Evisceration of the pseudo intellectual, reddit midwit lucifer88, by the son of Aristotle

[Aristotélēs]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

@lucifer88

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake.

First of all, if something being determined by environment & society is supposed to undermine its credibility, then it this must hold true of the opinions of OP expressed in the essay, making all of it self refuting. So much for consistency & special pleading

Second of all, social constructivism has a weaker & stronger thesis. The weaker thesis states that all of our knowledge & beliefs must be publicity shaped & determined. In other words, this is a neccesary condition. This seems plausible & I won't be attacking it for now, though it can be challenged on Kantian grounds. The stronger thesis however regards all of knowledge & beliefs to be completely determined by environment & social conditions, turning it into a sufficient & neccesary condition. I will attack this.

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

The sufficient conditions here have to do with internal or external relations. Internal relations have to do with concepts (analytic & synthetic) & external relations with facts about the world. If this were untrue, then here we would see the same conflict which strikes matters of pure taste & conventions, but we don't.

You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over hundreds of years. Religious cope never fails to make me laugh how delusional do you have to be to think you were born into the “right” religion out of the thousands that exist, and you’re right just because… yes? You can literally track the average percentage of religions based on each country, and all of them stem from historical contexts that shaped them. The majority of Indians are Hindu, Arabs are Muslim, Russians are Christian, Filipinos are Catholic and the reason Filipinos are Catholic, unlike other Asian groups, is because of Spanish colonization that heavily influenced their entire culture. If that invasion hadn’t happened, they would’ve made up their own dogshit religion like everyone else. And that’s just religion.

This is a genetic fallacy which comes from not distinguishing sufficient & neccesary conditions, which I pointed out in the paragraph above. I won't repeat it here. Here's another objection. Unless you believe truth or knowledge can be subject to justifications etc, for which you will have Gettier problems where a person knows the truth by accident, it still holds that truth isn't wholly determined by justification since the justification must answer to a criterion external to itself or end up in infinite or circular regress.

Another irony here is the reddit midwit social constructivism being proposed by OP has been in vogue in Western academia & culture at large for the past century. Perhaps he too is a blind sheep, but he clearly lacks self awareness.

This doesn’t only apply to religion it applies to everything in your life. Your morals, your ambitions, your fears, your sense of right and wrong, even your idea of success. All of it is inherited, not chosen. You didn’t build yourself you were built. So are you really free, or just following a pattern laid out for you before you were even born?

Notice once again, OP doesn't include his own statement in this. HE HAS ESCAPED THE MATRIX, or has he ? The fact of the matter is OP doesn't realize there are a range of paths one can inherit & the choice lies in this. There's no choice outside of the options given to you & looking for one is searching for a chimera.

The subtle error of OP lies in the sophistical argument used by all those who deny choice/free will. They regard the free will or choice to require a free will or choice prior to it in time or essentially, even though free will or choice isn't an object or path one takes. It's based on a category error & nothing more.

 

[CantStopTheMog]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

@lucifer88



First of all, if something being determined by environment & society is supposed to undermine its credibility, then it this must hold true of the opinions of OP expressed in the essay, making all of it self refuting. So much for consistency & special pleading

Second of all, social constructivism has a weaker & stronger thesis. The weaker thesis states that all of our knowledge & beliefs must be publicity shaped & determined. In other words, this is a neccesary condition. This seems plausible & I won't be attacking it for now, though it can be challenged on Kantian grounds. The stronger thesis however regards the all of knowledge & beliefs to be completely determined by environment & social conditions, turning it into a sufficient & neccesary condition. I will attack this.

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

The sufficient conditions here have to do with internal or external relations. Internal relations have to do with concepts (analytic & synthetic) & external relations with facts about the world. If this were untrue, then here we would see the same conflict which strikes matters of pure taste & conventions, but we don't.



This is a genetic fallacy which comes from not distinguishing sufficient & neccesary conditions, which I pointed out in the paragraph above. I won't repeat it here. Here's another objection. Unless you believe truth or knowledge can be subject to justifications etc, for which you will have Gettier problems where a person knows the truth by accident, it still holds that truth isn't wholly determined by justification since the justification must answer to a criterion external to itself or end up in infinite or circular regress.

Another irony here is the reddit midwit social constructivism being proposed by OP has been in vogue in Western academia & culture at large for the past century. Perhaps he too is a blind sheep, but he clearly lacks self awareness.



