Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #662372

Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke"

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 03/08/2024 11:33, D wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Again its trite and misses the actual point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are hung up on the classic idealism/realism debate. Things moved on 
>>>>> with Kant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The problem is neither the scientists or the woke crowd moved in with 
>>>>> him.
>>>> 
>>>> No. You are the one stuck in the idealist camp. Do note that a vast
>>>> majority of philosophy ph.d. support the fact that an external world
>>>> exist and that science is the best way to obtain knowledge about it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, the support the hypothesis.
>>> Again you innate stupidity has prevented you from grasping the fine 
>>> distinction between and ad hoc theory, and fact, and between 'it works' 
>>> and 'its true'
>> 
>> No, actually it is your innate retardedness that prevents you from
>> grasping that we live in a material world. You are stuck in the old
>> idealism from the 18th century. Please update yourself, and I'll gladly
>> meet you in the real world.
>> 
>
> You may live in a material world. I just live in whatever it is I live in. I 
> dont have a strong beliefe about its nature.

Ah, you're an agnostic. That makes more sense. Yes, I live in a material
world. No, it is not based on belief, it is based on experience and
empiricism. Yes, I have updated my world view when we went from atoms,
to quarks, that does not mean we do not live in the real world, but in
fact, is another excelletn proof.

>>>> I will not stop this conversation, since it is meaningless to talk about
>>>> this with you.
>>>> 
>>>> The paper if you are interested is What Do Philosophers Believe? by David
>>>> Bourget and David J. Chalmers.
>>> 
>>> The problem is that you are just stuck in the materialists camp and are in 
>>> denial that it might not be the be all and end all of everything
>> 
>> Nope. The material is all there is, and you cannot provide proof of
>> anything else, or you would have gotten the nobel prize.
>> 
> There you go again! Dogma! An statement of faith. You cannot know that.

Nope. I am open to proof. You have not disproven the material world, nor
have you proposed another solution and proven it. I have provided G.E.
Moores proof, I also (although it is not proof, but an indication)
provided a paper that analyzed the beliefs of philosophy ph.d. and
professors, and the majority hold my view.

In Morres excellent essay "A Defence of Common Sense", he argued against idealism and
scepticism toward the external world, on the grounds that they could not
give reasons to accept that their metaphysical premises were more
plausible than the reasons we have for accepting the common sense claims
about our knowledge of the world, which sceptics and idealists must
deny.

>> I therefore conclude that you have fallen into the solipsist trap, and I
>> will not further talk philosophy with you, since you're argument is on
>> the level of a child.
>> 
> You have fallen into the,materialist trap and its an article of unhsakeable 
> faith.

Nope, see above.

> You clearly do not know what solipsism is, and nothing I have said supports 
> thge veiw that I 'beleive' it to be true.

I no longer believe you are a solipsist, although you did sound like
one. Based on your previous message, I now categorize you as agnostic.

>> You are an engineer I think, but I have studied philosophy at university
>> level, and it does show that you are an engineer and not a philosopher.
>> 
>>> Philosophers - real philosophers - don't do 'believe'
>> 
>> Exactly. Welcome to the real, material world.
>
> The problem with neatly all philsophers who have studied it, at school, 
> rather than as a private investigation, is that they all want to arrived at 
> definite conclusions. And very very few of them actually understand the 
> subject at all.

I disagree. Based on my experience with hobby philosophers, usually they
are stuck in the past regurgitating the same old puzzles, being
completely unaware of the discussion of modern philosophers. It
therefore becomes very tedious to take them through X hundred years or
thousand years of history of philosophy to show them that "no" they were
not clever having discovered what no one else did, but in fact what they
"discovered" has already been covered and discussed by 100s of people it
not more.

> Only the best come to understand there is no truth to be found, and that 
> metaphysics is ultmately the study of the belief systems  that people adghere 
> to - like the belief that the world is material and that's all there is.

There is no metaphysics. There is science, hypothesis, proof and
disproof. I have showed you proof of the external, material world, and
you do not accept it. I can do nothing more. I can only find comfort in
the fact that the majority do accept the proofs, and we continue our
lives in the real world, not bothering with metaphysics which is more or
less dead. Absent grounding in the material world, it will jsut lead to
idle speculation and in some sad cases, it can even grow into religion
such as when quantum physics theories such as the multiple worlds
interpretation starts to take on religious overtones and notes.

>> You are retarded, and you will be blocked at the next message talking
>> about this subject. It is sad, because you do seem to have quite well
>> reasoned views, but I do understand at the same time, that I have touch
>> your religion, and that makes you revolting and defensive and closed
>> minded.
>
> I have no religion. You are projecting your closed mind in which there is no 
> space for what I really am or think.
> To you there are only Realists, who have access to the Truth, and solipsists, 
> who are deluded.

No... you made your point. You are agnostic, perhaps some form of
agnostic moinism? Maybe even that is too much of a position.

> You say you have studied philosophy, and yet you have apparently no knowledge 
> of say Kant, or Schopenhauer or even Karl Popper. Or Hilary Putnam.

I have read Kant, Schopenhauer and Putnam but I disagree with them.
Based on this calm message from you and the fact that you (and I) on
longer keep calling each other retards, I have now decided that I enjoy
your posts and I will not block you. ;)

I will accept that we are of different opinions and that you have a very
good engineering training, but that we have not convinced each other.
Neither of us is alone in his view.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke" D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-02 13:21 +0200
  Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke" The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-02 13:47 +0100
    Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke" D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-03 12:33 +0200
      Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke" The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-03 12:02 +0100
        Re: Off Topic-Re: GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke" D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-04 11:38 +0200

csiph-web