I liked the title "Attack of the relativists", sounds like I should be drawing a sword screaming "Death to the Reductionists, Ambiguity For Ever"! There does seem to be an intellectual need to put god in a box and yet I see the everyday person use objective relativism like looking at a rain bow, how often do i see people walk over to where another person is standing, to see what they are seeing, even saying, "i want to see the same rainbow you are looking at".
Non-dualism is nearly impossible to conceptualize. It takes a small amount of intelligence and a heavy amount of wisdom. While relativism is in my opinion superior to objectivism, things are generally objectively relativistic or relatively objective... After all, objectivity is an ideological vantage point of subjective experience, and subjectivity itself is an illusion of separation from the cosmos. Not one, not many, but both and neither. Shit, I doubt that clarified anything... :D
@Monolith1618 Well without deciphering time it is impossible to have relativism on top. I dont much care for relativists non-unified theory because my moral value underneath it frames it to be wrong. Consider the Hauntology of the question, if a tree falls in a wood and noone is there to hear it, does the tree fall at all? It is stored objectively inside an abyssal without the need for a vantage point or viewer is it not!
@Monolith1618 Good comment- but actually this is not true either it is only given the terminology "a wave" and we forget this because it disallows us then knowing what it really is in physics. I associate this also to a few post modernist psychologists, I think with Jean Baudrillard say regarding cartography's. Because it is not a wave objectively we relativistically prescribe the term for an observed property. I have my own view of what it is- but I'm not going to share it. At least you think!
@apekillssnake Well, to be honest we'll never know what happens outside of observation, but I don't believe that the falling tree is silent when no one is around. It simply goes unmeasured. That's what I think :D
@Monolith1618 I dont think it does go unmeasured and you also have to consider regarding relativism the concept of it being matter at all, perhaps the tree is registered in the Higgs-field. There are so many other properties that the brain has to process before it can stop at relativism. AND I completely disagree that it only be known by observation. Take the brain in how it produces language for example.
@apekillssnake If you are not conscious of something, it doesn't exist for you. That's not to say it isn't there for someone else, but you are completely unaware and therefore have no frame of reference to even speculate on any of its characteristics. Also, specific measurement is an event which takes place in the domain of conscious experience. Only a conscious observer can ascribe words, numbers, texture, color etc. to an object. In reality it simply is, and there's nothing further to say...
@Monolith1618 No I dont believe that, firstly what are you defining as consciousness and you assume far too much of self- for consciousness. You seem to be imply that only things you can see are real. However I think we shall leave it there.
@apekillssnake I only meant to say that I cannot speak of things I have not seen. I know they exist, but I can make no honest claims about them. I'm not a relativist but I do use the relativist perspective from time to time. I think we agree for the most part, it's just that we have slightly different views of the same truth. Thanks for the civil discussion ;D
@Monolith1618 If you understand my point about relativism regarding the particle/wave this should "pave" not "wavicle" you to a better understanding that relativism is a human endeavor and not one of the mind. In that relativism is limiting and not unlimited, as Nietzsche would say about its dogma.
MrE doesen't even understand Euclidian Geometry and he dares to speak of Calculus and Philosophy. He is a regurgitator, nothing more. An unintereting person to engage.
Good reply. RockinMrE ignores emergent nature of reality, from atoms to our thoughts. Also, when thinkers start using tags such as "objectivists" and "relativists" (which are just another Aristotelian, pathologic product of our outdated languages and semantic reactions) conversation transforms into meaningless football match.
'professor' Anton is not really a professor at all...or at least shouldn't be. It really is sad that a man like this is educating young minds about anything....because he actually just imposes views on people, which is nowhere near teaching.
@Eopyk ummm you are clearly and agitator and instigator. I would pity you if you and your like did not taint everything and every comment section with your insistent blindness to other peoples views.
@Nonthinker1 No rather if one says opinions on the tubes then opposition will come. The reason being that people do not agree with each other. These has been true since the days of old.
That is the reality of things. What do you want all to agree ? That is not possibility and would mean a world without debate. And that would be negative for the species and there would no perspective to learn from either.
@Eopyk the way you conduct yourself has nothing to do with learning...it is just an ego fest. you are constantly trying to get one up on people, to score points. In this way you completely destroy any chance of anybody learning a damn thing...you are an intellectual fascist, polluting the tubes with your own brand of nonsense.
Intelectual facist ? What is that ? Yes I like to learn stuff and being an intelectual is no problem.
Ok do you know me ? Or is this comment section all you know ? Here I arguing againsta blocker and psudo intelectual who calles critics mentally ill thinks he is always right even in fields he is not eductaed in etc.
And also fascist a misused word for people who cling to an ideology.
@Nonthinker1 I recently saw your comments to thinktoocoolforyou.. You think it is wrong to to critize the tram woman and people with views like her?`You think you acted all right feeling a need to defend that woman as if she is not responsbile for her actions, what she says and what she does ?
And note being drunk is not excuse for spouting racist hate speech and destroying the ride for everyone.
@Eopyk my objections are mainly to the liberal fascist consensus...the non humanist bullshit that doesn't account for the uneducated and drug addled perspective of that sad woman. But you SIr, YOU are the kind of person that would never go against any consensus.....which is really rather sad, given your personal choices with regard to your lifestyle. I suggest more introspection and less vilification.
Secondly liberal and fascist are terms of contradiction. And I am seldom in the consensus.
There may be hardship for this woman than I can understand but that those justify that type of behaviour.
Are you seriously arguing that becuase her current lot is not the highest she can act vile and treat immigreants and second generation britts like shit ? Ruin it for the other people while spreading hate ?
Sorry people are responsabile for what they say and do.
@Eopyk I disagree they are terms of contradiction. In this age we have liberals imposing views in exactly the same way that Nazi's used to do of old. I am not arguing for anything more than understanding for this uneducated woman.It is repulsive to see the wave of hate generated by a consensus view, upheld and spread like cancer over the internet. It is the route of all fascist ideology,and therein lies the heart of the liberal fascist, riding with the wave at the expense of humanism.
@Nonthinker1 Ok in that case you would be taken into kails for disagreeing with liberals. And your not.
If one knows anything about living fascists , nazi , communist or other totalitarian regimes are would be carefull compairation. I can understand she is ignorant ( but she does not need to be since not all racists are racists soley because of ignorance ) it still does not justify any behaviour nor take away critic from it. The women spouts hate in screams and is met with critic and contempt
@Nonthinker1 Screaming , spouting hate not listning to keep quite. Is in deep rage and bothers the other passangers. Throwing hate against the black woman in the tram. That is where my empathy lays that she hade to listnen to verbal violance against her very existence.
I have also learnd that very often white nationalists do not care abouthaving logical discussion or even ethical ones from my experience because they are driven by hate and fear.
@Eopyk well...I guess that is for yourself to work out. 'white' nationalists are no different from black nationalists. If this woman is driven by hate and fear...then you should be looking to alleviate that fear, instead you compound it, with the weight of society and her arrest. I think I have heard enough from you.....and god help you, when the public consensus turns against transgender folk...like it does against the drug addicted poor.
@Nonthinker1 I never said that white nationalists are diffrent to black supremist nationalists.
Well yeah that is good first try to do if it is only fear that is driveing her then one can help if she is willing toi expain her fear and show why it is irational. But some hate are driven by ideology psudo science and other motevations that purely fear. After dealing white racists here on You tube who cannot accept any scientific evidence against there claim shows how deep it lay within them.
@Eopyk 'weak minded bigots' and you are so strong of mind of course, your views are reinforced by so many people and this makes you strong huh? Do me a favour and take a a good long look at yourself.....if people treated transgender views in the way the treat nationalist immigration concerns.... would you be so quick to dismiss this woman? Of course you wouldn't.....take a step back...and look at how this shit works....
You call that odinary immigration concerns ? To scream out of your lungs and spout hate and telling everyone including second generation people of imgreants parents to leave and go back to where they came from.
Every singel one of them.. That is conserns about immigreation policy or if too many are coming in or not.
That is hate to the Polish, to Anglo-Africans to anyone.
all i have gathered from 2 months of watching you tube is that there are some really lonely disaffected but smart people here...whining on at each other about this and that and basically getting nowhere. Making factions and attacking other folk that they don't even want to engage, let alone consider the points being made. You are all fucking pathetic.
why do all you people just continually attack each other? all content makers on you tube are so egotistical narcissists that they just can't help but bitch to each other about everything they can. It's just clique after clique, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, you scratch his eye out and I 'll do the same. You all use the same language and defend yourselves with the same bullshit terminology. and no, this is not a straw man or ad hominem argument (LOL) such posturing.....
@Professoranton... but it turns out you are men of drama and Histrionics.
Are you going to remove this said comment by pyrrh, as you have MrE's? Both of you need to get a grip in how you are acting on YT with this lot! I take the anti MRA hostility by it to be very offensive and discriminatory.
I just experienced the guy who made that vid, cos I went back through the vids after this one. I pointed out that some of the words he was using to describe the postmodern position were shaky. He promptly accused me of oversimplifying and suggested some reading for me. I protested. He compared me to a Stalinist, referred to me an "my ilk", called me a "pyrrho stooge" (never spoken to the guy) and then blocked me, before I had chance to reply. He seems like quite a distasteful person.
Lots of people get seduced by this line of logic. Objectivists, many libertarians and anarchists like Stefbot and Shane Killian. I tried to convince Shane that mathematical axioms are not objective truth, but it was no use. People get their ideologies tied up too much in relativism and objectivism, so they get stuck in their thinking.
Unfortunately these words are going to fall on deaf ears Prof. Anton. These stateless society morons think they can save the world they hide behind their oversimplistic philosophy. If the shit hits the fan in their utopia society you wouldn't find them anywhere. They wouldn't feel responsble. That is why i think they are dangerous.
Pfff including math in the sciences. Why do you think we call it "Math AND Sciences"? They have to work with eachother, but philosophically, they don't get along- in fact, they both originate from opposite ends of the spectrum, between Idealism and Empiricism. There are scientists and mathematicians that still don't get along because of that stuff.