Notice once again, OP doesn't include his own statement in this. HE HAS ESCAPED THE MATRIX, or has he ? The fact of the matter is OP doesn't realize there are a range of paths one can inherit & the choice lies in this. There's no choice outside of the options given to you & looking for one is searching for a chimera.

The subtle error of OP lies in the sophistical argument used by all those who deny choice/free will. They regard the free will or choice to require a free will or choice prior to it in time or essentially, even though free will or choice isn't an object or path one takes. It's based on a category error & nothing more.

Isn’t this the same as what Candace said a while back?

 

[Aristotélēs]

Isn’t this the same as what Candace said a while back?

Haven't read what he wrote but I won't be surprised. Over determined social constructivism is a joke & it has been refuted by the likes of Davidson with similar arguments stated above.

 

[CantStopTheMog]

Haven't read what he wrote but I won't be surprised. Over determined social constructivism is a joke & it has been refuted by the likes of Davidson with similar arguments stated above.

Candace dick fit in yo mouth

 

[Meteor21]

Bro joined Thursday and already has an arch-nemesis jfl

 

[Aristotélēs]

Candace dick fit in yo mouth

Lol. I'm not his alt if that's what you are suggesting. All of this is basic stuff to philosophy students

 

[CantStopTheMog]

Lol. I'm not his alt if that's what you are suggesting. All of this is basic stuff to philosophy students

You what Unc

 

[Aristotélēs]

Bro joined Thursday and already has an rch-nemesis jfl

A key Grey trait is assuming every grey user is a new user. It's not true.

 

[Aristotélēs]

You what Unc

I was on these forums almost 4 years prior to your join date

And by "on this forum" I don't mean lurking around. I had many accounts..all of them are suspended

 

[CantStopTheMog]

I was on these forums almost 4 years prior to your join date

And by "on this forum" I don't mean lurking around. I had many accounts..all of them are suspended

So u must’ve seen Candace?

 

[Meteor21]

A key Grey trait is assuming every grey user is a new user. It's not true.

Yeah yeah, that's what you all say

 

[lucifer88]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

lol you missed the point entirely you fool
you say ops ideas are self refuting because theyre shaped by environment but thats just retarded, everything is shaped by environment including your own argument so if shaping invalidates ideas then yours collapses too but shaping doesnt mean invalid it means contextual, youre confusing origin with truth (basic mistake)

also bringing u bring up math and science like they exist outside human framing but one plus one equals two only makes sense inside peano arithmetic which is a human made system water is h2o because we defined it that way its not written into the universe its written into our models so no those arent universal truths theyre stable conventions and conventions are shaped by culture, youre full of shit

you talk about choosing between inherited paths like thats freedombut if you didnt choose the menuthen picking an item off it isnt real choiceits just illusion dressed up as agencyyoure still inside the cage

and your free will defense is weakyou say denying it is a category errorbut you dont explain whyyou just assert itif your choices come from causes you didnt choosethen your will is reactive not freecalling that a category error doesnt fix it it pretty much js shows how low iq you are

 

[lucifer88]

Haven't read what he wrote but I won't be surprised. Over determined social constructivism is a joke & it has been refuted by the likes of Davidson with similar arguments stated above.

thats the irony you dismiss social constructivism while acting out its truth your reaction your framing your appeal to authorit everyone is shaped by the intellectual culture you swim in you didnt choose that culture you absorbed it

 

[Aristotélēs]

lol you missed the point entirely you fool
you say ops ideas are self refuting because theyre shaped by environment but thats just retarded, everything is shaped by environment including your own argument so if shaping invalidates ideas then yours collapses too but shaping doesnt mean invalid it means contextual, youre confusing origin with truth (basic mistake)

Idiot. I told you I only hold to the weak thesis of social constructivism at worst. I don't share your commitment. I'm demonstrating YOUR internal incoherence or special pleading

You don't only hold to the stronger thesis of social constructivism (outlined in my evisceration), you take X being socially constructed to imply X has no use or value to us, which refutes your own argument

also bringing u bring up math and science like they exist outside human framing but one plus one equals two only makes sense inside peano arithmetic which is a human made system water is h2o because we defined it that way its not written into the universe its written into our models so no those arent universal truths theyre stable conventions and conventions are shaped by culture, youre full of shit

Idiot. I already told you I'm fine with the weaker thesis of social constructivism. Your job is to show anything goes AFTER mathematician agree on the definitions & axioms of Peano arithmetic. Show me how 1+1=/2 from Peano axioms. You can't. Your inability here is already a giveaway

you talk about choosing between inherited paths like thats freedombut if you didnt choose the menuthen picking an item off it isnt real choiceits just illusion dressed up as agencyyoure still inside the cage

