Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

Let's try another angle that will be completely ignored and/or responded to with gibberish.

What's the difference between something being "real" and something being "observable?" And an actual functional difference not a facts/truth distinction without difference.

*The invisible dragon in my garage snorts and opens one eye*

Easy girl, I'll bring you out if I need you.

 

[Thermal]

*Confused* Do you actually have with conversations with people or do people just talk around you and voices in your head say things only vaguely related to what they are saying and you respond to that?

I was responding to IanS, who said point blank that postgrad work is expected. Try to keep up.

I asked you if you had any actual instruction, because your argument, "philosophy is all metaphysics maaaaaan", is off the wall. I was wondering if maybe you had some hippy dippy navel gazer teacher who gave you a bad taste or something.

I never said anything about anyone's qualifications to be in this discussion. Not one goddamn thing.

No one said you did. IanS did. I asked you if you had any instruction, explained above.

YOU DID. You are aware of that right? That you, not anyone else, introduced the concept of gatekeeping this discussion. The level of gall to then get mad at us is rather striking.

And frankly I'd love to know what exactly the qualifications are for philosophy. How do you something "wrong" that has no standards or structure?

Scorpion and Jabba and the Time Cube guy are all world class, just grade A philosophers as far as I am concerned.

Now let's see if your response is anything beyond "getting huffy."

Touchy this morning, aren't we?

I am honestly trying to figure out where the hell you are coming from. Science and philosophy are not in opposition, but you act as if they were. Maybe if you showed me on the doll where philosophy touched you?

You, and only you, are the one screaming and cursing with your knickers in a twist, handwaving and posting the same thing over and over.

Philosophy and science are not competing disciplines. That's it.

 

[LarryS]

Open a ******* dictionary, Larry. Children as young as 4 understand that word.

you need to define observation

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am honestly trying to figure out where the hell you are coming from. Science and philosophy are not in opposition, but you act as if they were.

And yes the Proudly Wrong's argument is always "My wrongness isn't in any type of opposition to your correctness, why are you so worried about it?"

But that's not how reality works. You can't have wrongness that ISN'T in opposition to correctness.

 

[Belz...]

you need to define observation

I don't, really. You know exactly what I mean by it.

And before you object that I asked you to define "exist", I will remind you that I did because YOU showed confusion about the meaning of the word when you attempted to distinguish "exist" from "is observed". I will also clarify, as if you didn't know already, that I didn't expect you to have an actual definition to offer. I know you're not really making the distinction in your mind, only in your arguments.

Can we stop this charade, now? You've lost. You tried to play a word game and you hit a wall called Belz....

 

[JoeMorgue]

you need to define observation

Why?

WHY ARE THE ******* WORDS AND DEFINITIONS WE ALREADY HAVE NOT GOOD FOR PHILOSOPHY?

 

[Belz...]

I am honestly trying to figure out where the hell you are coming from. Science and philosophy are not in opposition, but you act as if they were.

Of course they're in opposition. Philosophy has lost the race for truth, and is now stuck with discussing irrelevancies and nonsense while science marches on. I don't know how more opposed they could be unless philosophy was religion.

 

[Belz...]

Why?

WHY ARE THE ******* WORDS AND DEFINITIONS WE ALREADY HAVE NOT GOOD FOR PHILOSOPHY?

Well no, of course not, because they don't give Larry enough wiggle room. It's what happened when he tried to use a colloquial definition of "exist". He argued himself into a corner.

 

[Thermal]

You might have "gotten it" if you had read the post you responded to.

Yes, I read it. It's ambiguous enough to have meant two or three different things. I took a shot at what made sense in context. Wrong guess? Could you clarify? Was that supposed to be me booing, or somebody else, or what?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I read it. It's ambiguous enough to have meant two or three different things. I took a shot at what made sense in context. Wrong guess? Could you clarify? Was that supposed to be me booing, or somebody else, or what?

Why don't you guess again? It's not really worth my time taking you at your word anymore.

 

[LarryS]

I don't, really. You know exactly what I mean by it.

