Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:16 am
Note you are in a state of resistance for resisting sake.
That is why you are not able to think deeper and wider.
When you are resisting [defense, fight or flight, etc.] your lower and mid-brain will be more active than your thinking brain.
To me it is a waste of time discussing with those with a high-resistance state.
Well. That's ironic. To me - you are in an 'I am right about this' state. That is - nothing can convince that you are wrong. That is - your belief is unfalsifiable.
That is. Nothing can convince you that you are guilty of iatrogenesis. So - you are no better than the illness you attempt to cure.
Where are your evidences and arguments?
I have been in this business for a long time.
When I started long ago I was bashed left and right by the giants of Philosophy Forums.
Since then I have changed my views, e.g. from being homophobe to acceptance, from theist to non-theists, secondary to primary sources of famous Philosophers, etc. and I took great steps to cover whatever knowledge gaps I had plus ensuring all my views are supported by evidence and critical arguments.
Show me a case where I have failed to produce evidences/arguments or in the direction of arguments and evidences?
You? you need to dig deeper and wider with reference to Philosophy [since this is a Philosophy Forum].
The real world doesn’t work like philosophy.
In the real world we actually recognise that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged. So we openly acknowledge there is no material difference between an argument and an elaborate, post-hoc rationalization of your biases.
The fact that an argument can “change your mind” just shows you have no idea how to make up your own mind yet.
In my world this IS a sufficient argument: YOU don’t know what will convince YOU that YOU are wrong!
You have no idea how to falsify your own belief, yet you shift that burden onto others...
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:13 am
The real world doesn’t work like philosophy.
In the real world we actually recognise that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged. So we openly acknowledge there is no material difference between an argument and an elaborate, post-hoc rationalization of your biases.
The fact that an argument can “change your mind” just shows you have no idea how to make up your own mind yet.
In my world this IS a sufficient argument: YOU don’t know what will convince YOU that YOU are wrong!
You have no idea how to falsify your own belief, yet you shift that burden onto others...
You sound as if you are the only one that is in the practical world.
The reality in this case is you are participating in a Philosophy Forum with its specific rules and practices. While posting within this Philosophy Forum you have to abide to its rules and norms.
As far as your real world is concern, you can do whatever you want, run naked along the main road, kill somebody or do whatever and where applicable till the laws [if any] catch up with you.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:13 am
The real world doesn’t work like philosophy.
In the real world we actually recognise that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged. So we openly acknowledge there is no material difference between an argument and an elaborate, post-hoc rationalization of your biases.
The fact that an argument can “change your mind” just shows you have no idea how to make up your own mind yet.
In my world this IS a sufficient argument: YOU don’t know what will convince YOU that YOU are wrong!
You have no idea how to falsify your own belief, yet you shift that burden onto others...
You sound as if you are the only one that is in the practical world.
The reality in this case is you are participating in a Philosophy Forum with its specific rules and practices. While posting within this Philosophy Forum you have to abides to its rules and norms.
As far as your real world is concern, you can do whatever you want, run naked along the main road, kill somebody or do whatever and where applicable till the laws [if any] catch up with you.
Well, this forum doesn’t exist in a vacuum? It exists within the real world.
And for as long as it does - I will abide by the norms which are more generally applicable. And especially since you claim that philosophy is THE superset
Your appeal to purity sure sounds like you are painting philosophy as an ivory tower...
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:39 am
Well, this forum doesn’t exist in a vacuum? It exists within the real world.
And for as long as it does - I will abide by the norms which are more generally applicable. And especially since you claim that philosophy is THE superset
Your appeal to purity sure sounds like you are painting philosophy as an ivory tower...
If you want to change the rules, you should make suggestions to the Forum.
Until then you will have to abide to the existing rules.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:39 am
Well, this forum doesn’t exist in a vacuum? It exists within the real world.
And for as long as it does - I will abide by the norms which are more generally applicable. And especially since you claim that philosophy is THE superset
Your appeal to purity sure sounds like you are painting philosophy as an ivory tower...
If you want to change the rules, you should make suggestions to the Forum.
Until then you will have to abide to the existing rules.
I think I will do as you suggested - I will do whatever I want till “the law” catches up with me...
If philosophy is about truth then surely opposing bullshit cannot be against the rules? And if it is against the rules - then the rules are broken.
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than parmission