That's just a claim. You haven't provided any argument yet. This isn't how philosophy is done, son.

and your free will defense is weakyou say denying it is a category errorbut you dont explain whyyou just assert itif your choices come from causes you didnt choosethen your will is reactive not freecalling that a category error doesnt fix it it pretty much js shows how low iq you are

You don't even understand my argument retard. It's based on the free will defense given by the likes of Schopenhauer & John Searle lately. All of them tie choice to your internal conditions, such as mental states & beliefs etc, none of which are objects or paths taken, so attempting to locate a free will for them is a category error

Here's a video of Searle repeating the same point

 

[lucifer88]

Idiot. I told you I only hold to the weak thesis of social constructivism at worst. I don't share your commitment. I'm demonstrating YOUR internal incoherence or special pleading

You don't only hold to the stronger thesis of social constructivism (outlined in my evisceration), you take X being socially constructed to imply X has no use or value to us, which refutes your own argument



Idiot. I already told you I'm fine with the weaker thesis of social constructivism. Your job is to show anything goes AFTER mathematician agree on the definitions & axioms of Peano arithmetic. Show me how 1+1=/2 from Peano axioms. You can't. Your inability here is already a giveaway



That's just a claim. You haven't provided any argument yet. This isn't how philosophy is done, son.


You don't even understand my argument retard. It's based on the free will defense given by the likes of Schopenhauer & John Searle lately. All of them tie choice to your internal conditions, such as mental states & beliefs etc, none of which are objects or paths taken, so attempting to locate a free will for them is a category error

Here's a video of Searle repeating the same point

you accept the weak thesis but your whole argument depends on acting like youre outside its reach which is laughable you accuse others of special pleading while carving out exceptions for yourself you say peano arithmetic proves one plus one equals two but that only holds inside a human made system with defined rules it doesnt exist in some metaphysical vacuum and the fact that you need shared axioms to make it work proves the point that knowledge is constructed not floating free your free will defense is just recycled metaphysics dressed up as insight you say choice comes from internal states but those states are shaped by causes you didnt choose so your will is reactive not sovereign calling it a category error doesnt fix the problem it just shows youre clinging to a philosophical comfort blanket and trying to sound smart while doing it you havent refuted anything youve just thrown a tantrum with footnotes

 

[Aristotélēs]

thats the irony you dismiss social constructivism while acting out its truth your reaction your framing your appeal to authorit everyone is shaped by the intellectual culture you swim in you didnt choose that culture you absorbed it

All the statements I brought up are very simple or basic. You aren't seriously telling me you are incapable of studying peano axioms to understand why "1+1=2" neccesarily follows from it

Secondly, who told we always follow authorities AND that authorities are epistemically bad ? Some authority ? Well. That's circular. That's all you have done.

Tell me the sufficient conditions other than the one I listed in my thread which sufficiently explain the near universal acceptance of certain propositions. Till then, stop blabbering & go pick a philosophy book.

 

[lucifer88]

All the statements I brought up are very simple or basic. You aren't seriously telling me you are incapable of studying peano axioms to understand why "1+1=2" neccesarily follows from it

Secondly, who told we always follow authorities AND that authorities are epistemically bad ? Some authority ? Well. That's circular. That's all you have done.

Tell me the sufficient conditions other than the one I listed in my thread which sufficiently explain the near universal acceptance of certain propositions. Till then, stop blabbering & go pick a philosophy book.

holy shit you type fast, i wish
but as i was gonna say
you say the statements you brought up are basic but that doesnt mean theyre metaphysically necessary theyre only necessary inside the systems we built and agreed on peano arithmetic is a formal structure created by humans and yes within it one plus one equals two but that doesnt prove anything beyond the system itself it just shows internal consistency not universal truth and the fact that you need shared axioms to make it work proves the point that knowledge is constructed not floating free...
hm
oh and your demand for sufficient conditions is weak because you ignore the obvious ones cognitive convergence shared biology pragmatic utility linguistic structure and social reinforcement all of these explain why certain ideas feel universal without needing metaphysical absolutes you want to pretend that agreement means necessity but it doesnt it just means stability across similar contexts

 

[Aristotélēs]

you accept the weak thesis but your whole argument depends on acting like youre outside its reach which is laughable you accuse others of special pleading while carving out exceptions for yourself you say peano arithmetic proves one plus one equals two but that only holds inside a human made system with defined rules it doesnt exist in some metaphysical vacuum and the fact that you need shared axioms to make it work proves the point that knowledge is constructed not floating

I had a challenge for you & you still haven't responded to it. Show me anything follows AFTER a certain community accepts certain rules or axioms or behaviors etc. It can't because it would contradict the very fact they have chosen to adopt such rules. It would be akin to suggesting just because football rules are decided by humans, you can score a goal however you like. No. That's simply false. For instance, you can't score a goal by traveling with the ball in your hands to the opponents net

The choice of rules isn't arbitrary either. I have told you it's based on either internal or external relations, related to concepts or facts

My account is better than yours because it tells us why contradictions don't arise everywhere, whereas your account doesn't

free your free will defense is just recycled metaphysics dressed up as insight you say choice comes from internal states but those states are shaped by causes you didnt choose so your will is reactive not sovereign calling it a category error doesnt fix the problem it just shows youre clinging to a philosophical comfort blanket and trying to sound smart while doing it you havent refuted anything youve just thrown a tantrum with footnotes

You have a metaphysics too. For instance, you believe a community exists in order to determine what is true or false. There's no escape from metaphysics. You believe in the existence of language & meaning. Just because you don't want to specify their mode of existence, it does not follow there is no metaphysical baggage to your claims

 

[Aristotélēs]

holy shit you type fast, i wish
but as i was gonna say
you say the statements you brought up are basic but that doesnt mean theyre metaphysically necessary theyre only necessary inside the systems we built and agreed on peano arithmetic is a formal structure created by humans and yes within it one plus one equals two but that doesnt prove anything beyond the system itself it just shows internal consistency not universal truth and the fact that you need shared axioms to make it work proves the point that knowledge is constructed not floating free...

It's over for you. You have already conceded. Given that rules & conditions aren't true or false & only good for application, the only truths we have will be neccesary or contingent. This is good enough for metaphysics

hm
oh and your demand for sufficient conditions is weak because you ignore the obvious ones cognitive convergence shared biology pragmatic utility linguistic structure and social reinforcement all of these explain why certain ideas feel universal without needing metaphysical absolutes you want to pretend that agreement means necessity but it doesnt it just means stability across similar contexts

Biology involves facts about the natural world (metaphysics duh) & even then, it can't supply you with norms, which must be decided on their own grounds - given a priori. Otherwise, you can't derive epistemic norms from what is

Linguistic structure isn't prior to Cognitivie structure & the latter requires something like a transcendental analysis of Kant.

Pragmatic utility isn't inconsistent with metaphysics. One of the greatest pragmatists Charles Pierce held to the Scottist metaphysical tradition. He explicitly states that the content of our ideas must transcend space & time in order to ground it.

Here's the quote from his work

Give up, dummy. Philosophy isn't for you.

Submit before you lord.

 

[liberated]

Ngl Aristotleles is more logically coherent

 

[karmacita901]

novembercel on novembercel violence

 

[theRetard]

holy shit you type fast, i wish
but as i was gonna say
you say the statements you brought up are basic but that doesnt mean theyre metaphysically necessary theyre only necessary inside the systems we built and agreed on peano arithmetic is a formal structure created by humans and yes within it one plus one equals two but that doesnt prove anything beyond the system itself it just shows internal consistency not universal truth and the fact that you need shared axioms to make it work proves the point that knowledge is constructed not floating free...
hm
oh and your demand for sufficient conditions is weak because you ignore the obvious ones cognitive convergence shared biology pragmatic utility linguistic structure and social reinforcement all of these explain why certain ideas feel universal without needing metaphysical absolutes you want to pretend that agreement means necessity but it doesnt it just means stability across similar contexts

It's over for you. You have already conceded. Given that rules & conditions aren't true or false & only good for application, the only truths we have will be neccesary or contingent. This is good enough for metaphysics




Biology involves facts about the natural world (metaphysics duh) & even then, it can't supply you with norms, which must be decided on their own grounds - given a priori. Otherwise, you can't derive epistemic norms from what is

Linguistic structure isn't prior to Cognitivie structure & the latter requires something like a transcendental analysis of Kant.

Pragmatic utility isn't inconsistent with metaphysics. One of the greatest pragmatists Charles Pierce held to the Scottist metaphysical tradition. He explicitly states that the content of our ideas must transcend space & time in order to ground it.

Here's the quote from his work

View attachment 4312132


Give up, dummy. Philosophy isn't for you.

Submit before you lord.

 

[Node]

Bro joined Thursday and already has an arch-nemesis jfl

 

[OxyFanNigga]

sup nigga

 

[Klasik616]

View attachment 4312220

What book is dis

 

[Samsepioler]

both of you are retarded jews so kys dnr

 

[theRetard]

What book is dis

Metaphysics: The Fundamentals

 

[Klasik616]

Metaphysics: The Fundamentals

By who

 

[Aristotélēs]

View attachment 4312220

This. Even Kant knew metaphysics is here to stay & the best he could do is exclude certain topics (God, free will, eternality of the world, existence of soul etc) from its reach

Otherwise, if you look at the categories of Kant, they involve a great deal of natural metaphysics

Post Kantians are such midwits. If I were a dictator, I would sentence all of them to hard labor in gulags

 

[theRetard]

By who

by a philosopher

 

[theRetard]

idk the author, just google that book

 

[theRetard]

This. Even Kant knew metaphysics is here to stay & the best he could do is exclude certain topics (God, free will, eternality of the world, existence of soul etc) from its reach

Otherwise, if you look at the categories of Kant, they involve a great deal of natural metaphysics

Post Kantians are such midwits. If I were a dictator, I would sentence all of them to hard labor in gulags

View attachment 4312277

they just exclude what is inconvenient for them

 

[Aristotélēs]

both of you are retarded jews so kys dnr

Metaphysics is an Aryan (noble) pursuit & I'm defending it

 

[Klasik616]

This. Even Kant knew metaphysics is here to stay & the best he could do is exclude certain topics (God, free will, eternality of the world, existence of soul etc) from its reach

Otherwise, if you look at the categories of Kant, they involve a great deal of natural metaphysics

Post Kantians are such midwits. If I were a dictator, I would sentence all of them to hard labor in gulags

View attachment 4312277

Neokantism or post kantism?

 

[slaters]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

@lucifer88



First of all, if something being determined by environment & society is supposed to undermine its credibility, then it this must hold true of the opinions of OP expressed in the essay, making all of it self refuting. So much for consistency & special pleading

Second of all, social constructivism has a weaker & stronger thesis. The weaker thesis states that all of our knowledge & beliefs must be publicity shaped & determined. In other words, this is a neccesary condition. This seems plausible & I won't be attacking it for now, though it can be challenged on Kantian grounds. The stronger thesis however regards all of knowledge & beliefs to be completely determined by environment & social conditions, turning it into a sufficient & neccesary condition. I will attack this.

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

The sufficient conditions here have to do with internal or external relations. Internal relations have to do with concepts (analytic & synthetic) & external relations with facts about the world. If this were untrue, then here we would see the same conflict which strikes matters of pure taste & conventions, but we don't.



This is a genetic fallacy which comes from not distinguishing sufficient & neccesary conditions, which I pointed out in the paragraph above. I won't repeat it here. Here's another objection. Unless you believe truth or knowledge can be subject to justifications etc, for which you will have Gettier problems where a person knows the truth by accident, it still holds that truth isn't wholly determined by justification since the justification must answer to a criterion external to itself or end up in infinite or circular regress.

Another irony here is the reddit midwit social constructivism being proposed by OP has been in vogue in Western academia & culture at large for the past century. Perhaps he too is a blind sheep, but he clearly lacks self awareness.



Notice once again, OP doesn't include his own statement in this. HE HAS ESCAPED THE MATRIX, or has he ? The fact of the matter is OP doesn't realize there are a range of paths one can inherit & the choice lies in this. There's no choice outside of the options given to you & looking for one is searching for a chimera.

The subtle error of OP lies in the sophistical argument used by all those who deny choice/free will. They regard the free will or choice to require a free will or choice prior to it in time or essentially, even though free will or choice isn't an object or path one takes. It's based on a category error & nothing more.

Man I can’t lie I didn’t read but his names Lucifer so he’s probably a faggot I’ll take your word for it

 

[Samsepioler]

Metaphysics is an Aryan (noble) pursuit & I'm defending it

only if its aryan then.. anything jew made shouldnt be praised

 

[Aristotélēs]

Neokantism or post kantism?

Neo Kantianism is still fine, as long as they retain his transcendental method. I admire figures like Ernst Cassirer

It's post Kantians who are retarded.They reject everything transcendental & resort to radical immanentism.

