3 ms·

as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. I'm not entirely sure why you ask who is sw

as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. I'm not entirely sure why you ask who is swayed by this sort of "false deepness" as to me that implies that I'm trying to inculcate others into my manner of thinking (which I suppose one could argue is a big aspect of rhetoric), when really the thing is is that I was just sharing what was on my mind in hopes of sparking a conversation with others who may or may not agree with me, hopefully to get their perspective and increase my understanding of how others experience reality. Which obviously happened seeing as you shared your perspective on it, so mission accomplished, I suppose. I just feel that the way you presented your perspective came across as unnecessarily hostile and almost as if you just found something you didn't like about the wording of it so you chose to dissect that and then use it as an example of what you would designate as "false deepness". also: just because something has not yet been established as "fact" doesn't mean that it is not yet reality. merely that there is not an acceptable amount of certainty with regards to that pattern of behavior, or whatever the case may be, to establish it as a "normal" or "expected" manner in which reality might manifest. however, I'm fairly confident that even that verbiage won't be good enough as I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response :)

solipsism 7y ago
Sure, I can see how it came off a bit hostile. But it's hostile toward the ideas, not toward you. Don't take it personally. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response It's ironic of you to say that. I have assumed anything about you. But here you assume quite a lot about me. as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. It still doesn't make any sense. Human experience is influenced by both repeated things and by the punctuation of unique and isolated events. Such events can cause deep trauma, or can be the best and most influential parts of our lives. My biggest problem with what you're saying is just that it's not remotely rigorous or well thought out. It comes off as the kind of thing you say when you're smoking pot with your friends and you take some mundane and uninteresting (and possibly wrong) idea and you are convinced it's deep and meaningful. Maybe I'm wrong and there's rigor behind what you're saying. But the statement everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality doesn't even parse. Everything we have come to expect is only that way? What way? What do we expect?? What? I feel strongly about this because it betrays a tendency to not think critically, and the lack of critical thinking is possible the biggest problem we face today.

solipsism 7y ago

Sure, I can see how it came off a bit hostile. But it's hostile toward the ideas, not toward you. Don't take it personally. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response It's ironic of you to say that. I have assumed anything about you. But here you assume quite a lot about me. as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. It still doesn't make any sense. Human experience is influenced by both repeated things and by the punctuation of unique and isolated events. Such events can cause deep trauma, or can be the best and most influential parts of our lives. My biggest problem with what you're saying is just that it's not remotely rigorous or well thought out. It comes off as the kind of thing you say when you're smoking pot with your friends and you take some mundane and uninteresting (and possibly wrong) idea and you are convinced it's deep and meaningful. Maybe I'm wrong and there's rigor behind what you're saying. But the statement everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality doesn't even parse. Everything we have come to expect is only that way? What way? What do we expect?? What? I feel strongly about this because it betrays a tendency to not think critically, and the lack of critical thinking is possible the biggest problem we face today.