Page 14 of 14 « First<1011121314
Topic Options
#41755 - 08/11/10 02:38 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Raffy]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3142
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

For your hard-headed attitude you can see yourself as ignored untill you provide something intelligent instead of hollow words.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41775 - 08/11/10 09:40 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

For your hard-headed attitude you can see yourself as ignored untill you provide something intelligent instead of hollow words.

Was you referring to MathewJ1's post or Raffy's? I thought MathewJ1's was insightful.

Top
#41783 - 08/11/10 11:54 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
The Platonic forms are not representations.


Yes they are.

 Quote:
The forms are not non-existent.


Yes they are and you are splitting hairs here. The Forms simply an idea and have no material existence. Just because you are able to talk about something and give it meaning doesn't make it real or give it an existence.

 Quote:
We now get back to the basic point I was trying to make to Caladrius above. How do you personally refute subjective idealism and philosophically legitimate a realist or materialist metaphysics or ontology?


Is this your way of asking how I explain reality, existence etc. without resorting to to imaginary friends? stimulus, response, chemical reactions in the brain, nothing that spectacular really. We live, we die, the end.

 Quote:
You do mention that arguments related to the existence of Set amount to nothing since Set can only be perceived subjectively. (I personally would clarify this and state that Set is perceived or apprehended subjectively under certain special circumstances.) I would invite you to define subjectively and subjectivity philosophically in a concise and clear manner, and then determine the relationship between the philosophical subject and its real object or objectivity, and the constitution of this real object or objectivity.


Sigh. It is quite simple. I have no idea what your subjective reality looks like. For example, I have no way of knowing how you see the color blue. Much like you have no way of knowing how I see the color red. In the objective reality, of which we are all a part (though some more so than others admittedly). In this objective reality there are trees, clouds, rivers and a myriad of other things that both of us, though existing in our own subjective reality i.e. our minds, can point to and say to the other "look at that dog".

However, to say that Set can only be perceived subjectively is to say that it doesn't exist objectively. Ultimately this is just a cop out; you can not prove the existence so you expect people to just believe on faith. To give another example that would be like me saying that I have Lotus Elise and when someone asks for a ride I tell them "Well, it only exists subjectively." Sounds rather silly in that context, doesn't it?

 Quote:
You are fundamentally operating on assumptions without a philosophic grounding.


Philosophy is a good way to think about things in a new way and pass the time but when I want to know about things the way they are, I will look to hard science.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41787 - 08/11/10 01:09 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

No doubt writing that made you feel better about yourself. It is such an effort, isn't it, to maintain a certain Internet image of yourself?

Trying too hard, perhaps? A certain lack of that self honesty and the inner balance of certain opposites which is necessary for progression beyond a certain stage along "our" Way? One has to know when to admit certain things about, and to, one's self.

Time, then, for another rant, perhaps? Or possibly some inner reflection? How silly of me to expect the latter...

How silly to even expect all this to be understood. No sinister-empathy here. then.

"Nothing to do with the subject..."? Hmmm. Since you attempted to define a scholar it seemed only fair to give a better definition \:\)

I think my causal time here is done.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
Page 14 of 14 « First<1011121314


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.021 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 17 queries. Zlib compression disabled.