Understand that the words, Absolute and Relative, are bullshit terms. They are terms from El-lites (elite worships of the grand bull El). These are terms given by snooty members of the temple (school = skull). They argue purposely over which is flexible or exact by a standard of law, created by skullers (school investors, which call themselves with pride, scholars). The purpose is to profit from students; until they have reached the doctrine; which teaches one and all the bullshit of the cult
Science has been perverted into yet another religion. Religion started science, since science is wanting to gain the knowledge (knowing the edge) in an environment. People with egos wanted to sell and make profit with ideas (ideas alone). Religion is the "Legion of the Sun". Religion is a practice in understanding our place in the universe. Science is no different. In the end, the conclusion is that the Universe and enigma is truth. Man called that principle "dogma"; dog spelled backwards.
Loved this video response! Well said! I have a question and it may not make any sense but here: Since we are talking about perceiving reality, could one say that objectivism exists within relativism or relativism exists in objectivism? Meaning, there are debates between the two such as the video you were responding to but does one of them exist because of the other? Kind of like the chicken and the egg.
@ViceJam I see self-proclaimed proponents of both "objectivism" and "relativism" basing their arguments upon certain assumptions they make regarding perception/perspective. They both tend to regard perception as something "internal" or "subjective" to a great or slightly less degree and reason from there. I see this notion as absurd, and thus the dichotomy between "subjective" and/vs. "objective" totally asinine. It's a quaint vestige of the old "Spirit vs Matter" argument in modern drag.
@hartforest I am not necessarily disagreeing with that at all which is why I am basically saying that the "subjective vs. objective" debate is futile. Which is why I ask if objectivism or subjectivism only exists because of the other? If we could all agree on that, then we could all agree to disagree when that subject comes up. hahaha
Wow Professor you really took this guy apart - well done, I sometimes worry you are too nice and diplomatic with people's bad ideas. Your arguments addressed so many of the problems with this simplistic dichotomy - i wish I could have seen this video last year when I was writing papers on objectivity and science it would have been excellent ammunition...
Incidentally in the very video he paints Pyrrho as some kind of anti-scientific person. Reality that pyrrho's epistemology is fully scientific in a sense much deeper that RMrE is even capable of understanding. And yeah he blocks people he misrepresents like this so pyrrho cannot even respond in the comments to the binary opposite strawman of him that is being attacked here.
@socrates856 No pyrrho was plotting a character assasination of MrE if you go look at his own uploads which were first- proving the statements I made earlier. Pyrro got offended because he had worked on a string of attacking uploads to go onto his channel page, but E blocked him and prevented him from being able to do this. It is your side that is at fault by acting like slime.Poor Pyrrho, your group always play the victims card. It is shameful leftist behaviorism that's all done surreptitiously
@socrates856 Again this is a terrible brain disorder your group has. You have to examine "sequence" what you now try to perform is low and mendacious dishonesty derived from your subjectivism. You can not use as a logical argument the technique of trying to debase others down to your level. Again your brain said he was a victim to not accept the remorse of your group attacking him- that is why you constantly shift-away when you are put under a spotlight- like a cockroach would- to try and defer
@apekillssnake : actually, I uploaded one video only, he blocked me based on comments before it finished, and I made a second vid explaining that. I then forgot about him until someone PMed me that he'd made a video on relativism, allegedly, that mentioned me.
@pyrrho314 Well that is courtesy then on his part if he PMed you... did you do the same for him when you made the videos that you sort to upload to his channel? I'm not an idiot I know what went down with your videos, you can see by your other comments or obsession with him that it would have been unkind. He was absolutely justified in doing what he did because I think the small-minded group you hang with on YT look to you as some kind of messiah in philosophy! That group use you to try&validate
@apekillssnake : I am in individual. But you think I'm a group. I don't know when you will argue with an individual, I have only met you and you seem reluctant.
you're view of this group seems distorted at best. I can't PM MrE because he blocked me. You obviously don't have a very robust definition of "obsession".
@pyrrho314 Yeh that still really doesn't make any sense what you're saying. Its a nice swerve to what you said before, but it really doesn't have any validity.You are right about one thing though, I'm reluctant to argue with people which seems to be the passtime of the jerks you are affiliated with. BTW its disingenuous to imply that you could not PM RockingMrE first, when your upload said that you had prepared several uploads against him prior,but the one upload was viewed at that time hence-
@apekillssnake : you are not a detailed thinker. I had prepared one video for him, and it was to be attached as a reply. You cannot attach a reply to a video of someone that has blocked you, and you cannot PM them either.
You can have excuses all day long, if you have an argument about science, all you need is facts.
@pyrrho314 Are you trying to explain that you did not set up and record these videos in private to drop them onto E Channel as some form of debasement. I was there at the time you were doing this, and dropped MrE a PM if you must know at that specific time he blocked you. It was all Jungian collective consciousness synchronicity. You were in fact blocked at the precise time for your affiliations with his anti-group. Your own video follow up proved this and I suspect contact with prof anton also.
@ape : you sound paranoid. I had never heard of MrE until the PM, if that was synchronized, well, welcome to the internets. I am not particularly familiar with the user that PMed me except as a commenter. I do not get on well with Professor Anton. My first video was not a debasement, and my reaction to his cowardice is not evidence that my reply to him was a debasement... insulting him after a coward move is a comment on his cowardice. The first video speaks for itself and is civil.
@apekillssnake : right, but accusastions of collusion are not slander? whatever, I find it funny when people that advocate cold hard facts spend all their time talking about intentions, feelings, emotions they see and don't trust. Is this how science works... if the emotional motivation behind an experiment is questionable, then the results are to be dismissed?
Look, you can talk about the facts, or whine emotionally forever.
@pyrrho314 You want to play word-games, I profiled this behavior from you as Ive said this to you on your own channel.You're now doing this because you tripped yourself up twice this way with me before,you now feel resentment and so you are trying to mirror this back. I've studied the messages as collusion by the group and it was inevitable they would go to you, and you go to ProfAnton because MrE promotes his channel. Thus you wanted it to be impactive- but failed.You contradict your relativism
@apekillssnake : I don't want to play word games. I want to talk about the history of science. You have many ways of refusing that, which should be surprising, but isn't. Seeking power and impact does not contradict relativism... those are both relative concepts (power relative to what, impact relative to what).
I see you prefer the "hard sci" of psychology to actual physics. Perhaps you should not try to rely on a set of ideas you refuse to discuss?
@pyrrho314 No but taking that out of context is relativism onto another meaning IS. Mine was a response to you saying- you find it funny when people that advocate cold hard facts spend all their time talking about intentions, feelings, emotions they see and don't trust. Is this how science works... if the emotional motivation behind an experiment is questionable, then the results are to be dismissed?
Look, you can talk about the facts, or whine emotionally forever. Are you morphing into Epoch
@pyrrho314 'Well until Newtonian or special/general relativity is unified with the sub-atomic universe, talking about objectivism or relativism is outmoded and pointless. You group clings to it for other motivations that have nothing to do with science, but more to do with social engineering. In your last attack MrE vid you mention the last hundred years of modern physics which is over the same period of post modernism. So physics and philosophy would have to both be debated.
@apekillssnake : (1) you seem incapable of dealing with me as an individual... if so I consider that a character flaw. (2) you have not dealt with any physics at all. If you understood what the Theory of Objective Reality really was, what Aristotle et al asserted with it... the nature of INHERENCE and ESSENCE and the metaphysical bullshit that turned out to be, then you might get why "relativity" is an improvement.
@pyrrho314 1) is somewhat of a perplexing comment, but also dont forget that these comments do not exist in isolation. The fact you would class this a character flaw means you fail to grasp the universal whole regarding it. 2) I have spent the last 25yrs in study that pertains in part to an objective reality. I think I touched on essence in my first comment to P.anton on here. AND a form of non-theist metaphysics is more important and advanced than relativism which is a solipsists artform.
@apekillssnake : this last assertion of your merely repeats the fact that you don't understand relativity is a study of relationships, and it is only these relationships that connect us to the world and the are sufficient to connect us to the world. Relativism and skepticism, via experientialism and empericism, can avoid the need for "metaphysics" by improving our definition of physics, and getting past the dualism by which we think ideas are not physical.
@pyrrho314 You seem to in some child-like state be trying to assert on YT that you are the only one who knows anything about relativism, you already proved you didn't know Nietzsche to me. This is just trying to mirror where your mantle is upset. What you have offered me just seems to be oxymoron's regurgitated up with no order. Plus I think I did lean to the study of relationships with what I said previously to you. This just seems like posturing to me. From my own studies this framing is weak.
@apekillssnake : nice try, but I've not asserted that. I've asserted you claim a physical, scientific basis for MrE's points, and you have yet to offer even one scientific fact. I.e. do you understand why velocity is not an objective property, but that it's still a relative "property"... that it's still a material fact? Do you understand this is because "objective properties" are inherent to the thing-in-istelf? All you want to talk about is why you have nothing to talk about.
@pyrrho314 You seem to go on and asset this again however, and then assert I claim a physcial? scientific? basis for MrE point. I think I most likely lead MrE onto those points about solipsism and subjectivism myself. Besides in your upload ROCKINGMRE AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE you say to his comment "it doesnt really matter.I havent proposed in those videos my overall view of reality..this is my view of physics.AND YET you seek empirical evidence from others-strange! You cant have it both ways,chum
@apekillssnake : I am perfectly willing to give the empirical evidence for anything I assert.
This is all just a long winded way to avoid actually mentioned the things you supposedly disagree with about my position which you resist even hearing, let alone understanding.
Did you just say you don't make a scientific claim... MrE clearly, overtly, did from what I saw. Do you disagree with him? He said I was denying science... do you admit he was wrong?
@pyrrho314 You talk from a position of a solipsist psychologically and presume to think like many of your buddies you govern what the other person thinks. I see this applied psychology to be abnormality and this is why I dont engage you in debate. If you think you have emperical evidence it is you who does not understand the History of Science as something new always comes along and challenges the status quo. I hear you, but the action/reaction means do I want you to hear me!
@pyrrho314 In brief yes I agree with MrE regarding objectivism. We differ regarding postmodernism psychology, Nietzsche and existentialism, but I agree with his rationality regarding relativists and relativism. My own research I would not class as ready to make scientific claims. MrE did from a mathematical certainty position that I think he said denied reality not science-unsure! I unlike the Solipsist can hold both ideas at the same time, until such time a new theory is evolved or INDUCED!.
