If there is a reason besides our typical egomania, I mean.
-
Vlad. — 6 years ago(July 19, 2019 12:13 AM)
I didn't say it is just religion. That is why I also said what I myself said to phrase it as you had in your response.
But I am glad you distilled it down to those two accompanying points because the survival purpose feeds into the religious piece. If humans desire purpose to feel like they're living life in the best way they can, religion further qualifies their life decisions as being "right." This creates the security inherent in one whose life can be categorized as "successful," i.e. most likely to survive and procreate.
Stop. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 19, 2019 09:02 AM)
I didn't say it is just religion.
That's not what I mean, I mean there's the religious sense ("cosmic purpose", I guess would be one way to phrase it) and then there's the everyday sense (e.g. that a hammer contains the "purpose" of being used to slam nails into things even though it can just as well be used as a backscratcher or as a doorstop or as a paperweight). Both these senses of the word are mistakes.
If humans desire purpose to feel like they're living life in the best way they can, religion further qualifies their life decisions as being "right." This creates the security inherent in one whose life can be categorized as "successful," i.e. most likely to survive and procreate.
I understood that but believing things that aren't real to be real doesn't make you more likely to survive and procreate, in short poor intel makes for poor decisions.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
MagneticMonopole — 6 years ago(July 19, 2019 10:21 AM)
The more important question is why you have such an obsession with trying to convince yourself that abstractions are somehow delusional and unreal.
My answer is that you probably have mental issues and should seek therapy. If not that, please try to educate yourself in philosophy, a subject you are painfully ignorant of. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 19, 2019 09:45 PM)
The more important question is why you have such an obsession with trying to convince yourself that abstractions are somehow delusional and unreal.
I do not believe all abstractions are unreal. Danger, utility, language are all real just to give three examples, I could give plenty more.
"Importance" however is a myth, all life on this planet could have gone extinct with the dinosaurs.
My answer is that you probably have mental issues and should seek therapy.
"Should" is a myth. You might as well be claiming the Sun "should" orbit the Earth and the Moon "should" orbit Pluto. I either seek therapy or I don't, there is nothing I "should" do during my lifetime, the universe does not revolve around me.
If not that, please try to educate yourself in philosophy, a subject you are painfully ignorant of.
People claim I'm ignorant of it but can never give evidence that I'm wrong in what I say which is funny since I'm in a philosophy section.
It's almost like I'm right but the rest of my species are egotistical and self-deluded, no? Not enough profit in humility and honesty?
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
MagneticMonopole — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 11:33 AM)
Danger, utility, language are all real just to give three examples, I could give plenty more.
Then you simply aren't being consistent. You randomly decide to bless some things as real and disavow others with no rhyme or reason.
Oh, and this is your style of "argument", applied to the above:
"Danger, utility, and language are all myths, because [insert completely irrelevant statement about history or laws of physics that bears absolutely no logical relationship to the subject being discussed]."
"Should" is a myth.
No, it isn't. If we have goals–and you have them, no matter how stupidly you pretend you don't–then the concept of "should" directs our attention to what kinds of activities are the most likely to achieve them. You fundamentally do not understand how language and concepts work and thus keep making a fool of yourself in a public space.
People claim I'm ignorant of it but can never give evidence that I'm wrong in what I say which is funny since I'm in a philosophy section.
You have the burdens of responsibility backwards. It isn't our responsibility to give "evidence" that you are wrong (even suggesting that "evidence" has anything to do with this discussion shows how completely you misunderstand what is required).
You are repeatedly making claims that all mainstream philosophers would regard as outlandish and frankly silly, if not simply childish. If you want to make a serious case, it is your responsibility to build up a theory of language and ontology that would make those claims look credible. And this is something you haven't even attempted. I'm betting you don't even know what the word "ontology" even means. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 10:44 PM)
Then you simply aren't being consistent. You randomly decide to bless some things as real and disavow others with no rhyme or reason.
False. I've explained time and time again the rhyme and reason of my findings, none of it is random. And it is very consistent:
https://www.filmboards.com/board/p/3235409/
Oh, and this is your style of "argument", applied to the above:
"Danger, utility, and language are all myths, because [insert completely irrelevant statement about history or laws of physics that bears absolutely no logical relationship to the subject being discussed]."
