This is very, very True.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pmOh, I know. The funny thing was how easily you understood my post and he can't really.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 5:59 pm But VA really doesn't think that you exist. You're just an empty appearance from his perspective, for a while he can tentatively treat you as if you actually existed, but in the end he knows that you don't really exist at all. This is the secret to "optimal living".
He's never managed to admit that his antirealism denies the existence of anything that we do not experience directly. But we do not directly experience other minds. We infer them.
And let us not forget that you can very easily and very simply infer things, which are do not even exist or are not even there.
But how could absolutely anyone, logically, claim that the very thing that they are looking at is not being experienced directly, and be accepted as not delusional.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm If you think some thing, a star, exists, even though you can't experience it directly, this is a delusion.
What do you people even mean by 'experiencing directly'?
How many sensory organs do you even have?
Are so-called 'fsk's' even talked about outside of this forum, like in the way "veritas aequitas" talks about 'them/it' and refers to 'them/it' here?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm But he gets to believe in things that are inferred, BUT only when conditioned on FSKs.
Well is it not an already established or known Fact that to just 'experience' some thing 'directly' is just done with or by and through either or all of the five senses?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm He'll never go into what the exact boundaries are for 'experiencing directly'.
Even though there is not a single piece of proof, in the whole of the Universe, that there are so-called 'other minds', "veritas aequitas" will, supposedly, accept that there are, actually existing, 'other minds'.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm He will accept other minds that are utterly beyond his experiencing, but not allow conclusions about other things that exist beyond his experiencing.
Also, let us not forget that "veritas aequitas" accepts that there is an absolute morality existing, but will not, for example, accept that the sun nor the earth exists before "veritas aequitas" evolved in being created.
As I have continually pointed out and shown here, these people, back then, would say just about anything, in the hope that it will back up and support there 'currently' held onto beliefs and/or presumptions.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm
He'll say he doesn't believe in those things as absolutely mind independently existing, souls and stars, but he won't notice that his star example is based on distance.
In the end he ought to be a solipsist, given his beliefs. But I think, differently from you, that actually he's not a solipsist. He just doesn't realize that he ought to be to be consistant.
We're looking at positions he's ended up taking to try to defeat Peter Holmes.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:32 pm It's a bit like his still using objective when he has actually completely denied objectivity as a useful term. He's called it intersubjectivity. But he can't live with his facts and his positions and beliefs not being called objective.