In fact the truth about this group is that it will then try to emmulate this theory and as an amnesia as part of this condition subconsciously or otherwise seek to then replicate this as argument against others as an authority. This forms a secondary part to how they behave. This is seen countless times by their neurology constantly as they are beaten back, but pop up somewhere else replicating it to forfill their solipsism.
Well, there are definitely objective absolute truths, but you need to think in a subjective way to find them: For example: "The only constant in the universe is change". (ironic no?)
RockingMrE peddles in demagoguery. He is all about false and extreme dichotomies. Two positions. The one he likes and a massive strawman of what he claims to be the only possible opposite, ascribed to everybody who doesn't actually hold his position. And yeah he uses lots of buzz words that are empty misunderstandings of actually useful concepts to make people scared of them.
Please read the principia mathematica and get back to me when you accept the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice, very existential axioms..."logical truths"
lol, these philosophy battles are cool! i dont have a t.v. rocking mr e looks like he has a good interior decorator, Anton you need to fung shui your house!!
@LTBL88 Your argument here is circular. You are asking me to demonstrate what is "absolutely" the case about everything that"objectively" exists truthfully, by the standards of what exists "objectively and truthfully"...which would absurdly mean that I'd have to already know reality prior to any test of my claim. So, I'd have to test what I'd already know to be the case and a demonstration would be superfluous.
@hartforest Your argument is circular in berating others to show self-responsibility.I just demonstrated the absolute and a lesson in objectivity. Of course you can apply the discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light- therefore proving that inside the brain at some level this is potentially correct! Even if your brain is unconscious as a sort of complex that exists inside a group within society whos brains are not able to apply over the top of that any moral or ethics.
@apekillssnake well you see you are completely wrong here- because MrE also talks about "Sequence", in that the inital condition is something unethically amorally breached firstly by your group- this therefore changes the initial condition that existed inside nothing before that time arrived, thus impacting on how the objective reality will react to those circumstances thus affect outcome.
@apekillssnake No. MrE wants the "right" (the freedom) to make his opinion known through YT, blogging, etc. That's fine. However, he doesn't like the results of others responding to him in other than a laudatory manner. While not denying others their freedom of response, he instead sticks with his guns by not defining his terms, labeling other perspectives arbitrarily and won't take responsibility for that arbitrariness. That's fine. But, I don't accept this as "objective."
@hartforest No he does not address them directly- it is only their subjectivism that leads them to believe they are being targetted, where in fact MrE tries to broach the objective truth. Your group then start as a primacy not by response but as he puts it logical fallacy. This is the unawareness that a very large population of brains have within society that will by nature then gravitate to Statists positions and authority. Trying to inflict there incompetence as you demonstrate here like Eopyk
@hartforest "Your argument here is circular. You are asking me to demonstrate what is "absolutely" the case about everything that"objectively" exists truthfully, by the standards of what exists "objectively and truthfully""
The circular argument is in your making a postive claim that positive claims can't be made
"which would absurdly mean that I'd have to already know reality prior to any test of my claim. So, I'd have to test what I'd already know to be the case and a demonstration would be superfluous."
You do claim to know reality - you're making absolutist arguments, and on top of that they contradict themselves by definition
"And how is "absolute" defined?"
OK enough of this game- I think it's reasonable to assume you know what the word means and if you sincerely don't - dictionary doot coom
@LTBL88 I am using that definition. There are no absolutes. This is only perplexing for those who make an equivocation within "logic": logic is a human linguistic system of symbols and axioms *in addition to* making up reality "as it is." If you admit logic is human, symbolic and axiomatic, it cannot be "absolute" by that terms own definitions. If you are equating "logic" with "reality" then you are postulating we know what reality "is" and thus science and logic are is redundant/superfluous.
@hartforest "There are no absolutes." This is an absolute statement.
"This is only perplexing for those who make an equivocation within "logic": logic is a human linguistic system of symbols and axioms *in addition to* making up reality "as it is.""
Just the same as mathematics is abstract - does that mean one object put next to another does not create a total of two? Also, you can't use logic to make an argument that logic is invalid - come on.
@LTBL88 It is a human who is grouping (making a set of two objects) amongst any number of possible sets (again, dependent upon *human* perception and cognition) making abstraction possible. As such, *two* is a human based tool within a human-based system. That "two" exists somewhere, somehow, outside of human conception is absurd.
@hartforest "It is a human who is grouping (making a set of two objects) amongst any number of possible sets (again, dependent upon *human* perception and cognition) making abstraction possible"
And the abstraction corresponds directly to reality. Whichever set of objects he groups together makes no difference.
"As such, *two* is a human based tool within a human-based system. That "two" exists somewhere, somehow, outside of human conception is absurd."
@LTBL88 No. You have been stating that "two" exists along with the "things" counted. The set does not exist outside human concepts. Platonism is dead, long dead.
@hartforest "No. You have been stating that "two" exists along with the "things" counted. The set does not exist outside human concepts. Platonism is dead, long dead."
Wow, no I haven't do you want me to quote where I said the exact opposite? Re-read. At least you're finally admitting that things exist and there is a reality
@hartforest "If you admit logic is human, symbolic and axiomatic, it cannot be "absolute" by that terms own definitions. If you are equating "logic" with "reality" then you are postulating we know what reality "is" and thus science and logic are is redundant/superfluous."
Again, abstraction and symbolism used correctly correspond to and reflect objective reality. Just because "2" doesn't exist doesn't mean 2 eggs magically become 3 eggs. X is X.
@LTBL88 I'm not denying the existence of things, only the postulate that our system of counting and measuring exists "out there" in extra-human form. Based on the evidence, it does not. So you are equivocating logic with extra-human reality, which makes no sense.
@hartforest "I'm not denying the existence of things, only the postulate that our system of counting and measuring exists "out there" in extra-human form. Based on the evidence, it does not. So you are equivocating logic with extra-human reality, which makes no sense."
Dude, re-read what I wrote. I literally said the exact opposite. "2" does NOT exist. That doesn't mean the abstract concept 2 doesn't correspond to objective reality when counting things.
@LTBL88 Yes, which makes logic *dependent* and not absolute by definition! It cannot be. In addition, "absolute" has shown nowhere to correspond to anything in reality, again by its own definition. You can't have it both ways. Either "absolute" is synonymous with "truth" and thus redundant, or it is something other. Which is it?
You are confusing two problematic terms: "absolute" and "objective." The first is nonsense, the second is dubious particularly if based on the first.
@hartforest "Yes, which makes logic *dependent* and not absolute by definition!" Not "absolute" in terms of existing physically but that's not what absolute means. The phenomena described and dealt with by logic ARE absolute. If the logic doesn't correspond to reality it is by definition not logic. You're confusing a semantic issue.
@LTBL88 Just over two hours ago you wanted me to accept the term "absolute" as defined by "dictionary doot com" and now I'm "confused" regarding absolutes. If logic isn't independent of language, symbols, axioms, our human conditions and experience then it cannot *logically* by its own terms be absolute. "Absolutes" are neither logically nor "ontologically" tenable. Now, are your "phenomena" real or are they not? If real they must *relate* rejecting the theological notion of "absolute."
@hartforest I never said logic in and of itself was absolute - I said it is an abstract method for dealing with and communicating external absolutes, do you get the difference? 2+2=4 reflects an absolute reality. Just because the numbers 2 and 4 don't exist doesn't mean a physical collection of two groups of two objects will not universally and consistently number four objects. cont'd
@hartforest cont'd from pt1 - Now if you're seriously going to argue that reality is untenable directly with logic and ontologically untenable (technically true but a pointless masturbation excercise - if you assume this to be the case there is no further point in any theorizing or philosophising whatsoever) then why bother even talking to me? You don't know I exist. You don't know your messages are getting to me as you've typed them. You don't know that what I've typed is what you're reading
@LTBL88 The 2+2=4 strategy is not working, I've not denied its truth *within the axioms of mathematics.* Not once, never, or in any way. You are taking my rejection of the concept "absolute" as a rejection of a/the truth-concept. You've not examined your own assumptions believing that "truth" isn't quite true without the qualifier "absolute." I didn't say "reality is untenable" anywhere. What I said is that "absolutes" aren't real, neither logically nor in a non-human "ontological" way.
@hartforest Jesus, I will just use "true" then, happy? Linguistic redundancy is not a philosophical argument.
2+2=4 is true.
2+2=2 is absolutely true
Nitpicking a redundant word does not refute either of the above statements nor are they in any relevant/significant way different to eachother. If you're agreeing with me that there is a truth, you're an absolutist (sorry! I mean "Truthist") just like I am...so what are we even arguing about?
@LTBL88 Redundancy isn't at issue, but the fact that truth (a relational metaphor in origin) is most often considered magically un-relational due to the theological/essentialistic origins of the "absolute" with which it was later qualified. It rests upon a fundamental *devaluation* or reality in favor of a higher priority upon a non-existent condition in both logic and non-human reality. It's a "rhetorical" appeal to authority forgetting it's own origins in language's natural rhetorical basis .
@LTBL88 The substitution of "absolute" with "objective" will fare no better, if the underlying devaluation of reality remains at work. "Object" is a metaphor, like every other term we use, and ambiguous. Unlike MrE I simply see truth as the best approximation we have as to how things exist and how they fit together within "nature,' which is complex, pluralistic, multi-layered, changing and creative within and of we are an inextricable event or instance.
@LTBL88 So, either an absolute corresponds to something in reality or it does not. One can't say, as self-proclaimed "absolutists" do, that an absolute (as defined) both corresponds and doesn't correspond to reality since it rests within artificial axiomatic parameters. It is always conditional, dependent and related to those parameters. I think "absolutists" have an emotional and moral attachment to the term, but this makes it no more truthful. So, is the term synonymous w/ "truth" or not?
@hartforest And finally, just because absolutes are "untenable directly" doesn't mean there there aren't absolutes: just that humans can't "directly" (I don't know what's more direct that sensory perception but whatever) perceive them. I can't see through my wall, doesn't mean my neighbor doesn't exist. Besides, you don't even know that we're having the same discussion or that I exist so what are you even doing talking to me if you don't believe you're experiencing reality?
