm not a medical professional who treats anxiety disorders. Third, I don't believe for a minute that you're scared -- the issue is irrelevant to me. Why am I not scared because I can't be sure if all of this is real or not? The answer is simple: Pascal's Wager is garbage. In case you don't know what that is, it's the act of pretending certainty in case God is watching you. That's the game you're playing, that it's 50-50 whether all of this is real or not, which is the same as Pascal's Wager. If it's even 51%-49%, you know what to do, unless you really do believe that the house always wins. In that view, there's no point, and you should just give up, whatever that means to you, but it should entail not posting in forums.

Frozenworld wrote:
"When reality is interpreted based on our constantly fluctuating perception, providing any kind of absolute definitive proof of anything becomes a little more than speculation based on random data."


Yes, you're saying that it's 50-50. Welcome to Pascal's Wager, and not knowing whether to shit or go blind. As far as I am concerned, whichever one of those it turns out to be you will have richly earned. You can't afford to discuss the upside of either having crapped your pants or turned off all the inputs.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30306
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1426  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2022 11:59 am



"You can't know anything, knowledge is merely opinion!"
She opines, over her Cabernet Sauvignon,
Vis-à-vis some unhippily empirical comment by me.
"Not a good start" I think,
We're only on pre-dinner drinks,
And across the room, my wife widens her eyes,
Silently begs me: "Be nice!"
A matrimonial warning, not worth ignoring
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave of a morning when
Deciding whether to leave her apartment by the front door
Or the window on her second floor.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1427  Postby Frozenworld » May 02, 2022 8:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:I said that the fact I can't be sure if this is all real or not is what scares me


The problem is not whether all this is real or not; it scares you that you can't be sure, and it's no one else's job to fix that. First of all, it's not relevant to me whether or not you're scared. Second, I'm not about to treat you as if you're scared; I'm not a medical professional who treats anxiety disorders. Third, I don't believe for a minute that you're scared -- the issue is irrelevant to me. Why am I not scared because I can't be sure if all of this is real or not? The answer is simple: Pascal's Wager is garbage. In case you don't know what that is, it's the act of pretending certainty in case God is watching you. That's the game you're playing, that it's 50-50 whether all of this is real or not, which is the same as Pascal's Wager. If it's even 51%-49%, you know what to do, unless you really do believe that the house always wins. In that view, there's no point, and you should just give up, whatever that means to you, but it should entail not posting in forums.

Frozenworld wrote:
"When reality is interpreted based on our constantly fluctuating perception, providing any kind of absolute definitive proof of anything becomes a little more than speculation based on random data."


Yes, you're saying that it's 50-50. Welcome to Pascal's Wager, and not knowing whether to shit or go blind. As far as I am concerned, whichever one of those it turns out to be you will have richly earned. You can't afford to discuss the upside of either having crapped your pants or turned off all the inputs.


I know but when it comes to disbelieving God I find that much easier to do than this case, namely because there is "Something to it", unlike God which I don't find convincing no matter how often I hear the arguments for it.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 146

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1428  Postby Frozenworld » May 02, 2022 8:05 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I concur: it's bad enough to have lied repeatedly, but to have done so just to get attention from strangers. Yuck.

Read the name of the forum - it's not irrational bollocks I quite fancy. Good luck finding somewhere suitable for the credulous pap you push.


I haven't lied,...



I am not even going to give you the time of day to read past this bullshit.

Your lies are recorded in this fucking thread - your own words are impossibly contradictory unless you were lying.

As with everything else, despite believing you can just blather your way into obfuscatory confusion, the audience here is not so mindless as to be misdirected.

It's been bullshit all the way through, kindly fuck off now. Take your childish trolling elsewhere.


All that is recorded is you being unable to help beyond calling solipsism nonsense, which never worked for anyone.

I never lied. I never said I believed this is true, you said that. I said I don't want to but I don't know how to argue against it. The fact that I can't prove this is all real (according to them) seems to be enough to upend my current model of the world.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 146

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1429  Postby Spearthrower » May 03, 2022 5:17 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I concur: it's bad enough to have lied repeatedly, but to have done so just to get attention from strangers. Yuck.

Read the name of the forum - it's not irrational bollocks I quite fancy. Good luck finding somewhere suitable for the credulous pap you push.


I haven't lied,...



I am not even going to give you the time of day to read past this bullshit.

Your lies are recorded in this fucking thread - your own words are impossibly contradictory unless you were lying.

As with everything else, despite believing you can just blather your way into obfuscatory confusion, the audience here is not so mindless as to be misdirected.

It's been bullshit all the way through, kindly fuck off now. Take your childish trolling elsewhere.


