The World does not Exist!
BackI dedicate this video to docsavage20 and all the metaphysical objectivists who have a hard time understanding their opponent's position.
Channel: Education
Uploaded: May 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
Author: maksiiiskam2
Length: 00:04:40
Rating: 3.40
Views: 264
Tags: metaphysical objectivism realism reality postmodernism postmodernity anti-realism epistemology
Video Comments:
BanjoNaps (August 30, 2008 at 11:39 pm)
this is childish.
maksiiiskam2 (August 31, 2008 at 12:57 am)
What is childish?
BanjoNaps (August 31, 2008 at 1:49 am)
Alright...
lets see...
Are you god?
lets see...
Are you god?
maksiiiskam2 (August 31, 2008 at 1:52 am)
No, I'm not, but that's also what I'd say if I was, because God is very shy.
What is childish?
What is childish?
BanjoNaps (August 31, 2008 at 2:34 am)
The whole of your argument.
So you know ABSOLUTELY that you are not god. No question? 100%.
So you know ABSOLUTELY that you are not god. No question? 100%.
maksiiiskam2 (August 31, 2008 at 2:48 am)
I'm not God as I define it, since I define it with qualities I do not possess, such as omnipotence and omniscience. For me to be God, there would have to be a whole new definition for it, and these possibilities I cannot reject extensively. Maybe you take the meaning of "God" for granted, as if it was something that was not defined by its use, but I don't.
(cont)
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 (August 31, 2008 at 2:48 am)
This linguistic consideration makes the notion of identifying a being as God an analytic consideration: it will be true by definition, something quite useless to talk about reality. The analytic truth does not correspond to reality, and thus does not qualify as true as defined by the correspondence theory. The synthetic truth cannot be 100% certain: it is epistemologically impossible.
(cont)
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 (August 31, 2008 at 2:49 am)
But I digress. I suppose that if you call my argument childish, it is because you have only some appeal to bias to argue upon. Please tell me.
And by the way, what's the point you wanted to make with God? are you a theist trying to point me to my inability to disprove God or an objectivist wanting to make me tell I was 100% sure of something?
And by the way, what's the point you wanted to make with God? are you a theist trying to point me to my inability to disprove God or an objectivist wanting to make me tell I was 100% sure of something?
maksiiiskam2 (August 13, 2008 at 12:20 am)
(I don't understand, I'm trying to post the rest of my preceding comment ending with "cont", and it never appears when I copy paste it, while everything else works.)
maksiiiskam2 (August 13, 2008 at 12:17 am)
I'm using the philosophical definition of truth: correspondance to reality.
I take "subject" as a perspective in perspectivism; subjectivity as the constraint of being a perspective.
Objectivity is what is mind-independant. I deny there being an epistemological path toward it, epistemology being subjective.
Metaphysical objectivism lies on the belief in self-evidence, which I reject: self-evident epistemological frameworks, self-evident truth, etc...
I take "subject" as a perspective in perspectivism; subjectivity as the constraint of being a perspective.
Objectivity is what is mind-independant. I deny there being an epistemological path toward it, epistemology being subjective.
Metaphysical objectivism lies on the belief in self-evidence, which I reject: self-evident epistemological frameworks, self-evident truth, etc...