@LTBL88 You continually duck my question: If "absolute" is synonymous with "truth" then it is logically redundant at best. If it somehow *qualifies* the truth, or is other than truth, then I want you to explain how. You keep using the term and providing example of conditional truths, but are failing to show me what is "absolute" about them. I don't deny truths, I deny and reject the moral, emotional, and ultimately theological assumptions underlying the term "absolute."
Mr.E. Pick up a history/philosophy of science book or listen to a course available online. It is obvious you're not acquainted with the knowledge problem within the sciences from their inception. You have no interest in primary sources, scholarly debates, or history. Anton simply called you out on it.
@LTBL88 : do you think english words have objective absolute definitions? it's funny to me when one forms a sentence that an objectivist wants to say "ahah! objective statement!" as if an objective statement were possible in language. As if languaged is that closed, the meaning, always absolutely technical instead of almost never anywhere near "technical".
what you mostly mist is the theory of the "object" is just ONE way physical reality might be arranged... and however it is... it's real.
Before I go Anton I think you should take a good look here at what this comments section has perpetuated. I resent ANY accusation that I am a coward simply because I choose to deal with a bunch of jackals that wish to overwhelm me with nothing but numbers. It would take ALL my YT time to deal with this group, and frankly I suspect that's what they want since it would consume my channel. Let's be honest, if I weren't such a threat I would be ignored. In fact I welcome their potential apathy.
@RockingMrE Seeing as we're talking about being "done" with people Anton, let me ask you what I'm supposed to do about the same group coming out of the woodwork at the mere mention of my name? You made it an issue with your info section comment. I have to ask whether you're covering your back because you have a core of subs who don't like me, and might be looking for an excuse to distance yourself from me. I respect you but I have to question your motives after this group was so quick to pounce.
@RockingMrE I speak for myself and no group. You demonstrated plenty enough that you believe you've defined reality itself, the terms of speaking the language of reality, decided that reality and logic completely mesh within your language and go on from these decisions and images, to openly target, bash, and rant about any criticism with your terms, language and what amounts to, your imagination. You have opened the way for enmity all on your own. Freedom entails self-responsibility, remember?
@hartforest You are a fucking troll- Your little group have a string of complexes to the point where it can be psychologically studied as a condition. "freedom entails self-responsibility" really classic and extremely amnesic on your part. Is that what subjectivity over objectivity does to the mind - from one moment to the next you cant remember anything!
@apekillssnake Freedom of and responsibility for one's own actions is, I believe, a notion Mr E himself would accept logically, but instead exemplifies the split between logic and reality by his own actions and in his own words, here.
You seem really angry. I've noticed that's a tendency among "objectivists." Why is that?
@pyrrho314 You wrote me "you think the group is a pain in the ass, wait till you address an individual". Firstly that comment makes no sense, does it mean you bottled-out of saying wait till you deal with me? If that's the case and you back out of saying what you think it kinda makes it "unscary" shall I say! Is that the frog plan- I love Kung Fu Hustle.
Is this the standard now @Professoranton you group resorting to threaterning behavior and trolling! I thought you were men of science...
@RockingMrE : well you seemed like a coward to me. My video was fairly straight foward. If you watched it, you missed the point that I want ONLY TO TALK about the physics and logic that brought us into this century, and it's role in the so called post-modern.
I have no interest in post-modern art, nor do most philosophers (e.g. existentialists) that are called post-modern interest me.
I'm interested in the relation between the history of philosophy and the type of errors you perpetuate.
@pyrrho314 Your understanding of physics is, quite frankly, irritating at best. Yet you are obnoxiously insistent that you are right by using relative arguments. If no one can see the contradiction of using relative ideas to create absolute statements then I have nothing to say to them, My video shows the history you claim to clear up in your video. I have nothing else to add - I let my videos and blogs do the talking, while people like you prance around creating drama.
@RockingMrE : well, I'm college educated in physics, so I think it's probably ok. Have you heard of General Relativity? Do you know what Galilean Relativity is. I don't make aboslute statements, I use english.
Of course I do believe you have nothing to add. See ya.
@pyrrho314 Typical arguments used by arrogant drama whores who think that institutional education makes them superior, as though this is the be all and end all of learning. You really are the dangerous Orwellian torturer who wants us to believe whatever you choose aren't you? Not only did I see you coming, but I read you like a book. Go back to your elitist university department and keeping making absolute statement about relative ideas. Your ilk really makes me laugh
@RockingMrE : why do you not want to discuss the history of science. I'm willing to talk nothing but science. Fact is, I disagreed with many things I was taught in college, so no, I don't find it the end all be all. But if you are "annoyed" by my understanding, that's a bit weak and stretching it. You seem really desparate to paint some picture on me and avoid actual conversation. I understand why. Your call. I'm an individualist.
@pyrrho314 I think MrE is too caught up in self-righteous anger and *ressentiment* to have a sound and (gasp!) even joyful discussion regarding presuppositions, language, etc. His tone and tenor call to my mind more the Middle-Eastern prophet than anyone interested in science, discussion and understanding. He seems to forget that "irritation" and "annoyance" are hardly 'objective,' either as conclusion or starting point, yet, he seems content in both beginning and concluding in those manners.
@hartforest I agree he is the great model of ressentiment so great that I would not be supriced if Nietzsche and Kirkegaard would have used him as a model if they knew about him.
I said that for months.
Well his heroine Miss rand thought she was so objective in her temper tauntrums that she was known for or how she treated the inner circle of Objectivism or by calling Imanuel Kant evill.. Evill that is such a emotional subjecticly loaded term. And this is common by many objectivists
@RockingMrE Your video is factually incorrect. Most of your videos are they are filled with conspearicies and assumptions low amount of varied sources and mostly wikipedia. And when someone more educating in said filled trying to correct you get angry and not unlikely block them. You do not want to learn you think you hold the truth
BTW I see you like the Matrix that is post modern fiction you know ? likeJean Baudrillard. And also some none-post modern influence from Nozick
@Eopyk A plethora of ad hominems and absolute statements that cannot be verified. You are a PC whacko that uses your accusations to slander and shame people into compliance - just like the USSR. Case in point, your accusation that the banking crisis was a conspiracy, and yet everything I said on my vid a year ago is coming to pass. What's more the OWS has have addressed my points. The Matrix is based on the Allegory of the Cave! My God, you are an idiot who just says anything to prove a point.
@RockingMrE (cont) Your intellectual dishonesty is so rampant that arguing with you is fruitless. You attack me for Anarcho-Capitalistic views and then you have freinds who are free market anarchists. You claim you don't believe in matriarchal pre-history and uphold nonsense that Feminist anthropologist like Marija Gimbutus believ. You've admitted that you get psychological help - I am getting fed up of you venting on me - take some responsibility for your illness instead of creating (cont)
@RockingMrE I have no problems with market anarchist. Surely we may have discussion and do not agree. My main issue with you is not related with anarcho-capitalism but rather your oversimplifications, absolutism, utopianism, Randian objectivism, How you treat dissent and how you treat people with your smugness and self rightousnes and how belive you have the absolute objective from your own subjective analyses and beliving you are a experts in fields that you do not really understand.
@RockingMrE No I am critic to Marija Gimbutas but I respect her work on putting the origin of Indo-European languages in the Eurasian stepp. This still the current most popular model. What is not popular is Gimbutas hypothesis of Old Europe and how IE languages spread. Gimbutas made alot of assumptions.
Even though she was not completly wrong it is true that pre IE Europe hade more gender neutral graves and more female figurine. But from there she made to many assumptions.
@RockingMrE P 2 My views are more similear to David W Anthony his theories are written in detail in The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
And J. P. Mallory, Ola Wikander etc modern theories that go against the feminist utopian ideas of Gimbutas. I do not support her ideas and they are not modern and to ideologicaly riged with unprovable assumptions.
BTW I hope you do not belive in Steffbot views of history..
I thought the term barbarian referred to them having long hair and beards.
Robinsonero 2 months ago
I liked the title "Attack of the relativists", sounds like I should be drawing a sword screaming "Death to the Reductionists, Ambiguity For Ever"! There does seem to be an intellectual need to put god in a box and yet I see the everyday person use objective relativism like looking at a rain bow, how often do i see people walk over to where another person is standing, to see what they are seeing, even saying, "i want to see the same rainbow you are looking at".
Afterfauve007 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Little codes for those who are interested!
apekillssnake 2 months ago
fight FIGHT fite thite thight FIGHT fite FITE thigt fite THIGHT thite fite FIGHT
babylonIZfallin 2 months ago
Non-dualism is nearly impossible to conceptualize. It takes a small amount of intelligence and a heavy amount of wisdom. While relativism is in my opinion superior to objectivism, things are generally objectively relativistic or relatively objective... After all, objectivity is an ideological vantage point of subjective experience, and subjectivity itself is an illusion of separation from the cosmos. Not one, not many, but both and neither. Shit, I doubt that clarified anything... :D
Monolith1618 3 months ago
@Monolith1618 Well without deciphering time it is impossible to have relativism on top. I dont much care for relativists non-unified theory because my moral value underneath it frames it to be wrong. Consider the Hauntology of the question, if a tree falls in a wood and noone is there to hear it, does the tree fall at all? It is stored objectively inside an abyssal without the need for a vantage point or viewer is it not!
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake Right, the Universe is a unified field. If a tree falls and no conscious animal observes it, it falls as a wave and not a particle ;D
Monolith1618 2 months ago
@Monolith1618 Good comment- but actually this is not true either it is only given the terminology "a wave" and we forget this because it disallows us then knowing what it really is in physics. I associate this also to a few post modernist psychologists, I think with Jean Baudrillard say regarding cartography's. Because it is not a wave objectively we relativistically prescribe the term for an observed property. I have my own view of what it is- but I'm not going to share it. At least you think!
apekillssnake 2 months ago
@apekillssnake Well, to be honest we'll never know what happens outside of observation, but I don't believe that the falling tree is silent when no one is around. It simply goes unmeasured. That's what I think :D
Monolith1618 2 months ago
@Monolith1618 I dont think it does go unmeasured and you also have to consider regarding relativism the concept of it being matter at all, perhaps the tree is registered in the Higgs-field. There are so many other properties that the brain has to process before it can stop at relativism. AND I completely disagree that it only be known by observation. Take the brain in how it produces language for example.
apekillssnake 2 months ago
@apekillssnake If you are not conscious of something, it doesn't exist for you. That's not to say it isn't there for someone else, but you are completely unaware and therefore have no frame of reference to even speculate on any of its characteristics. Also, specific measurement is an event which takes place in the domain of conscious experience. Only a conscious observer can ascribe words, numbers, texture, color etc. to an object. In reality it simply is, and there's nothing further to say...
