3 ms·
You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought and you're being dogmatic about reality and evidence. You can follow an infinite chain of proof of
by mikelyons 10y ago
You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought and you're being dogmatic about reality and evidence. You can follow an infinite chain of proof of proof of the proof until you realize that you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. This is what is meant by dogmatically placing your faith in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
- lutusp 10y ago> You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought ... How ironic. You've just articulated the postmodern position -- that there are no objective truths that can be conveyed from one person to another, that everything is a subjective observation[1] -- in a message that, to serve any purpose at all, requires and presumes what it has just denied. You might as well have said, "This exchange serves no purpose, I'm merely exercising my wrists." So I'll take you at your word. > ... you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. Correction: you can't do that. I can. One more thing: s/truely/truly/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida