> I am an Oberlin College philosophy major, and I can tell you there is nothing difficult to parse here having to do with epistemology or set theory.
Did you learn about the difficulty of proving (necessary to upgrade Belief to Truth) claims of nonexistence in your philosophy classes? How about Direct vs Indirect Realism? How about the psychology of normative cognition?
How about semiotics (I'm getting at the way you use the word "is", which (allegedly) means "to be")?
> Trump is ...
When you are referring to Trump, do you believe that you are referring to Trump *the thing itself*, or do you believe there may be an intermediary in play?
And if you manage to get the correct answer, can you think what the intermediary may be? And for bonus marks: what it is composed of?
> You can can attempt to blow clouds of metaphysical smoke up people's asses but that is where the rubber meets the road.
And you can engage in rhetoric (did you study that, philosophy major?) and framing, and I will point it out, and then wait to see how you (your *trained* mind, technically) reacts. Will you continue with Meme Magic, or will you apply some of the things you've learned in school (or at least try....have you studied free will yet?)?
I will be waiting on the edge of my seat to find out.
I would encourage you to stop assuming what someone else wrote about Gnosticism is the truth, return to first principles and primary sources.
Do you really want to take the word of a warmongering Roman emperor (Constantine) and the subsequent church about something that they felt so threatened by they went to extraordinary lengths to wipe out?
The human "chose": Meme Magic, dodging of 100% of the questions asked them about their "facts", and as a cherry on top: soothsaying. This is not very surprising.
I wonder if this is why the general public (and even most philosophers) have such low respect for philosophy.
Because their design conforms to that which is required to achieve flight.
Another way to consider it:
"*Because* airplanes fly, *therefore it logically and necessarily follows* that each individual human (or even humanity as an aggregate) has a perfectly accurate map of the world (which leaves out Reality, but whatevs)."
Does this seem like a Necessarily True Proposition to you?
But never mind, I do not expect you to answer a single question I pose to you (look how many you have dodged so far in this conversation).
> What we have is a methodology that generates accurate enough
I see you have moved the goalposts from "an accurate map of the world" to "accurate enough" (which is an assumption, or a tautology).
> that at the end of that process of winnowing out those that do not accurately map reality we have a functional useable model of what exists in the world
You are representing a modal problem space as binary. Is this accidental?
> If you are an anti-realist I highly suggesting standing under a grand piano I will suspend above your head and then release from 50 feet above your head. Your metaphysical blah, blah, blah will not save you, and nothing of value will be lost when you are crushed. A win all around to be sure!
You could answer some of my questions above and demonstrate that you are as smart as you are representing yourself to be.
Will you do that? If not, are you willing to reveal why you will not?
> P.S. It is certainly possible there is more to the world like a transcendental god, or whatever
Such as something that you (or humanity) do not possess knowledge of? Could it be possible that you (and humanity) do not actually know everything?
> Just because the maps are not the thing in itself, from that it does not follow the models have no value....
Here you are correct. Unfortunately, you are arguing against a simulation (I did not make that claim). Out of curiosity: do you (or did you, at the time of writing) believe that I made that claim?
> I am an Oberlin College philosophy major, and I can tell you there is nothing difficult to parse here having to do with epistemology or set theory.
Did you learn about the difficulty of proving (necessary to upgrade Belief to Truth) claims of nonexistence in your philosophy classes? How about Direct vs Indirect Realism? How about the psychology of normative cognition?
How about semiotics (I'm getting at the way you use the word "is", which (allegedly) means "to be")?
> Trump is ...
When you are referring to Trump, do you believe that you are referring to Trump *the thing itself*, or do you believe there may be an intermediary in play?
And if you manage to get the correct answer, can you think what the intermediary may be? And for bonus marks: what it is composed of?
> You can can attempt to blow clouds of metaphysical smoke up people's asses but that is where the rubber meets the road.
And you can engage in rhetoric (did you study that, philosophy major?) and framing, and I will point it out, and then wait to see how you (your *trained* mind, technically) reacts. Will you continue with Meme Magic, or will you apply some of the things you've learned in school (or at least try....have you studied free will yet?)?
I will be waiting on the edge of my seat to find out.
Refreshing comment. I've entertained this lens, but inevitably get yelled at for defending Trump.
For anyone else reading this, the point of these arguments is NOT to defend Trump. It's about limits of knowledge.
Is this simulation we're in not downright hilarious!! I just can't get enough of it lol
Fully agree, just not the with the Gnostic smoke. Someone's been telling you lies about Gnostics.
They were far more interested in the truth than any of the Abrahamic religions, and paid dearly for it.
That's Jewish Kabbalistic Gnosticism, not Christian Gnosticism. You have been deceived.
"There is no Christian Gnosticism, it's a heresy"
No shit, and so what?
Forgive me if I don't want to take the fruits of Constantine's murderous council at face value, nor the words of those fruits.
So, philosophy tough guy can dish it out but not take it, when someone points out the obvious bullshit in his personal sacred cows.
You're a sad joke of a man.
Meh, yes. Sounds like you're getting your info from Catholics and maybe Orthodoxy.
http://gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm
I would encourage you to stop assuming what someone else wrote about Gnosticism is the truth, return to first principles and primary sources.
Do you really want to take the word of a warmongering Roman emperor (Constantine) and the subsequent church about something that they felt so threatened by they went to extraordinary lengths to wipe out?
Do you believe the Council of Nicaea was an honest attempt to codify truth?
If so, I have a pile of boosters for you.
The human "chose": Meme Magic, dodging of 100% of the questions asked them about their "facts", and as a cherry on top: soothsaying. This is not very surprising.
I wonder if this is why the general public (and even most philosophers) have such low respect for philosophy.
Because their design conforms to that which is required to achieve flight.
Another way to consider it:
"*Because* airplanes fly, *therefore it logically and necessarily follows* that each individual human (or even humanity as an aggregate) has a perfectly accurate map of the world (which leaves out Reality, but whatevs)."
Does this seem like a Necessarily True Proposition to you?
> bullshit artist
Have you ever read this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)
> Not "every human being," that is a red herring.
I also said "(or even humanity as an aggregate)".
But never mind, I do not expect you to answer a single question I pose to you (look how many you have dodged so far in this conversation).
> What we have is a methodology that generates accurate enough
I see you have moved the goalposts from "an accurate map of the world" to "accurate enough" (which is an assumption, or a tautology).
> that at the end of that process of winnowing out those that do not accurately map reality we have a functional useable model of what exists in the world
You are representing a modal problem space as binary. Is this accidental?
> If you are an anti-realist I highly suggesting standing under a grand piano I will suspend above your head and then release from 50 feet above your head. Your metaphysical blah, blah, blah will not save you, and nothing of value will be lost when you are crushed. A win all around to be sure!
You could answer some of my questions above and demonstrate that you are as smart as you are representing yourself to be.
Will you do that? If not, are you willing to reveal why you will not?
> P.S. It is certainly possible there is more to the world like a transcendental god, or whatever
Such as something that you (or humanity) do not possess knowledge of? Could it be possible that you (and humanity) do not actually know everything?
> Just because the maps are not the thing in itself, from that it does not follow the models have no value....
Here you are correct. Unfortunately, you are arguing against a simulation (I did not make that claim). Out of curiosity: do you (or did you, at the time of writing) believe that I made that claim?
A mind reading philosopher, oh how standards are declining.
You people may deserve everything you get.
At least Trump never forced the jab on anyone