Danger, utility and languare are not myths because they provably exist outside the imagination. Danger and utility have effect on the physical world without going through the imagination and this is true for language as well.
"Should" is a myth.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
If we have goals–and you have them, no matter how stupidly you pretend you don't
When did I EVER claim that I don't have goals? Seems you have me mistaken for someone else.
–then the concept of "should" directs our attention to what kinds of activities are the most likely to achieve them.
Mankind can have the goal of surviving another hundred years but the fact remains there is nothing mankind "should" ever do, it could have gone extinct a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago or a hundred thousand years ago.
"Should" is a myth. The concept of it is just a concept just like the concept of the Easter Bunny is just a concept, it is irrelevant what the concept of the Easter Bunny directs your attention to, the Easter Bunny remains a myth.
You have the burdens of responsibility backwards. It isn't our responsibility to give "evidence" that you are wrong (even suggesting that "evidence" has anything to do with this discussion shows how completely you misunderstand what is required).
I provide evidence of what I say as being logical, it is up to the people making the claim that I'm wrong to provide evidence that I'm not being logical.
That has nothing to do with "responsibility" or "requirement".
You are repeatedly making claims that all mainstream philosophers would regard as outlandish and frankly silly, if not simply childish.
So you claim but give zero evidence to support that they would.
If you want to make a serious case, it is your responsibility to build up a theory of language and ontology that would make those claims look credible. And this is something you haven't even attempted.
I have made my case plainly:
https://www.filmboards.com/board/p/3235409/
I'm betting you don't even know what the word "ontology" even means.
I make my case so that anyone reading English can follow it e.g. I don't quote Hume about how "you can't get an ought from an is" because I'm not discussing Hume, I don't quote Plato about Forms/Ideas or universals because I'm not discussing Plato and I don't try to impress with words like ontology or epistemology or potentiality or even metaphysics.
By the way, your using "even" twice is redundancy bordering on tautology.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
MagneticMonopole — 6 years ago(July 21, 2019 12:46 PM)
False. I've explained time and time again the rhyme and reason of my findings, none of it is random.
It is completely random. You have not even begun to sketch out the theoretical outlines that would justify any of the silly garbage you post here.
Danger, utility and languare are not myths because they provably exist outside the imagination.
Then prove it. Concepts exist only in minds. Period. You won't be able to provide a single example that contradicts this.
Mankind can have the goal of surviving another hundred years but the fact remains there is nothing mankind "should" ever do. . .
Bullshit. "Should" means "The way the world works, if you want to achieve Goal X, then the following activities will help you achieve X". If mankind wants to have a high tech civilization providing a comfortable existence for the majority of its members, then it SHOULD dramatically reduce its carbon emissions.
You simply don't understand how language and how concepts work. Some form of mental illness is probably to blame.
I provide evidence of what I say as being logical. . .
You haven't provided evidence of anything, ever. You obviously don't even understand what the word "evidence" means.
So you claim but give zero evidence to support that they would.
There isn't a single mainstream philosopher who has ever espoused anything that even resembles the bullshit you post in this forum–that's my evidence that you are completely out of touch with what professional thinkers believe is reasonable and sound.
Prove me wrong. For in the first time in your entire life, start reading what philosophers actually write about these subjects. Then find a single one who is respected by his peers who even partially agrees with you.
You won't be able to. Ever. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 21, 2019 01:18 PM)
It is completely random.
No, it is not.
You have not even begun to sketch out the theoretical outlines that would justify any of the silly garbage you post here.
It's not theory, it's fact.
Then prove it. Concepts exist only in minds. Period. You won't be able to provide a single example that contradicts this.
I wasn't talking about the concepts of danger, utility and language, I was talking about them themselves since they are more than concept as opposed to myths like "purpose".
Bullshit. "Should" means "The way the world works, if you want to achieve Goal X, then the following activities will help you achieve X". If mankind wants to have a high tech civilization providing a comfortable existence for the majority of its members, then it SHOULD dramatically reduce its carbon emissions.
No. Desire does not make "should" non-imaginary. There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be. That is an unalterable fact of existence. In fact, your stance makes as little sense as saying that a serial killer "should" have pursued his victims because he desired to know what it felt like to kill them. "Well, a man ought to do what he ought to do and you did what you ought to do based on your desires so you're free to go, Mr. Serial Killer."