Monolith1618 2 months ago
@Monolith1618 No I dont believe that, firstly what are you defining as consciousness and you assume far too much of self- for consciousness. You seem to be imply that only things you can see are real. However I think we shall leave it there.
apekillssnake 2 months ago
@apekillssnake I only meant to say that I cannot speak of things I have not seen. I know they exist, but I can make no honest claims about them. I'm not a relativist but I do use the relativist perspective from time to time. I think we agree for the most part, it's just that we have slightly different views of the same truth. Thanks for the civil discussion ;D
Monolith1618 2 months ago
@Monolith1618 If you understand my point about relativism regarding the particle/wave this should "pave" not "wavicle" you to a better understanding that relativism is a human endeavor and not one of the mind. In that relativism is limiting and not unlimited, as Nietzsche would say about its dogma.
apekillssnake 2 months ago
This is scathing. luv it!
mmim810 3 months ago
MrE doesen't even understand Euclidian Geometry and he dares to speak of Calculus and Philosophy. He is a regurgitator, nothing more. An unintereting person to engage.
Zebarbas 3 months ago
Good reply. RockinMrE ignores emergent nature of reality, from atoms to our thoughts. Also, when thinkers start using tags such as "objectivists" and "relativists" (which are just another Aristotelian, pathologic product of our outdated languages and semantic reactions) conversation transforms into meaningless football match.
MarkoKraguljac 3 months ago
'professor' Anton is not really a professor at all...or at least shouldn't be. It really is sad that a man like this is educating young minds about anything....because he actually just imposes views on people, which is nowhere near teaching.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 So because he is an educator he cannot speal his minds or adress an argument he disagrees with ?
I like to say you tube is not for the light hearted if you say something be ready for opposition.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk ummm you are clearly and agitator and instigator. I would pity you if you and your like did not taint everything and every comment section with your insistent blindness to other peoples views.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Eopyk you live for opposition, which is why you fail, and we all suffer for it.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 No rather if one says opinions on the tubes then opposition will come. The reason being that people do not agree with each other. These has been true since the days of old.
That is the reality of things. What do you want all to agree ? That is not possibility and would mean a world without debate. And that would be negative for the species and there would no perspective to learn from either.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk the way you conduct yourself has nothing to do with learning...it is just an ego fest. you are constantly trying to get one up on people, to score points. In this way you completely destroy any chance of anybody learning a damn thing...you are an intellectual fascist, polluting the tubes with your own brand of nonsense.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 No what have I done that is so bad ?
Intelectual facist ? What is that ? Yes I like to learn stuff and being an intelectual is no problem.
Ok do you know me ? Or is this comment section all you know ? Here I arguing againsta blocker and psudo intelectual who calles critics mentally ill thinks he is always right even in fields he is not eductaed in etc.
And also fascist a misused word for people who cling to an ideology.
But really waht are you refering too ?
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 I recently saw your comments to thinktoocoolforyou.. You think it is wrong to to critize the tram woman and people with views like her?`You think you acted all right feeling a need to defend that woman as if she is not responsbile for her actions, what she says and what she does ?
And note being drunk is not excuse for spouting racist hate speech and destroying the ride for everyone.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk my objections are mainly to the liberal fascist consensus...the non humanist bullshit that doesn't account for the uneducated and drug addled perspective of that sad woman. But you SIr, YOU are the kind of person that would never go against any consensus.....which is really rather sad, given your personal choices with regard to your lifestyle. I suggest more introspection and less vilification.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 First of it is miss :).
Secondly liberal and fascist are terms of contradiction. And I am seldom in the consensus.
There may be hardship for this woman than I can understand but that those justify that type of behaviour.
Are you seriously arguing that becuase her current lot is not the highest she can act vile and treat immigreants and second generation britts like shit ? Ruin it for the other people while spreading hate ?
Sorry people are responsabile for what they say and do.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk I disagree they are terms of contradiction. In this age we have liberals imposing views in exactly the same way that Nazi's used to do of old. I am not arguing for anything more than understanding for this uneducated woman.It is repulsive to see the wave of hate generated by a consensus view, upheld and spread like cancer over the internet. It is the route of all fascist ideology,and therein lies the heart of the liberal fascist, riding with the wave at the expense of humanism.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 Ok in that case you would be taken into kails for disagreeing with liberals. And your not.
If one knows anything about living fascists , nazi , communist or other totalitarian regimes are would be carefull compairation. I can understand she is ignorant ( but she does not need to be since not all racists are racists soley because of ignorance ) it still does not justify any behaviour nor take away critic from it. The women spouts hate in screams and is met with critic and contempt
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 Screaming , spouting hate not listning to keep quite. Is in deep rage and bothers the other passangers. Throwing hate against the black woman in the tram. That is where my empathy lays that she hade to listnen to verbal violance against her very existence.
I have also learnd that very often white nationalists do not care abouthaving logical discussion or even ethical ones from my experience because they are driven by hate and fear.
The weak minded bigots don't deserve my empathy
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk well...I guess that is for yourself to work out. 'white' nationalists are no different from black nationalists. If this woman is driven by hate and fear...then you should be looking to alleviate that fear, instead you compound it, with the weight of society and her arrest. I think I have heard enough from you.....and god help you, when the public consensus turns against transgender folk...like it does against the drug addicted poor.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 I never said that white nationalists are diffrent to black supremist nationalists.
Well yeah that is good first try to do if it is only fear that is driveing her then one can help if she is willing toi expain her fear and show why it is irational. But some hate are driven by ideology psudo science and other motevations that purely fear. After dealing white racists here on You tube who cannot accept any scientific evidence against there claim shows how deep it lay within them.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk 'weak minded bigots' and you are so strong of mind of course, your views are reinforced by so many people and this makes you strong huh? Do me a favour and take a a good long look at yourself.....if people treated transgender views in the way the treat nationalist immigration concerns.... would you be so quick to dismiss this woman? Of course you wouldn't.....take a step back...and look at how this shit works....
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
@Nonthinker1 ''treat nationalist immigration concerns''
You call that odinary immigration concerns ? To scream out of your lungs and spout hate and telling everyone including second generation people of imgreants parents to leave and go back to where they came from.
Every singel one of them.. That is conserns about immigreation policy or if too many are coming in or not.
That is hate to the Polish, to Anglo-Africans to anyone.
Such hate shall be chalanged.
Eopyk 3 months ago
all i have gathered from 2 months of watching you tube is that there are some really lonely disaffected but smart people here...whining on at each other about this and that and basically getting nowhere. Making factions and attacking other folk that they don't even want to engage, let alone consider the points being made. You are all fucking pathetic.
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
why do all you people just continually attack each other? all content makers on you tube are so egotistical narcissists that they just can't help but bitch to each other about everything they can. It's just clique after clique, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, you scratch his eye out and I 'll do the same. You all use the same language and defend yourselves with the same bullshit terminology. and no, this is not a straw man or ad hominem argument (LOL) such posturing.....
Nonthinker1 3 months ago
Anton, this man is clearly an idiot; he doesn't deserve the attention you keep giving him.
niriop 3 months ago
@Professoranton... but it turns out you are men of drama and Histrionics.
Are you going to remove this said comment by pyrrh, as you have MrE's? Both of you need to get a grip in how you are acting on YT with this lot! I take the anti MRA hostility by it to be very offensive and discriminatory.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
I just experienced the guy who made that vid, cos I went back through the vids after this one. I pointed out that some of the words he was using to describe the postmodern position were shaky. He promptly accused me of oversimplifying and suggested some reading for me. I protested. He compared me to a Stalinist, referred to me an "my ilk", called me a "pyrrho stooge" (never spoken to the guy) and then blocked me, before I had chance to reply. He seems like quite a distasteful person.
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
Comment removed
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
Lots of people get seduced by this line of logic. Objectivists, many libertarians and anarchists like Stefbot and Shane Killian. I tried to convince Shane that mathematical axioms are not objective truth, but it was no use. People get their ideologies tied up too much in relativism and objectivism, so they get stuck in their thinking.
FlowCell 3 months ago
@FlowCell is there a video comment section to Shane that you can link to?
45means45 3 months ago
Unfortunately these words are going to fall on deaf ears Prof. Anton. These stateless society morons think they can save the world they hide behind their oversimplistic philosophy. If the shit hits the fan in their utopia society you wouldn't find them anywhere. They wouldn't feel responsble. That is why i think they are dangerous.
erdal0 3 months ago
Comment removed
TWITfromURANUS 3 months ago
rainbows!
cammyjeee 3 months ago
I'm going to post a video response to this very soon, prof Anton has touched on very important points here
johnnymazaratti 3 months ago
LOL Use your rainbow argument on a mountain.
I'm with Einstein on this one the moon is still there even if no one is looking.
Try this: my experience of a rainbow is not the determining factor in the
existence of a rainbow.
tyrbolo 3 months ago
Intresting
eddiebertopsp 3 months ago
Comment removed
robertkeeganwalker 3 months ago
I interject. barbarian comes from barbe which means beard
Ioganstone 3 months ago
@Ioganstone That's how they named beards. Babblers had them.
paradoarify 3 months ago
Pfff including math in the sciences. Why do you think we call it "Math AND Sciences"? They have to work with eachother, but philosophically, they don't get along- in fact, they both originate from opposite ends of the spectrum, between Idealism and Empiricism. There are scientists and mathematicians that still don't get along because of that stuff.
