FANDOM


  • Is he real

      Loading editor
    • Many things are, more are not.

        Loading editor
    • And if something is real for me, then that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be real for you too. I would even question if there is such a thing as objective reality, but I'm getting philosophical now :D

        Loading editor
    • Please don't, I left the field of liberal arts for a good reason.

        Loading editor
    • Philosophy is like the science of talking in circles: you need no evidence and the statement validates itself.

        Loading editor
    • "If god wouldn't exist, his lack of existence would be a flaw, and since god is flawless, he must exist."

      - Literally my philosophy prof.

        Loading editor
    • What did they respond to that?

        Loading editor
    • I responded that this statement is stupid and, a number of stupid arguements later, stopped visiting my philosophy class.

      I then learned about philosophical pragmatism in my Americanism lecture and found it appealed to me, but overall I decided that philosophy is nice and important but doesn't work if regulated by dusty academics.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I'm glad you responded her/him that. Most students don't do it.

        Loading editor
    • Not that it impressed him.  He kept reinterpretating what I said into something else, like that woman that interviewed Jordan Peterson.

        Loading editor
    • The problem with philosophy is that philosophers convince themselves that since they know a lot about philosophy, they have somehow ascended logically in comparison to others. I've had people quote fallacies in others comments as if the fallacy itself somehow disrupts their statement.

      Take for example:

      In one such moment I recall, I was debating with someone that the results of research regarding videogames and violence had come to the conclusion that there was no hard evidence to suggest that videogames were any more influiential in criminal behaviors, and the same study implied that it may be less influential than books or movies. The individual in question then called out the argument with the "line-drawing fallacy" (also known as the continuum fallacy) and argued that the results of the tests were too inconclusive to validate my argument, and therefore had to be ignored. The basic idea was to use a fallacy to invalidate my claims by claiming the fallacy validated their stance against it, or otherwise known as the "fallacy fallacy". I called them out on this, but they had already decided they had won the conversation, and refused to listen. Even when other people joined my side in the argument, they refused to listen because they knew of a fallacy that undermind my statement backed by a research paper which I had cited.

      Granted, said research is over eight years old now and may very well be invalidated (plus I no longer have it since I do not have studen access to scholarly papers), but at the time you could not ignore the entirety of the study by stating that it wasn't focused. You can criticize the study and argue that it being focused would make it more valid or help its case, but you cannot pretend that evidence gets thrown out because it's not specific enough. They had no counter-argument or study against my claim other than destroying my claim with the use of a fallacy as an argument. Once I argued that they had no evidence to show against my claim, suddenly they realized that they were standing on a single pole in the middle of a lake with no way to get to shore dry. At that point they became defensive and I then pointed out how their philosophy degree was as useful as a bag of chips in academia, which threw us both into a petty shouting match.

      Granted nothing I said was helping, but given the argument had devolved way before we got to the point of me being angry, we were well past compromise.

        Loading editor
    • Personally I'm only really interested in introspective philosophical discussions, because they make you dissect yourself as a subject. generalized discussions such as "What if we're all dreaming", "how does one prove we all see the same color", or "maybe we're the worst animals" always come down to pure subjective argument with no objective reasoning behind it other than silly observation.

        Loading editor
    • Fobarimperius wrote:
      The problem with philosophy is that philosophers convince themselves that since they know a lot about philosophy, they have somehow ascended logically in comparison to others. I've had people quote fallacies in others comments as if the fallacy itself somehow disrupts their statement.

      Take for example:

      In one such moment I recall, I was debating with someone that the results of research regarding videogames and violence had come to the conclusion that there was no hard evidence to suggest that videogames were any more influiential in criminal behaviors, and the same study implied that it may be less influential than books or movies. The individual in question then called out the argument with the "line-drawing fallacy" (also known as the continuum fallacy) and argued that the results of the tests were too inconclusive to validate my argument, and therefore had to be ignored. The basic idea was to use a fallacy to invalidate my claims by claiming the fallacy validated their stance against it, or otherwise known as the "fallacy fallacy". I called them out on this, but they had already decided they had won the conversation, and refused to listen. Even when other people joined my side in the argument, they refused to listen because they knew of a fallacy that undermind my statement backed by a research paper which I had cited.

      Granted, said research is over eight years old now and may very well be invalidated (plus I no longer have it since I do not have studen access to scholarly papers), but at the time you could not ignore the entirety of the study by stating that it wasn't focused. You can criticize the study and argue that it being focused would make it more valid or help its case, but you cannot pretend that evidence gets thrown out because it's not specific enough. They had no counter-argument or study against my claim other than destroying my claim with the use of a fallacy as an argument. Once I argued that they had no evidence to show against my claim, suddenly they realized that they were standing on a single pole in the middle of a lake with no way to get to shore dry. At that point they became defensive and I then pointed out how their philosophy degree was as useful as a bag of chips in academia, which threw us both into a petty shouting match.

      Granted nothing I said was helping, but given the argument had devolved way before we got to the point of me being angry, we were well past compromise.

      It's what often annoys me in debates in general. Someone knows their logical fallacies and how to post links to whatever political web encyclopedia they prefer and suddenly they act all invulnerable and furthermore see it justified to treat everyone else like dirt for disagreeing . It's one thing to get angry or annoyed at some point of a debate, if the other one can't bring new arguements or acts generally rude or something, but even being correct in terms of facts is no reason to act like a condescending d...uck.

        Loading editor
    • Fobarimperius wrote:
      Personally I'm only really interested in introspective philosophical discussions, because they make you dissect yourself as a subject. generalized discussions such as "What if we're all dreaming", "how does one prove we all see the same color", or "maybe we're the worst animals" always come down to pure subjective argument with no objective reasoning behind it other than silly observation.

      Oh, these topics annoy me so much.

      Especially because the people that bring them up always think they are so deep. Like, I have a neighbour who occasionaly tries to socialize with me, not realizing that I avoid the people in my village on purpose, so they asked me about my problems and I figured I could just tell them, so I spoke about my problem with being, well, very intelligent.  Tried to explain how it distances me from others and makes interaction with people really hard, because we simply think on different levels. And how it is hard to talk about that with others,  because no one wants to pity you for being very smart. The neighbour then started the "Same colour"-argument to show that she is capable of intellectually stimulating conversations. It felt like I was watching an adult person standing in a pool for small kids and calling "Wow, this water is so deep, it even covers my anckles!" and expecting me to be impressed by the depth of the water. I mean, I know she was trying to help, and I feel kinda guilty for being annoyed by this, but nonetheless...

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.