No Feature of Reality Needs Justification?

[Dontaskme]

Except you've always been crazy, even the simple things people say are unintelligible to you. Don't need your sympathy.

Well you would say that wouldn't you, it is your prerogative to say whatever you care to make up about what you think is inside the minds of other thinking people...your knowledge of any other one can only ever come straight out the horses mouth itself, the source of your knowledge is always yours to own because you invented it. If at any time you don't like what is your own knowledge, you can alway spew it up all over someone else and say here you go, you can have this sick stuff, I don't like it. You are an expert at doing that.

I'm just pointing out to you that personal knowledge that we all know as our own, but then project it onto others when we don't like what we know. Not that you would care anyway, you've already made up your mind about people like me. And it's not like I give a fuck about what you think you think of me either.

Only I know who or what I am, and I also know that what I am thinking makes sense to me only, it's my job to know what makes sense and what doesn't.. no one else can penetrate my world, and thank fuck for that, for they really wouldn't like it at all.

.

[Atla]

Except you've always been crazy, even the simple things people say are unintelligible to you. Don't need your sympathy.

Well you would say that wouldn't you, it is your prerogative to say whatever you care to make up about what you think is inside the minds of other thinking people...your knowledge of any other one can only ever come straight out the horses mouth itself, the source of your knowledge is always yours to own because you invented it. If at any time you don't like what is your own knowledge, you can alway spew it up all over someone else and say here you go, you can have this sick stuff, I don't like it. You are an expert at doing that.

I'm just pointing out to you that personal knowledge that we all know as our own, but then project it onto others when we don't like what we know. Not that you would care anyway, you've already made up your mind about people like me. And it's not like I give a fuck about what you think you think of me either.

Only I know who or what I am, and I also know that what I am thinking makes sense to me only, it's my job to know what makes sense and what doesn't.. no one else can penetrate my world, and thank fuck for that, for they really wouldn't like it at all.

.

Actually most people can tell what others are thinking, most of the time, to some degree. Some are better at it, some are worse at it. The entire field of psychology is kinda based on this. It's usually called the theory of mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Since you were either born crazy or went crazy at an early age, it's possible that you never really eveloped the theory of mind. It's taboo to say this, but you may not be a fully formed human being. Either that or you are just faking your condition for some pathetic reason.

[Dontaskme]

Actually most people can tell what others are thinking, most of the time, to some degree. Some are better at it, some are worse at it. The entire field of psychology is kinda based on this. It's usually called the theory of mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Since you were either born crazy or went crazy at an early age, it's possible that you never really eveloped the theory of mind. It's taboo to say this, but you may not be a fully formed human being. Either that or you are just faking your condition for some pathetic reason.

Thanks for the crazy label. I would never have known this about myself, if you had not informed me. But I hate to inform you, I will make up my own mind about what label to call myself ..NOT YOU, but nice try anyway, all water off a ducks back though, you stupid dumb quack.

You are the King of quackery. Who has met his Queen...a match made in hell...quack! quack!

[Atla]

Actually most people can tell what others are thinking, most of the time, to some degree. Some are better at it, some are worse at it. The entire field of psychology is kinda based on this. It's usually called the theory of mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

Since you were either born crazy or went crazy at an early age, it's possible that you never really eveloped the theory of mind. It's taboo to say this, but you may not be a fully formed human being. Either that or you are just faking your condition for some pathetic reason.

Thanks for the crazy label. I would never have known this about myself, if you had not informed me. But I hate to inform you, I will make up my own mind about what label to call myself ..NOT YOU, but nice try anyway, all water off a ducks back though, you stupid dumb quack.

You are the King of quackery. Who has met his Queen...a match made in hell...quack! quack!

Maybe this will surprise you, but people don't really care about what kind of bullshit you invent for yourself.

[RCSaunders]

Peter is right. Reality is what it is, whether anyone knows what is or not.

Note Meno's Paradox,
How can you know what is when you do not know what it is in the first place?
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

I know that's a tough question for you, and other sophists, like Meno, but for normally intelligent human beings one does not have to know what a thing is to know that it is. Human beings knew there was light, and heat, and even water long before they knew what any of those things actually are.

Only an idiot would not understand one must first know something is (by encountering or perceiving it in some way), before it is possible to investigate it to discover, "what it is."