Yamikaiba123 3 months ago
Understand that the words, Absolute and Relative, are bullshit terms. They are terms from El-lites (elite worships of the grand bull El). These are terms given by snooty members of the temple (school = skull). They argue purposely over which is flexible or exact by a standard of law, created by skullers (school investors, which call themselves with pride, scholars). The purpose is to profit from students; until they have reached the doctrine; which teaches one and all the bullshit of the cult
DemocraticEmpire 3 months ago
Comment removed
DemocraticEmpire 3 months ago
Science has been perverted into yet another religion. Religion started science, since science is wanting to gain the knowledge (knowing the edge) in an environment. People with egos wanted to sell and make profit with ideas (ideas alone). Religion is the "Legion of the Sun". Religion is a practice in understanding our place in the universe. Science is no different. In the end, the conclusion is that the Universe and enigma is truth. Man called that principle "dogma"; dog spelled backwards.
DemocraticEmpire 3 months ago
Loved this video response! Well said! I have a question and it may not make any sense but here: Since we are talking about perceiving reality, could one say that objectivism exists within relativism or relativism exists in objectivism? Meaning, there are debates between the two such as the video you were responding to but does one of them exist because of the other? Kind of like the chicken and the egg.
ViceJam 3 months ago
@ViceJam I see self-proclaimed proponents of both "objectivism" and "relativism" basing their arguments upon certain assumptions they make regarding perception/perspective. They both tend to regard perception as something "internal" or "subjective" to a great or slightly less degree and reason from there. I see this notion as absurd, and thus the dichotomy between "subjective" and/vs. "objective" totally asinine. It's a quaint vestige of the old "Spirit vs Matter" argument in modern drag.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest I am not necessarily disagreeing with that at all which is why I am basically saying that the "subjective vs. objective" debate is futile. Which is why I ask if objectivism or subjectivism only exists because of the other? If we could all agree on that, then we could all agree to disagree when that subject comes up. hahaha
ViceJam 3 months ago
Good response
Rybot9000 3 months ago
Its about time you kicked some simpleton ass.
CarnivalofIllusion 3 months ago
Good stuff.
DanaGarrett 3 months ago
you tore this guy a new one. well done, Prof
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
BA!! BA!! BA!!
Engravingsful 3 months ago
Wow Professor you really took this guy apart - well done, I sometimes worry you are too nice and diplomatic with people's bad ideas. Your arguments addressed so many of the problems with this simplistic dichotomy - i wish I could have seen this video last year when I was writing papers on objectivity and science it would have been excellent ammunition...
Karasu095317 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
" In addition, "absolute" has shown nowhere to correspond to anything in reality, again by its own definition."
If it is used in a logical sentence to describe something that is true then yes it does correspond to reality.
"You can't have it both ways. Either "absolute" is synonymous with "truth" and thus redundant, or it is something other. Which is it?"
More semantics? I don't see how a word being redundant is a philosophical argument
LTBL88 3 months ago
Incidentally in the very video he paints Pyrrho as some kind of anti-scientific person. Reality that pyrrho's epistemology is fully scientific in a sense much deeper that RMrE is even capable of understanding. And yeah he blocks people he misrepresents like this so pyrrho cannot even respond in the comments to the binary opposite strawman of him that is being attacked here.
socrates856 3 months ago
@socrates856 No pyrrho was plotting a character assasination of MrE if you go look at his own uploads which were first- proving the statements I made earlier. Pyrro got offended because he had worked on a string of attacking uploads to go onto his channel page, but E blocked him and prevented him from being able to do this. It is your side that is at fault by acting like slime.Poor Pyrrho, your group always play the victims card. It is shameful leftist behaviorism that's all done surreptitiously
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake Haha. Wow so RockingMrE is the _victim_ of character assassination, and other play the _victim card_. Oh boy.
socrates856 3 months ago
@socrates856 Again this is a terrible brain disorder your group has. You have to examine "sequence" what you now try to perform is low and mendacious dishonesty derived from your subjectivism. You can not use as a logical argument the technique of trying to debase others down to your level. Again your brain said he was a victim to not accept the remorse of your group attacking him- that is why you constantly shift-away when you are put under a spotlight- like a cockroach would- to try and defer
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake RockingMrE provable strawmans pyrrho's position. About the rest of your incoherent rambling... well... sucks to be you.
socrates856 3 months ago
@socrates856 No he does not- nice try at assertion in the face of wind and piss though!
What type of deranged ego uses socrates as their user name man, what a dumpster you are!
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake You cannot even formulate Pyrrho's epistemology. But sure keep talking out of your behind all day.
socrates856 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@socrates856 I'll talk and you keep looking out of yours, so you can pop your head back inside.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : actually, I uploaded one video only, he blocked me based on comments before it finished, and I made a second vid explaining that. I then forgot about him until someone PMed me that he'd made a video on relativism, allegedly, that mentioned me.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Well that is courtesy then on his part if he PMed you... did you do the same for him when you made the videos that you sort to upload to his channel? I'm not an idiot I know what went down with your videos, you can see by your other comments or obsession with him that it would have been unkind. He was absolutely justified in doing what he did because I think the small-minded group you hang with on YT look to you as some kind of messiah in philosophy! That group use you to try&validate
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : I am in individual. But you think I'm a group. I don't know when you will argue with an individual, I have only met you and you seem reluctant.
you're view of this group seems distorted at best. I can't PM MrE because he blocked me. You obviously don't have a very robust definition of "obsession".
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Yeh that still really doesn't make any sense what you're saying. Its a nice swerve to what you said before, but it really doesn't have any validity.You are right about one thing though, I'm reluctant to argue with people which seems to be the passtime of the jerks you are affiliated with. BTW its disingenuous to imply that you could not PM RockingMrE first, when your upload said that you had prepared several uploads against him prior,but the one upload was viewed at that time hence-
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : you are not a detailed thinker. I had prepared one video for him, and it was to be attached as a reply. You cannot attach a reply to a video of someone that has blocked you, and you cannot PM them either.
You can have excuses all day long, if you have an argument about science, all you need is facts.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Are you trying to explain that you did not set up and record these videos in private to drop them onto E Channel as some form of debasement. I was there at the time you were doing this, and dropped MrE a PM if you must know at that specific time he blocked you. It was all Jungian collective consciousness synchronicity. You were in fact blocked at the precise time for your affiliations with his anti-group. Your own video follow up proved this and I suspect contact with prof anton also.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@ape : you sound paranoid. I had never heard of MrE until the PM, if that was synchronized, well, welcome to the internets. I am not particularly familiar with the user that PMed me except as a commenter. I do not get on well with Professor Anton. My first video was not a debasement, and my reaction to his cowardice is not evidence that my reply to him was a debasement... insulting him after a coward move is a comment on his cowardice. The first video speaks for itself and is civil.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 typical slander and waffle, waffle, waffle that I have learnt to profile and be precognizant of.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : right, but accusastions of collusion are not slander? whatever, I find it funny when people that advocate cold hard facts spend all their time talking about intentions, feelings, emotions they see and don't trust. Is this how science works... if the emotional motivation behind an experiment is questionable, then the results are to be dismissed?
Look, you can talk about the facts, or whine emotionally forever.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You want to play word-games, I profiled this behavior from you as Ive said this to you on your own channel.You're now doing this because you tripped yourself up twice this way with me before,you now feel resentment and so you are trying to mirror this back. I've studied the messages as collusion by the group and it was inevitable they would go to you, and you go to ProfAnton because MrE promotes his channel. Thus you wanted it to be impactive- but failed.You contradict your relativism
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : I don't want to play word games. I want to talk about the history of science. You have many ways of refusing that, which should be surprising, but isn't. Seeking power and impact does not contradict relativism... those are both relative concepts (power relative to what, impact relative to what).
I see you prefer the "hard sci" of psychology to actual physics. Perhaps you should not try to rely on a set of ideas you refuse to discuss?
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 No but taking that out of context is relativism onto another meaning IS. Mine was a response to you saying- you find it funny when people that advocate cold hard facts spend all their time talking about intentions, feelings, emotions they see and don't trust. Is this how science works... if the emotional motivation behind an experiment is questionable, then the results are to be dismissed?
Look, you can talk about the facts, or whine emotionally forever. Are you morphing into Epoch
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : um, so you can parrot my challenge back to me. Let's talk physics.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 'Well until Newtonian or special/general relativity is unified with the sub-atomic universe, talking about objectivism or relativism is outmoded and pointless. You group clings to it for other motivations that have nothing to do with science, but more to do with social engineering. In your last attack MrE vid you mention the last hundred years of modern physics which is over the same period of post modernism. So physics and philosophy would have to both be debated.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : (1) you seem incapable of dealing with me as an individual... if so I consider that a character flaw. (2) you have not dealt with any physics at all. If you understood what the Theory of Objective Reality really was, what Aristotle et al asserted with it... the nature of INHERENCE and ESSENCE and the metaphysical bullshit that turned out to be, then you might get why "relativity" is an improvement.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 1) is somewhat of a perplexing comment, but also dont forget that these comments do not exist in isolation. The fact you would class this a character flaw means you fail to grasp the universal whole regarding it. 2) I have spent the last 25yrs in study that pertains in part to an objective reality. I think I touched on essence in my first comment to P.anton on here. AND a form of non-theist metaphysics is more important and advanced than relativism which is a solipsists artform.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : this last assertion of your merely repeats the fact that you don't understand relativity is a study of relationships, and it is only these relationships that connect us to the world and the are sufficient to connect us to the world. Relativism and skepticism, via experientialism and empericism, can avoid the need for "metaphysics" by improving our definition of physics, and getting past the dualism by which we think ideas are not physical.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You seem to in some child-like state be trying to assert on YT that you are the only one who knows anything about relativism, you already proved you didn't know Nietzsche to me. This is just trying to mirror where your mantle is upset. What you have offered me just seems to be oxymoron's regurgitated up with no order. Plus I think I did lean to the study of relationships with what I said previously to you. This just seems like posturing to me. From my own studies this framing is weak.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : nice try, but I've not asserted that. I've asserted you claim a physical, scientific basis for MrE's points, and you have yet to offer even one scientific fact. I.e. do you understand why velocity is not an objective property, but that it's still a relative "property"... that it's still a material fact? Do you understand this is because "objective properties" are inherent to the thing-in-istelf? All you want to talk about is why you have nothing to talk about.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You seem to go on and asset this again however, and then assert I claim a physcial? scientific? basis for MrE point. I think I most likely lead MrE onto those points about solipsism and subjectivism myself. Besides in your upload ROCKINGMRE AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE you say to his comment "it doesnt really matter.I havent proposed in those videos my overall view of reality..this is my view of physics.AND YET you seek empirical evidence from others-strange! You cant have it both ways,chum
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : I am perfectly willing to give the empirical evidence for anything I assert.