And before you object that I asked you to define "exist", I will remind you that I did because YOU showed confusion about the meaning of the word when you attempted to distinguish "exist" from "is observed". I will also clarify, as if you didn't know already, that I didn't expect you to have an actual definition to offer. I know you're not really making the distinction in your mind, only in your arguments.

Can we stop this charade, now? You've lost. You tried to play a word game and you hit a wall called Belz....

I don't know what you mean by observation . . . observation is a process or sequence of actions. Is there one particular step or action common to observations that equates to 'being real'?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know what you mean by observation . . . observation is a process or sequence of actions. Is there one particular step or action common to observations that equates to 'being real'?

Does this sound deep to you?

I'm serious, 100% no snark. Do you say stuff like this and in your head is sounds all wise and deep and meaningful?

 

[LarryS]

Does this sound deep to you?

I'm serious, 100% no snark. Do you say stuff like this and in your head is sounds all wise and deep and meaningful?

If this were a science thread and we were discussing Black Holes or advances in vaccines we needn't concern ourselves with such matters - we could simply proceed with sciency stuff. Aren't you the least bit curious about 'observation' - and how it equates with or is utilized to establish what is real?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If this were a science thread and we were discussing Black Holes or advances in vaccines we needn't concern ourselves with such matters - we could simply proceed with sciency stuff. Aren't you the least bit curious about 'observation' - and how it equates with or is utilized to establish what is real?

"It's okay to ask stupid, pointless questions because this is a philosophy thread, not a science thread" is a weird flex.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know what you mean by observation . . . observation is a process or sequence of actions. Is there one particular step or action common to observations that equates to 'being real'?

I told you to open a dictionary. Have you done that?

 

[LarryS]

I told you to open a dictionary. Have you done that?

I am not asking this question of a dictionary, I'm asking you.

 

[Thermal]

And yes the Proudly Wrong's argument is always "My wrongness isn't in any type of opposition to your correctness, why are you so worried about it?"

But that's not how reality works. You can't have wrongness that ISN'T in opposition to correctness.

Ok. Cards on the table.

My argument is that Philosophy is its own gig, not in opposition to science. PhDs are issued to scientists. Pretty much all of acedemia and all of extetnal reality are on board with the same argument.

Can you please tell me what you think is "wrong" with that position? None of your punk ass strawman or putting words in other's mouths or arguing with somebody else and the colorful sampling of fallacies you are riding on.

That's all I am arguing. Please tell me how it is wrong. No JESUS GODDAMED CHRIST hissy fits. I'm telling you that whatever the intent of your posts are, they don't seem to be coming across except as handwaving and strawmen.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am not asking this question of a dictionary, I'm asking you.

Do you think Belz has his own personal definition he's going to start using and not tell us? Like he's some sort of philosopher or something?

Like... what do you think a language is and is for?

 

[Belz...]

I am not asking this question of a dictionary, I'm asking you.

See, Larry, some of us actually enjoy having the stricture of axioms; that some words are agreed-upon before we do the thinking. It means we're all on the same page and use the same standards. Hence why we use dictionaries to calibrate our meanings. Unlike you, I'm not looking to have my own definition so I can dodge and weave around an argument.

Open a dictionary, and look up the word. Take the broadest definition, and then apply the adjective "objective" to it. There, now you have the logical requisite for something to "exist".

See how easy it is when you have standards? That's the miracle of science. Try it, sometime.

 

[Thermal]

Of course they're in opposition. Philosophy has lost the race for truth, and is now stuck with discussing irrelevancies and nonsense while science marches on. I don't know how more opposed they could be unless philosophy was religion.

Again, academia considers logic and reason and valuation and the rest to be under the umbrella of philosophy. I don't see how there should be a problem.

Science uses large chunks of philosophy, and vice versa. The whole quest for which determines truth rivalry is long in the rear view mirror. It was in my school, anyway. The whole philosophy hating thing seems to be an online phenomena championed by...let's say guys who have a thing for red baseball caps. I truly don't get this dichotomy.