[Dontaskme]

Maybe this will surprise you, but people don't really care about what kind of bullshit you invent for yourself.

No surprise here, Mr cliché maker on auto repeat button.

Your just an echo chamber inside my head.

[Dontaskme]

man is the measure - Protagoras

-Imp

Not man but this is the true measurer...

So I agree with Peter Holmes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter is right. Reality is what it is, whether anyone knows what is or not.

Note Meno's Paradox,
How can you know what is when you do not know what it is in the first place?
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

Only an idiot would not understand one must first know something is (by encountering or perceiving it in some way), before it is possible to investigate it to discover, "what it is."

Only an idiot would commit to begging the question, i.e. first to know something prior to discovering [know] what that something is.

I know that's a tough question for you, and other sophists, like Meno, but for normally intelligent human beings one does not have to know what a thing is to know that it is. Human beings knew there was light, and heat, and even water long before they knew what any of those things actually are.

If human beings already 'knew' [1] there was water long before they 'knew' [2] what water is, then whatever is that thing-subsequent-known-as-water, it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

The preceding 'knowing' in [1] has to involve the human conditions and subsequently is discovered and known [2] by humans to be water or H2O.
Therefore, that thing-subsequent-known-as-water cannot exist independent by itself but it always conditioned by human factors.

That 'knowing' [1] is a spontaneous emergence upon the necessary, intuition, experience, cognition, and the whole slew and range of evolutionary variables inherited from 4 billion years ago.

Since it is a spontaneous emergence, there is no thing-in-itself [water-in-itself] that pre-existed awaiting to be experienced, known and be discovered.

As such, there is no pre-existing fact-in-itself awaiting to be discovered.
What is discovered and known is an emergence which do not pre-exist and cannot exists without the human factor.

[Atla]

Note Meno's Paradox,
How can you know what is when you do not know what it is in the first place?
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/menopar.htm

Only an idiot would not understand one must first know something is (by encountering or perceiving it in some way), before it is possible to investigate it to discover, "what it is."

Only an idiot would commit to begging the question, i.e. first to know something prior to discovering [know] what that something is.

I know that's a tough question for you, and other sophists, like Meno, but for normally intelligent human beings one does not have to know what a thing is to know that it is. Human beings knew there was light, and heat, and even water long before they knew what any of those things actually are.

If human beings already 'knew' [1] there was water long before they 'knew' [2] what water is, then whatever is that thing-subsequent-known-as-water, it is conditioned upon the human conditions.

The preceding 'knowing' in [1] has to involve the human conditions and subsequently is discovered and known [2] by humans to be water or H2O.
Therefore, that thing-subsequent-known-as-water cannot exist independent by itself but it always conditioned by human factors.

That 'knowing' [1] is a spontaneous emergence upon the necessary, intuition, experience, cognition, and the whole slew and range of evolutionary variables inherited from 4 billion years ago.

Since it is a spontaneous emergence, there is no thing-in-itself [water-in-itself] that pre-existed awaiting to be experienced, known and be discovered.

As such, there is no pre-existing fact-in-itself awaiting to be discovered.
What is discovered and known is an emergence which do not pre-exist and cannot exists without the human factor.

It's difficult to tell VA, whether you are insane, or simply incapable of speaking English, or both. Here, to 'know' something can mean that we are simply aware of something's existence, like that of water. Water refers to something that exists, we don't need to know what that something is. Whatever it is that water refers to, it doesn't have to be conditioned by human factors by itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's difficult to tell VA, whether you are insane, or simply incapable of speaking English, or both. Here, to 'know' something can mean that we are simply aware of something's existence, like that of water. Water refers to something that exists, we don't need to know what that something is. Whatever it is that water refers to, it doesn't have to be conditioned by human factors by itself.

In terms of philosophy, you are just an stupid ignorant fool.

[Atla]

It's difficult to tell VA, whether you are insane, or simply incapable of speaking English, or both. Here, to 'know' something can mean that we are simply aware of something's existence, like that of water. Water refers to something that exists, we don't need to know what that something is. Whatever it is that water refers to, it doesn't have to be conditioned by human factors by itself.

In terms of philosophy, you are just an stupid ignorant fool.

You are the stupid ignorant fool in terms of philosophy. You've also gone insane.