This is all just a long winded way to avoid actually mentioned the things you supposedly disagree with about my position which you resist even hearing, let alone understanding.
Did you just say you don't make a scientific claim... MrE clearly, overtly, did from what I saw. Do you disagree with him? He said I was denying science... do you admit he was wrong?
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You talk from a position of a solipsist psychologically and presume to think like many of your buddies you govern what the other person thinks. I see this applied psychology to be abnormality and this is why I dont engage you in debate. If you think you have emperical evidence it is you who does not understand the History of Science as something new always comes along and challenges the status quo. I hear you, but the action/reaction means do I want you to hear me!
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 In brief yes I agree with MrE regarding objectivism. We differ regarding postmodernism psychology, Nietzsche and existentialism, but I agree with his rationality regarding relativists and relativism. My own research I would not class as ready to make scientific claims. MrE did from a mathematical certainty position that I think he said denied reality not science-unsure! I unlike the Solipsist can hold both ideas at the same time, until such time a new theory is evolved or INDUCED!.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
In fact the truth about this group is that it will then try to emmulate this theory and as an amnesia as part of this condition subconsciously or otherwise seek to then replicate this as argument against others as an authority. This forms a secondary part to how they behave. This is seen countless times by their neurology constantly as they are beaten back, but pop up somewhere else replicating it to forfill their solipsism.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
Well, there are definitely objective absolute truths, but you need to think in a subjective way to find them: For example: "The only constant in the universe is change". (ironic no?)
nielss4 3 months ago
RockingMrE peddles in demagoguery. He is all about false and extreme dichotomies. Two positions. The one he likes and a massive strawman of what he claims to be the only possible opposite, ascribed to everybody who doesn't actually hold his position. And yeah he uses lots of buzz words that are empty misunderstandings of actually useful concepts to make people scared of them.
socrates856 3 months ago
in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" didnt Quine breakdown to some extent the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements?
thegohstoftroymclure 3 months ago
Please read the principia mathematica and get back to me when you accept the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice, very existential axioms..."logical truths"
thegohstoftroymclure 3 months ago
Is logic the same way as math in that sense?
greenghost2008 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Where did you get that red couch in your video backround?
thegohstoftroymclure 3 months ago
lol, these philosophy battles are cool! i dont have a t.v. rocking mr e looks like he has a good interior decorator, Anton you need to fung shui your house!!
thegohstoftroymclure 3 months ago
True: That which absolutely is the case
Objective: That which is demonstratably true using the above definition
Reality: Everything that objectively and truthfully exists
Can you answer the question now?
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 Your argument here is circular. You are asking me to demonstrate what is "absolutely" the case about everything that"objectively" exists truthfully, by the standards of what exists "objectively and truthfully"...which would absurdly mean that I'd have to already know reality prior to any test of my claim. So, I'd have to test what I'd already know to be the case and a demonstration would be superfluous.
And how is "absolute" defined?
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest Your argument is circular in berating others to show self-responsibility.I just demonstrated the absolute and a lesson in objectivity. Of course you can apply the discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light- therefore proving that inside the brain at some level this is potentially correct! Even if your brain is unconscious as a sort of complex that exists inside a group within society whos brains are not able to apply over the top of that any moral or ethics.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake well you see you are completely wrong here- because MrE also talks about "Sequence", in that the inital condition is something unethically amorally breached firstly by your group- this therefore changes the initial condition that existed inside nothing before that time arrived, thus impacting on how the objective reality will react to those circumstances thus affect outcome.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake No. MrE wants the "right" (the freedom) to make his opinion known through YT, blogging, etc. That's fine. However, he doesn't like the results of others responding to him in other than a laudatory manner. While not denying others their freedom of response, he instead sticks with his guns by not defining his terms, labeling other perspectives arbitrarily and won't take responsibility for that arbitrariness. That's fine. But, I don't accept this as "objective."
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest No he does not address them directly- it is only their subjectivism that leads them to believe they are being targetted, where in fact MrE tries to broach the objective truth. Your group then start as a primacy not by response but as he puts it logical fallacy. This is the unawareness that a very large population of brains have within society that will by nature then gravitate to Statists positions and authority. Trying to inflict there incompetence as you demonstrate here like Eopyk
apekillssnake 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hartforest "Your argument here is circular. You are asking me to demonstrate what is "absolutely" the case about everything that"objectively" exists truthfully, by the standards of what exists "objectively and truthfully""
The circular argument is in your making a postive claim that positive claims can't be made
cont'd
LTBL88 3 months ago
"which would absurdly mean that I'd have to already know reality prior to any test of my claim. So, I'd have to test what I'd already know to be the case and a demonstration would be superfluous."
You do claim to know reality - you're making absolutist arguments, and on top of that they contradict themselves by definition
"And how is "absolute" defined?"
OK enough of this game- I think it's reasonable to assume you know what the word means and if you sincerely don't - dictionary doot coom
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 I am using that definition. There are no absolutes. This is only perplexing for those who make an equivocation within "logic": logic is a human linguistic system of symbols and axioms *in addition to* making up reality "as it is." If you admit logic is human, symbolic and axiomatic, it cannot be "absolute" by that terms own definitions. If you are equating "logic" with "reality" then you are postulating we know what reality "is" and thus science and logic are is redundant/superfluous.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest "There are no absolutes." This is an absolute statement.
"This is only perplexing for those who make an equivocation within "logic": logic is a human linguistic system of symbols and axioms *in addition to* making up reality "as it is.""
Just the same as mathematics is abstract - does that mean one object put next to another does not create a total of two? Also, you can't use logic to make an argument that logic is invalid - come on.
cont'd
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 It is a human who is grouping (making a set of two objects) amongst any number of possible sets (again, dependent upon *human* perception and cognition) making abstraction possible. As such, *two* is a human based tool within a human-based system. That "two" exists somewhere, somehow, outside of human conception is absurd.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest "It is a human who is grouping (making a set of two objects) amongst any number of possible sets (again, dependent upon *human* perception and cognition) making abstraction possible"
And the abstraction corresponds directly to reality. Whichever set of objects he groups together makes no difference.
"As such, *two* is a human based tool within a human-based system. That "two" exists somewhere, somehow, outside of human conception is absurd."
That's exactly what I just said.
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 No. You have been stating that "two" exists along with the "things" counted. The set does not exist outside human concepts. Platonism is dead, long dead.
hartforest 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hartforest "No. You have been stating that "two" exists along with the "things" counted. The set does not exist outside human concepts. Platonism is dead, long dead."
Wow, no I haven't do you want me to quote where I said the exact opposite? Re-read. At least you're finally admitting that things exist and there is a reality
LTBL88 3 months ago
@hartforest "If you admit logic is human, symbolic and axiomatic, it cannot be "absolute" by that terms own definitions. If you are equating "logic" with "reality" then you are postulating we know what reality "is" and thus science and logic are is redundant/superfluous."
Again, abstraction and symbolism used correctly correspond to and reflect objective reality. Just because "2" doesn't exist doesn't mean 2 eggs magically become 3 eggs. X is X.
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 I'm not denying the existence of things, only the postulate that our system of counting and measuring exists "out there" in extra-human form. Based on the evidence, it does not. So you are equivocating logic with extra-human reality, which makes no sense.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest "I'm not denying the existence of things, only the postulate that our system of counting and measuring exists "out there" in extra-human form. Based on the evidence, it does not. So you are equivocating logic with extra-human reality, which makes no sense."
Dude, re-read what I wrote. I literally said the exact opposite. "2" does NOT exist. That doesn't mean the abstract concept 2 doesn't correspond to objective reality when counting things.
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 Yes, which makes logic *dependent* and not absolute by definition! It cannot be. In addition, "absolute" has shown nowhere to correspond to anything in reality, again by its own definition. You can't have it both ways. Either "absolute" is synonymous with "truth" and thus redundant, or it is something other. Which is it?
You are confusing two problematic terms: "absolute" and "objective." The first is nonsense, the second is dubious particularly if based on the first.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest "Yes, which makes logic *dependent* and not absolute by definition!" Not "absolute" in terms of existing physically but that's not what absolute means. The phenomena described and dealt with by logic ARE absolute. If the logic doesn't correspond to reality it is by definition not logic. You're confusing a semantic issue.
cont'd
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 Just over two hours ago you wanted me to accept the term "absolute" as defined by "dictionary doot com" and now I'm "confused" regarding absolutes. If logic isn't independent of language, symbols, axioms, our human conditions and experience then it cannot *logically* by its own terms be absolute. "Absolutes" are neither logically nor "ontologically" tenable. Now, are your "phenomena" real or are they not? If real they must *relate* rejecting the theological notion of "absolute."
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest I never said logic in and of itself was absolute - I said it is an abstract method for dealing with and communicating external absolutes, do you get the difference? 2+2=4 reflects an absolute reality. Just because the numbers 2 and 4 don't exist doesn't mean a physical collection of two groups of two objects will not universally and consistently number four objects. cont'd
LTBL88 3 months ago
@hartforest cont'd from pt1 - Now if you're seriously going to argue that reality is untenable directly with logic and ontologically untenable (technically true but a pointless masturbation excercise - if you assume this to be the case there is no further point in any theorizing or philosophising whatsoever) then why bother even talking to me? You don't know I exist. You don't know your messages are getting to me as you've typed them. You don't know that what I've typed is what you're reading
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 The 2+2=4 strategy is not working, I've not denied its truth *within the axioms of mathematics.* Not once, never, or in any way. You are taking my rejection of the concept "absolute" as a rejection of a/the truth-concept. You've not examined your own assumptions believing that "truth" isn't quite true without the qualifier "absolute." I didn't say "reality is untenable" anywhere. What I said is that "absolutes" aren't real, neither logically nor in a non-human "ontological" way.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest Jesus, I will just use "true" then, happy? Linguistic redundancy is not a philosophical argument.