All that is recorded is you being unable to help beyond calling solipsism nonsense, which never worked for anyone.



Which is yet another lie as anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.

The reality is that you bluntly dismissed any criticism of your religion-of-one - you've presented no ability whatsoever to defend any of your positions at all.


Frozenworld wrote:I never lied. I never said I believed this is true, you said that. I said I don't want to but I don't know how to argue against it. The fact that I can't prove this is all real (according to them) seems to be enough to upend my current model of the world.


Despite you pretending the empirical world doesn't exist to score cool points in edgelordland, the reality is that your own written words are still recorded in this thread for everyone to see.

I already tracked your 'evolution' of thought which went - 'solipsism is absurd, I mean look what this guy says' to 'my entire life is destroyed by this knowledge, it has haunted me for years' - utter wank.

It's all bullshit FW - telling a person you haven't lied when that person has literally cited your lies is, itself, lying. You seem to think you're above the petty concerns of truth and honesty, a noble explorer of a new world, but in reality you're just trolling strangers on the internet to inflate your ego. It's the literary equivalent of a randy dog dry-humping someone's leg.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1430  Postby Frozenworld » May 05, 2022 11:24 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:

I haven't lied,...



I am not even going to give you the time of day to read past this bullshit.

Your lies are recorded in this fucking thread - your own words are impossibly contradictory unless you were lying.

As with everything else, despite believing you can just blather your way into obfuscatory confusion, the audience here is not so mindless as to be misdirected.

It's been bullshit all the way through, kindly fuck off now. Take your childish trolling elsewhere.


All that is recorded is you being unable to help beyond calling solipsism nonsense, which never worked for anyone.



Which is yet another lie as anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.

The reality is that you bluntly dismissed any criticism of your religion-of-one - you've presented no ability whatsoever to defend any of your positions at all.


Frozenworld wrote:I never lied. I never said I believed this is true, you said that. I said I don't want to but I don't know how to argue against it. The fact that I can't prove this is all real (according to them) seems to be enough to upend my current model of the world.


Despite you pretending the empirical world doesn't exist to score cool points in edgelordland, the reality is that your own written words are still recorded in this thread for everyone to see.

I already tracked your 'evolution' of thought which went - 'solipsism is absurd, I mean look what this guy says' to 'my entire life is destroyed by this knowledge, it has haunted me for years' - utter wank.

It's all bullshit FW - telling a person you haven't lied when that person has literally cited your lies is, itself, lying. You seem to think you're above the petty concerns of truth and honesty, a noble explorer of a new world, but in reality you're just trolling strangers on the internet to inflate your ego. It's the literary equivalent of a randy dog dry-humping someone's leg.

Which is yet another lie as anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.

Again, you're wrong there.

The reality is that you bluntly dismissed any criticism of your religion-of-one - you've presented no ability whatsoever to defend any of your positions at all.


Way to utterly misrepresent my point.

Despite you pretending the empirical world doesn't exist to score cool points in edgelordland, the reality is that your own written words are still recorded in this thread for everyone to see.

I already tracked your 'evolution' of thought which went - 'solipsism is absurd, I mean look what this guy says' to 'my entire life is destroyed by this knowledge, it has haunted me for years' - utter wank.

It's all bullshit FW - telling a person you haven't lied when that person has literally cited your lies is, itself, lying. You seem to think you're above the petty concerns of truth and honesty, a noble explorer of a new world, but in reality you're just trolling strangers on the internet to inflate your ego. It's the literary equivalent of a randy dog dry-humping someone's leg.


The only way to track that would be in the fantasy world you've made up where I said I believed it despite me repeatedly saying I don't want to believe it but I don't know how to argue against it. Anyone who reads this thread can see that except you apparently. You're not fooling anyone.

My problem is I don't have solid proof to say it's wrong and just get on with my life. If I did I wouldn't be here. But like any philosophy question there is no final answer to it.

So I'm left with just saying "it's nonsense" or "i don't believe it" which doesn't feel right because it doesn't sound very strong.

And there is the question of "What if you're wrong and this is all just in your head, an illusion"? I don't have a response to that one and it keeps me chained to this because I feel like I need an answer for it.

Just because this thread isn't years old doesn't mean the problem hasn't plagued me for years.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 146

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1431  Postby Cito di Pense » May 06, 2022 4:32 am

Frozenworld wrote:
The only way to track that would be in the fantasy world you've made up where I said I believed it despite me repeatedly saying I don't want to believe it but I don't know how to argue against it. Anyone who reads this thread can see that except you apparently. You're not fooling anyone.

My problem is I don't have solid proof to say it's wrong and just get on with my life. If I did I wouldn't be here. But like any philosophy question there is no final answer to it.

So I'm left with just saying "it's nonsense" or "i don't believe it" which doesn't feel right because it doesn't sound very strong.

And there is the question of "What if you're wrong and this is all just in your head, an illusion"? I don't have a response to that one and it keeps me chained to this because I feel like I need an answer for it.

Just because this thread isn't years old doesn't mean the problem hasn't plagued me for years.


Yes, yes. I can see how much you're suffering. Witnessing the suffering of anonymous internet pests is one of the bright spots in my life. You could cut into that in a minute just by either getting on with your life, or killing yourself, but you're so nice. You can't bear to spoil my fun. There's two ways to fail at killing yourself: The first is that none of this is real, so you won't really kill yourself; the other is that this is real and you won't succeed, and just end up in the hospital with brain damage. It's not as if you actually believe you can fix your problems with the kind of brain-dead patter you keep pretending is philosophy. Those problems are centered around the thrill you get pretending you're confused. This is called "internet trolling".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30306
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1432  Postby Spearthrower » May 06, 2022 5:10 am

FW - stop yapping, everyone can read, and everyone can see you fucking lied. This entire thread is founded on an agenda of bad faith. Go away.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1433  Postby Spearthrower » May 06, 2022 5:12 am

Just because this thread isn't years old doesn't mean the problem hasn't plagued me for years.


Either you are stupid, or you think we are.

It's not the age of the thread, but the fact that you JAQed off pretending your position was directly contrary, then slowly became 'convinced' by absolutely nothing. All of this can readily be verified by anyone simply by looking at the first few pages on this thread. You've lied repeatedly, you've got no more value here - sling your hook.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1434  Postby Greg the Grouper » May 06, 2022 3:16 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Either you are stupid, or you think we are.


I figure both of those assertions have been well established by now.
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 488

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1435  Postby newolder » May 06, 2022 3:35 pm

Frozenworld wrote:If I did I wouldn't be here.

You wouldn't be where?

What is this somewhere else to which you refer? :picard:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1436  Postby Spearthrower » May 06, 2022 3:39 pm

What even is a conditional in a self-centred universe?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1437  Postby BlackBart » May 06, 2022 8:15 pm

newolder wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:If I did I wouldn't be here.

You wouldn't be where?

What is this somewhere else to which you refer? :picard:

He's like Father Mackenzie, writing a sermon no-one will hear.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12607
Age: 60
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1438  Postby romansh » May 08, 2022 6:27 pm

I must admit, Frozenworld your pleading I find a little tiresome.

I agree with you in that you will find no conclusive proof for there being a world beyond your "perception".
Now that you dismiss a whack load of corroborating evidence for a world beyond you, that is your problem, not mine.

You seem oblivious to what you can and can't do with inductive logic.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2968

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1439  Postby Spearthrower » May 09, 2022 5:13 am

Tis the nature of proof though. There are very few domains of knowledge governed by proof. Most are adjudicated by evidence, for which there is an absurd amount establishing the existence of an external reality, and no one's going to come up with any credible, coherent explanation as to why it's all there, why it remains there so persistently, or why its properties affect us if it's illusory.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32097
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#1440  Postby Cito di Pense » May 09, 2022 7:11 am

Spearthrower wrote:Tis the nature of proof though. There are very few domains of knowledge governed by proof. Most are adjudicated by evidence, for which there is an absurd amount establishing the existence of an external reality, and no one's going to come up with any credible, coherent explanation as to why it's all there, why it remains there so persistently, or why its properties affect us if it's illusory.


Unless, of course, we deconstruct the very concept of evidence. So that's really what deconstruction has bequeathed us. We simply can't coexist with the notion that it's wise (let alone, useful) to question everything, but that's really where the numbnutzes took it. We could call it a kind of totalitarianism, with scholars simply gazing up their own buttholes.

What you're doing here requires further deconstruction of "persistence", "properties", "affect" and "illusory". If we don't question these terms then sure, "coherent" is also free from deconstruction. As I say, totalitarianism.

Finally, let's concern ourselves with what definitions the numbnutzes apply to terms like "proof". Well, never mind. I'm always being warned about the danger (deconstruct "danger") of binning philosophy. How do we decide where philosophy and asking questions ends and JAQing off begins? Not to decide is to decide, and this is something I've offered Frozenworld as well. Really, the best response to someone like FW is "fuck off". It isn't a matter of pride to keep engaging with the numbnutzes. You can be paranoid that The Marching Morons are going to win, or you can be realistic. You're going to have to kill them.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30306
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest