3 ms·

>But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level. See, personal insults. That's why my post went on an expose to get you to say something substantial.

>But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level. See, personal insults. That's why my post went on an expose to get you to say something substantial. Now you engage me because your pride is hurt. >Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s being smug and emotional now? I'm not being being emotional. Just triggering you to get you to respond. Also why does age matter here. It's irrelevant to me that you are clearly under the age of 10. I don't judge people based off age. >And when I gave reasons as to why entities outside of “human experience” might still have a use for morality, Anything central to the human experience can be considered useful by entities outside of humanity. For example swimming. Fish swim. So do humans. Therefore where is the philosophy of swimming? Clearly for some reason we feel morality is more important than swimming. My thesis is that it is NOT. Morality is just arbitrary behaviors with no more meaning than the motions that keep your head above water.... meaningless but maybe coincidentally meaningful to something else like fish. And here's another indication of your bias. Who says intelligent entities are central to the universe? The concept of intelligence is another human invention. Clearly "intelligence" is just an arbitrary phenomenon that occurred on Earth. The fact you place anything "useful" to "entities" outside of the "human experience" is another form of bias similar to "intelligent design." Intelligence is NOT central to the universe or the creation of the universe. Like morality, Intelligence is a phenomenon in the universe as arbitrary as morality. There is nearly an infinite amount of very low entropic structures that can be formed by atoms. The structures that encompass and lead to intelligence are a small arbitrary fraction of the total amount of these structures and therefore arbitrary. Thus not even "intelligence" and "existence" are categories that go side by side... let alone "morality." As I said before there is a clear categorical tree which indicates the origins of many concepts throughout the universe. The placement of morality and "entities with intelligence" on this categorical tree indicates that it is just an arbitrary creation. The placement of existence lives at the root of this tree. >That’s what I mean, you refuse to acknowledge that the philosophical perspective takes into account the scientific one. It encompasses it. It’s greater than it. Science cannot be “deeper” than philosophy because philosophy includes the scientific perspective. You can define a word "gloop" to encompass literal feces and science and logic. Therefore the concept of "gloop" which includes feces is more fundamental than science because it literally encompasses the scientific perspective. Does this make sense to you? I just defined a word that encompasses feces and science! This is the garbage logic you're presenting to me. Just replace feces with some obscure field of study from philosophy and you have the same BS. Do you get it? I am saying philosophy is an arbitrary category made up by biased people who thought morality is as central of a question as existence. There is literally no difference between "gloop" and "philosophy." >Funny how you accuse others of playing word games, when in reality that’s all you do. Because we both know your arguments have no other substance to them. I don't see how anything is funny here. More like your pride is hurt so you want to pretend you're above it all by thinking everything I say or do is like a funny game to you. In actuality when you read it nothing is funny, it's just words. Also I never accused others of playing "word games" I am saying people are ignorant and are participating in a word game without even knowing it. Philosophers don't realize how loaded the word "philosophy" is but they realize how "gloop" is a loaded word. It's pure ignorance or bias. You spend 4 years studying philosophy and suddenly you encounter evidence that shows you the entire field is loaded? What human in their right mind is logical enough to drop philosophy right then and there? No one. This is what's going on with you. Your bias prevents you from making the truly logical maneuver similar to how a christian who's been worshipping Christ for 20 years won't be able to give up his religion based off of a logical argument.

selestify 6y ago
> Just triggering you to get you to respond. Also why does age matter here. Mm-hm. Like I said, I’ll talk to you on your level. I asked your age out of curiosity. I already judge you, so don’t worry about that. > Thus not even "intelligence" and "existence" are categories that go side by side... let alone "morality." All you’re saying is that these are abstractions. Do abstractions exist? That’s a philosophical question about what it means to exist. > You can define a word "gloop" to encompass literal feces and science and logic. Therefore the concept of "gloop" which includes feces is more fundamental than science because it literally encompasses the scientific perspective. I mean, yes? If you define gloop that way, then obviously it is at least as fundamental as science is. Good luck finding others who are as interested as you are in feces and science. > Also I never accused others of playing "word games" I am saying people are ignorant and are participating in a word game without even knowing it. More hypocrisy. People are apparently “participating” in a word game but not “playing” said word game. Yet you simply won’t admit that you were wrong. Your ego completely blocks that possibility out. > Your bias prevents you from making the truly logical maneuver similar to how a christian who's been worshipping Christ for 20 years won't be able to give up his religion based off of a logical argument. Projection at its finest. Tell me, how aware are you of your lack of self-awareness? Or perhaps a less loaded question: how did you come to the conclusion that you’re oh-so-rational? That’s epistemology, by the way. We both know you’re smug as hell, but the reasons why are not currently explainable by science, so to epistemology we turn.
- nendroid 6y ago
  >All you’re saying is that these are abstractions. Do abstractions exist? That’s a philosophical question about what it means to exist. Yeah. You want to see some of other retarded things that fall under the field of philosophy? Here's a list: 1. Milesian School of Thought: This philosophy is a school of thought founded by Greek Milesians in the sixth century BC. The Milesian school of thought believes that everything in the world is composed of water. While the Milesians were some of the first thinkers to attribute a naturalistic view to phenomena as opposed to creating theological explanations like their ancestors, this philosophy is not scientifically supported. 2. Animism: Animism is the belief that everything in the world has a soul, biotic and abiotic things alike. Animism in itself is not a religion, but rather a polytheistic religious philosophy. Animism was made popular by Native Americans, and is common in cultures whose society is not built upon mathematics and science. 3. Cosmicism: Cosmicism is a literary philosophy developed by horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. Cosmicism emerged out of Lovecraft’s cult genre books, and was soon popularized in the nineteenth century. Cosmicism states that there is a lack of a divine presence in the universe, and that humans are insignificant in the grand scheme of intergalactic existence. 4. Defeatism: Defeatism is the philosophical equivalent of the psychological attitude of pessimism. Defeatism is defined as the acceptance of defeat without struggle, or more commonly known as giving up. The concept of Defeatism is predominant in politics, as well as military history. 5. Antiscience: Antiscience is the philosophical position that rejects science and the scientific method. Antiscientists do not believe in science as an objective method that can create universal knowledge. Antiscientists are far more attracted to the idea of subjectivity. Just ask the question "Do abstractions exist?" and put it in number 6. >I mean, yes? If you define gloop that way, then obviously it is at least as fundamental as science is. Good luck finding others who are as interested as you are in feces and science. This is what you don't get. Gloop and philosophy are the same concept. Some things in philosophy matter but the word encompasses a bunch of bullshit that doesn't matter (see above). This arbitrary grouping is what prevents gloop AND philosophy from ever being fundamental. >More hypocrisy. People are apparently “participating” in a word game but not “playing” said word game. Yet you simply won’t admit that you were wrong. Your ego completely blocks that possibility out. Playing means willful participation participation alone does not imply willful participation. The only ego you're describing is your own. >Projection at its finest. Tell me, how aware are you of your lack of self-awareness? Please. Paradoxes are the domain of logic. No need to place it under philosophy. >Or perhaps a less loaded question: how did you come to the conclusion that you’re oh-so-rational? That’s epistemology, by the way. We both know you’re smug as hell, but the reasons why are not currently explainable by science, so to epistemology we turn. Honestly epistemology is the most BS school of thought, Not to far from Milesians. It tries to unionize logic with biased human concepts like "belief."

selestify 6y ago

> Just triggering you to get you to respond. Also why does age matter here. Mm-hm. Like I said, I’ll talk to you on your level. I asked your age out of curiosity. I already judge you, so don’t worry about that. > Thus not even "intelligence" and "existence" are categories that go side by side... let alone "morality." All you’re saying is that these are abstractions. Do abstractions exist? That’s a philosophical question about what it means to exist. > You can define a word "gloop" to encompass literal feces and science and logic. Therefore the concept of "gloop" which includes feces is more fundamental than science because it literally encompasses the scientific perspective. I mean, yes? If you define gloop that way, then obviously it is at least as fundamental as science is. Good luck finding others who are as interested as you are in feces and science. > Also I never accused others of playing "word games" I am saying people are ignorant and are participating in a word game without even knowing it. More hypocrisy. People are apparently “participating” in a word game but not “playing” said word game. Yet you simply won’t admit that you were wrong. Your ego completely blocks that possibility out. > Your bias prevents you from making the truly logical maneuver similar to how a christian who's been worshipping Christ for 20 years won't be able to give up his religion based off of a logical argument. Projection at its finest. Tell me, how aware are you of your lack of self-awareness? Or perhaps a less loaded question: how did you come to the conclusion that you’re oh-so-rational? That’s epistemology, by the way. We both know you’re smug as hell, but the reasons why are not currently explainable by science, so to epistemology we turn.

nendroid 6y ago
>All you’re saying is that these are abstractions. Do abstractions exist? That’s a philosophical question about what it means to exist. Yeah. You want to see some of other retarded things that fall under the field of philosophy? Here's a list: 1. Milesian School of Thought: This philosophy is a school of thought founded by Greek Milesians in the sixth century BC. The Milesian school of thought believes that everything in the world is composed of water. While the Milesians were some of the first thinkers to attribute a naturalistic view to phenomena as opposed to creating theological explanations like their ancestors, this philosophy is not scientifically supported. 2. Animism: Animism is the belief that everything in the world has a soul, biotic and abiotic things alike. Animism in itself is not a religion, but rather a polytheistic religious philosophy. Animism was made popular by Native Americans, and is common in cultures whose society is not built upon mathematics and science. 3. Cosmicism: Cosmicism is a literary philosophy developed by horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. Cosmicism emerged out of Lovecraft’s cult genre books, and was soon popularized in the nineteenth century. Cosmicism states that there is a lack of a divine presence in the universe, and that humans are insignificant in the grand scheme of intergalactic existence. 4. Defeatism: Defeatism is the philosophical equivalent of the psychological attitude of pessimism. Defeatism is defined as the acceptance of defeat without struggle, or more commonly known as giving up. The concept of Defeatism is predominant in politics, as well as military history. 5. Antiscience: Antiscience is the philosophical position that rejects science and the scientific method. Antiscientists do not believe in science as an objective method that can create universal knowledge. Antiscientists are far more attracted to the idea of subjectivity. Just ask the question "Do abstractions exist?" and put it in number 6. >I mean, yes? If you define gloop that way, then obviously it is at least as fundamental as science is. Good luck finding others who are as interested as you are in feces and science. This is what you don't get. Gloop and philosophy are the same concept. Some things in philosophy matter but the word encompasses a bunch of bullshit that doesn't matter (see above). This arbitrary grouping is what prevents gloop AND philosophy from ever being fundamental. >More hypocrisy. People are apparently “participating” in a word game but not “playing” said word game. Yet you simply won’t admit that you were wrong. Your ego completely blocks that possibility out. Playing means willful participation participation alone does not imply willful participation. The only ego you're describing is your own. >Projection at its finest. Tell me, how aware are you of your lack of self-awareness? Please. Paradoxes are the domain of logic. No need to place it under philosophy. >Or perhaps a less loaded question: how did you come to the conclusion that you’re oh-so-rational? That’s epistemology, by the way. We both know you’re smug as hell, but the reasons why are not currently explainable by science, so to epistemology we turn. Honestly epistemology is the most BS school of thought, Not to far from Milesians. It tries to unionize logic with biased human concepts like "belief."