You haven't provided evidence of anything, ever. You obviously don't even understand what the word "evidence" means.
As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic.
There isn't a single mainstream philosopher who has ever espoused anything that even resembles the bullshit you post in this forum–that's my evidence that you are completely out of touch with what professional thinkers believe is reasonable and sound.
I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream.
Prove me wrong. For in the first time in your entire life, start reading what philosophers actually write about these subjects. Then find a single one who is respected by his peers who even partially agrees with you.
I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is" and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible:
"The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
You won't be able to. Ever.
LOL. Barn door closed but horse right over there, pal.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
MagneticMonopole — 6 years ago(July 22, 2019 03:08 PM)
It's not theory, it's fact.
If these claims are facts then you'd see them routinely cited in mainstream sources on a routine basis.
In reality, these are just baseless theoretical assertions you make which you cannot support.
I wasn't talking about the concepts of danger, utility and language, I was talking about them themselves since they are more than concept as opposed to myths like "purpose".
Danger, utility, and language are all concepts, no more or less so than "purpose" or "should".
There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be.
In other words, you are utterly clueless about how language works. One has to wonder how you even feed and clothe yourself, assuming you actually can.
As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic.
You haven't done anything of the sort, as you manifestly don't understand what either "evidence" or "logic" mean.
I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream.
Of course you don't–this is one of the primary characteristics of all crackpots. You are right up there with flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and anti-vaxxers. These are your people.
I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is". . .
Which has nothing to do with any of the bullshit you post.
. . .and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible
Congratulations, you found a Pagan philosopher from a time before science whose out of date and rejected views share a tiny Venn diagram space with your own bullshit. -
matt_shade — 6 years ago(July 22, 2019 09:52 PM)
If these claims are facts then you'd see them routinely cited in mainstream sources on a routine basis.
No, because that would mean humans aren't egotistical and self-deluded and they are.
In reality, these are just baseless theoretical assertions you make which you cannot support.
I have supported them. Your trolling me doesn't change that.
Danger, utility, and language are all concepts, no more or less so than "purpose" or "should".
Wrong. A hammer has utility, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. A loaded gun is dangerous, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. You and I are using language to communicate, that is more than concept, it is not imaginary. "Purpose" directly affects nothing outside the imagination because only the concept of it is real, it is imaginary. "Should" directly affects nothing outside the imagination because only the concept of it is real, it is imaginary.
"There is nothing I or mankind "should" ever do, no matter what my or mankind's desires may be."
In other words, you are utterly clueless about how language works. One has to wonder how you even feed and clothe yourself, assuming you actually can.
More trolling without making an actual argument.
"As I've said on earlier occasions I've given more than evidence, I've given what I'm so confident I call proof with logic."
You haven't done anything of the sort, as you manifestly don't understand what either "evidence" or "logic" mean.
More trolling without making an actual argument.
"I don't care about mainstream or non-mainstream."
Of course you don't–this is one of the primary characteristics of all crackpots. You are right up there with flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and anti-vaxxers. These are your people.
Where you group me in your mind is none of my concern.
"I just mentioned David Hume who partially agrees with me on "You can't get an ought from an is". . ."
Which has nothing to do with any of the bullshit you post.
That is laughable and you show you are the one ignorant in philosophy if you actually believe it.
". . .and Plato who partially agrees with me on concepts being indestructible"
Congratulations, you found a Pagan philosopher from a time before science whose out of date and rejected views share a tiny Venn diagram space with your own bullshit.
I didn't find him, I just picked someone recognizable to anyone reading this to make my point.
'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings' -
Angel Face — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 02:18 AM)
because it provides them money, shelter, and sex
we're owned by the government. We gotta confirm. It isn't like we're animals living in the wild, and we can do what we want, sleep where we want. We are all tagged. We have no freedom! We need money to do things! We need money to eat! To get money we need to work! Hence, purpose! -
MovieManCin2 — 6 years ago(July 20, 2019 02:22 AM)
Actually it's
not
a delusion. It's real, and it gives people's lives meaning. Of course I doubt that you will be able to understand that, because you're very cynical.
MAGA! FAFO!
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. 
-