2+2=4 is true.
2+2=2 is absolutely true
Nitpicking a redundant word does not refute either of the above statements nor are they in any relevant/significant way different to eachother. If you're agreeing with me that there is a truth, you're an absolutist (sorry! I mean "Truthist") just like I am...so what are we even arguing about?
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 Redundancy isn't at issue, but the fact that truth (a relational metaphor in origin) is most often considered magically un-relational due to the theological/essentialistic origins of the "absolute" with which it was later qualified. It rests upon a fundamental *devaluation* or reality in favor of a higher priority upon a non-existent condition in both logic and non-human reality. It's a "rhetorical" appeal to authority forgetting it's own origins in language's natural rhetorical basis .
hartforest 3 months ago
@LTBL88 The substitution of "absolute" with "objective" will fare no better, if the underlying devaluation of reality remains at work. "Object" is a metaphor, like every other term we use, and ambiguous. Unlike MrE I simply see truth as the best approximation we have as to how things exist and how they fit together within "nature,' which is complex, pluralistic, multi-layered, changing and creative within and of we are an inextricable event or instance.
hartforest 3 months ago
@LTBL88 So, either an absolute corresponds to something in reality or it does not. One can't say, as self-proclaimed "absolutists" do, that an absolute (as defined) both corresponds and doesn't correspond to reality since it rests within artificial axiomatic parameters. It is always conditional, dependent and related to those parameters. I think "absolutists" have an emotional and moral attachment to the term, but this makes it no more truthful. So, is the term synonymous w/ "truth" or not?
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest And finally, just because absolutes are "untenable directly" doesn't mean there there aren't absolutes: just that humans can't "directly" (I don't know what's more direct that sensory perception but whatever) perceive them. I can't see through my wall, doesn't mean my neighbor doesn't exist. Besides, you don't even know that we're having the same discussion or that I exist so what are you even doing talking to me if you don't believe you're experiencing reality?
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 You continually duck my question: If "absolute" is synonymous with "truth" then it is logically redundant at best. If it somehow *qualifies* the truth, or is other than truth, then I want you to explain how. You keep using the term and providing example of conditional truths, but are failing to show me what is "absolute" about them. I don't deny truths, I deny and reject the moral, emotional, and ultimately theological assumptions underlying the term "absolute."
hartforest 3 months ago
Mr.E. Pick up a history/philosophy of science book or listen to a course available online. It is obvious you're not acquainted with the knowledge problem within the sciences from their inception. You have no interest in primary sources, scholarly debates, or history. Anton simply called you out on it.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest Is it objectively true that reality isn't objective?
LTBL88 3 months ago
@LTBL88 Define "true," "objective," and "reality."
hartforest 3 months ago
@LTBL88 : do you think english words have objective absolute definitions? it's funny to me when one forms a sentence that an objectivist wants to say "ahah! objective statement!" as if an objective statement were possible in language. As if languaged is that closed, the meaning, always absolutely technical instead of almost never anywhere near "technical".
what you mostly mist is the theory of the "object" is just ONE way physical reality might be arranged... and however it is... it's real.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
Before I go Anton I think you should take a good look here at what this comments section has perpetuated. I resent ANY accusation that I am a coward simply because I choose to deal with a bunch of jackals that wish to overwhelm me with nothing but numbers. It would take ALL my YT time to deal with this group, and frankly I suspect that's what they want since it would consume my channel. Let's be honest, if I weren't such a threat I would be ignored. In fact I welcome their potential apathy.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Seeing as we're talking about being "done" with people Anton, let me ask you what I'm supposed to do about the same group coming out of the woodwork at the mere mention of my name? You made it an issue with your info section comment. I have to ask whether you're covering your back because you have a core of subs who don't like me, and might be looking for an excuse to distance yourself from me. I respect you but I have to question your motives after this group was so quick to pounce.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE I speak for myself and no group. You demonstrated plenty enough that you believe you've defined reality itself, the terms of speaking the language of reality, decided that reality and logic completely mesh within your language and go on from these decisions and images, to openly target, bash, and rant about any criticism with your terms, language and what amounts to, your imagination. You have opened the way for enmity all on your own. Freedom entails self-responsibility, remember?
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest You are a fucking troll- Your little group have a string of complexes to the point where it can be psychologically studied as a condition. "freedom entails self-responsibility" really classic and extremely amnesic on your part. Is that what subjectivity over objectivity does to the mind - from one moment to the next you cant remember anything!
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake Freedom of and responsibility for one's own actions is, I believe, a notion Mr E himself would accept logically, but instead exemplifies the split between logic and reality by his own actions and in his own words, here.
You seem really angry. I've noticed that's a tendency among "objectivists." Why is that?
hartforest 3 months ago
@apekillssnake : you think the group is a pain in the ass, wait till you address an individual.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 You wrote me "you think the group is a pain in the ass, wait till you address an individual". Firstly that comment makes no sense, does it mean you bottled-out of saying wait till you deal with me? If that's the case and you back out of saying what you think it kinda makes it "unscary" shall I say! Is that the frog plan- I love Kung Fu Hustle.
Is this the standard now @Professoranton you group resorting to threaterning behavior and trolling! I thought you were men of science...
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : well you seemed like a coward to me. My video was fairly straight foward. If you watched it, you missed the point that I want ONLY TO TALK about the physics and logic that brought us into this century, and it's role in the so called post-modern.
I have no interest in post-modern art, nor do most philosophers (e.g. existentialists) that are called post-modern interest me.
I'm interested in the relation between the history of philosophy and the type of errors you perpetuate.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 Your understanding of physics is, quite frankly, irritating at best. Yet you are obnoxiously insistent that you are right by using relative arguments. If no one can see the contradiction of using relative ideas to create absolute statements then I have nothing to say to them, My video shows the history you claim to clear up in your video. I have nothing else to add - I let my videos and blogs do the talking, while people like you prance around creating drama.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : well, I'm college educated in physics, so I think it's probably ok. Have you heard of General Relativity? Do you know what Galilean Relativity is. I don't make aboslute statements, I use english.
Of course I do believe you have nothing to add. See ya.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
Comment removed
RockingMrE 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pyrrho314 Typical arguments used by arrogant drama whores who think that institutional education makes them superior, as though this is the be all and end all of learning. You really are the dangerous Orwellian torturer who wants us to believe whatever you choose aren't you? Not only did I see you coming, but I read you like a book. Go back to your elitist university department and keeping making absolute statement about relative ideas. Your ilk really makes me laugh
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE : why do you not want to discuss the history of science. I'm willing to talk nothing but science. Fact is, I disagreed with many things I was taught in college, so no, I don't find it the end all be all. But if you are "annoyed" by my understanding, that's a bit weak and stretching it. You seem really desparate to paint some picture on me and avoid actual conversation. I understand why. Your call. I'm an individualist.
pyrrho314 3 months ago
@pyrrho314 I think MrE is too caught up in self-righteous anger and *ressentiment* to have a sound and (gasp!) even joyful discussion regarding presuppositions, language, etc. His tone and tenor call to my mind more the Middle-Eastern prophet than anyone interested in science, discussion and understanding. He seems to forget that "irritation" and "annoyance" are hardly 'objective,' either as conclusion or starting point, yet, he seems content in both beginning and concluding in those manners.
hartforest 3 months ago
@hartforest I agree he is the great model of ressentiment so great that I would not be supriced if Nietzsche and Kirkegaard would have used him as a model if they knew about him.
I said that for months.
Well his heroine Miss rand thought she was so objective in her temper tauntrums that she was known for or how she treated the inner circle of Objectivism or by calling Imanuel Kant evill.. Evill that is such a emotional subjecticly loaded term. And this is common by many objectivists
Eopyk 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Your video is factually incorrect. Most of your videos are they are filled with conspearicies and assumptions low amount of varied sources and mostly wikipedia. And when someone more educating in said filled trying to correct you get angry and not unlikely block them. You do not want to learn you think you hold the truth
BTW I see you like the Matrix that is post modern fiction you know ? likeJean Baudrillard. And also some none-post modern influence from Nozick
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk A plethora of ad hominems and absolute statements that cannot be verified. You are a PC whacko that uses your accusations to slander and shame people into compliance - just like the USSR. Case in point, your accusation that the banking crisis was a conspiracy, and yet everything I said on my vid a year ago is coming to pass. What's more the OWS has have addressed my points. The Matrix is based on the Allegory of the Cave! My God, you are an idiot who just says anything to prove a point.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE (cont) Your intellectual dishonesty is so rampant that arguing with you is fruitless. You attack me for Anarcho-Capitalistic views and then you have freinds who are free market anarchists. You claim you don't believe in matriarchal pre-history and uphold nonsense that Feminist anthropologist like Marija Gimbutus believ. You've admitted that you get psychological help - I am getting fed up of you venting on me - take some responsibility for your illness instead of creating (cont)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE strawmen and attacking fantasy hate figures. I'm done - feel free to litter this comment section with complete bs about me.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE I have no problems with market anarchist. Surely we may have discussion and do not agree. My main issue with you is not related with anarcho-capitalism but rather your oversimplifications, absolutism, utopianism, Randian objectivism, How you treat dissent and how you treat people with your smugness and self rightousnes and how belive you have the absolute objective from your own subjective analyses and beliving you are a experts in fields that you do not really understand.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@RockingMrE No I am critic to Marija Gimbutas but I respect her work on putting the origin of Indo-European languages in the Eurasian stepp. This still the current most popular model. What is not popular is Gimbutas hypothesis of Old Europe and how IE languages spread. Gimbutas made alot of assumptions.
Even though she was not completly wrong it is true that pre IE Europe hade more gender neutral graves and more female figurine. But from there she made to many assumptions.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@RockingMrE P 2 My views are more similear to David W Anthony his theories are written in detail in The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
And J. P. Mallory, Ola Wikander etc modern theories that go against the feminist utopian ideas of Gimbutas. I do not support her ideas and they are not modern and to ideologicaly riged with unprovable assumptions.
BTW I hope you do not belive in Steffbot views of history..
Eopyk 3 months ago