 

[Klasik616]

Neo Kantianism is still fine, as long as they retain his transcendental method. I admire figures like Ernst Cassirer

It's post Kantians who are retarded.They reject everything transcendental & resort to radical immanentism.

Except for Edmund Husserl, who was pretty kantian as well but his method is entirely different, he talks about the trascendental subject as the one who founds the empirical one, they aren't separated.

 

[Aristotélēs]

Bump

 

[jeremyy]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

@lucifer88



First of all, if something being determined by environment & society is supposed to undermine its credibility, then it this must hold true of the opinions of OP expressed in the essay, making all of it self refuting. So much for consistency & special pleading

Second of all, social constructivism has a weaker & stronger thesis. The weaker thesis states that all of our knowledge & beliefs must be publicity shaped & determined. In other words, this is a neccesary condition. This seems plausible & I won't be attacking it for now, though it can be challenged on Kantian grounds. The stronger thesis however regards all of knowledge & beliefs to be completely determined by environment & social conditions, turning it into a sufficient & neccesary condition. I will attack this.

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

The sufficient conditions here have to do with internal or external relations. Internal relations have to do with concepts (analytic & synthetic) & external relations with facts about the world. If this were untrue, then here we would see the same conflict which strikes matters of pure taste & conventions, but we don't.



This is a genetic fallacy which comes from not distinguishing sufficient & neccesary conditions, which I pointed out in the paragraph above. I won't repeat it here. Here's another objection. Unless you believe truth or knowledge can be subject to justifications etc, for which you will have Gettier problems where a person knows the truth by accident, it still holds that truth isn't wholly determined by justification since the justification must answer to a criterion external to itself or end up in infinite or circular regress.

Another irony here is the reddit midwit social constructivism being proposed by OP has been in vogue in Western academia & culture at large for the past century. Perhaps he too is a blind sheep, but he clearly lacks self awareness.



Notice once again, OP doesn't include his own statement in this. HE HAS ESCAPED THE MATRIX, or has he ? The fact of the matter is OP doesn't realize there are a range of paths one can inherit & the choice lies in this. There's no choice outside of the options given to you & looking for one is searching for a chimera.

The subtle error of OP lies in the sophistical argument used by all those who deny choice/free will. They regard the free will or choice to require a free will or choice prior to it in time or essentially, even though free will or choice isn't an object or path one takes. It's based on a category error & nothing more.

interesting
beef

 

[taai]

I lived in Gdansk next to Schopenhauers house for a couple months

 

[taai]

Neo Kantianism is still fine, as long as they retain his transcendental method. I admire figures like Ernst Cassirer

It's post Kantians who are retarded.They reject everything transcendental & resort to radical immanentism.

What is your critique on immanentism?

 

[FiendFiend]

YOUR LIFE IS NOTHING BUT A LIE

The moment you realize your religion, mentality, economic state, values, morals, etc., are purely based on your environment and the social constructs that environment has created, you realize everything you thought was yours is fake. You’re simply following a hologram path of slavery built over...

looksmax.org

@lucifer88



First of all, if something being determined by environment & society is supposed to undermine its credibility, then it this must hold true of the opinions of OP expressed in the essay, making all of it self refuting. So much for consistency & special pleading

Second of all, social constructivism has a weaker & stronger thesis. The weaker thesis states that all of our knowledge & beliefs must be publicity shaped & determined. In other words, this is a neccesary condition. This seems plausible & I won't be attacking it for now, though it can be challenged on Kantian grounds. The stronger thesis however regards all of knowledge & beliefs to be completely determined by environment & social conditions, turning it into a sufficient & neccesary condition. I will attack this.

Here are some statements whose universal or near universal acceptance can't be explained by the 2nd thesis

"1+1=2 , assuming ofc the regular definition of 1,2,+,= in peano arithmetic"

"Every effect has a cause" - there would be no point in calling an event an effect otherwise

"Everything is either a unity, plurality or nothing - non-existent"

"Water is H20"

The sufficient conditions here have to do with internal or external relations. Internal relations have to do with concepts (analytic & synthetic) & external relations with facts about the world. If this were untrue, then here we would see the same conflict which strikes matters of pure taste & conventions, but we don't.



This is a genetic fallacy which comes from not distinguishing sufficient & neccesary conditions, which I pointed out in the paragraph above. I won't repeat it here. Here's another objection. Unless you believe truth or knowledge can be subject to justifications etc, for which you will have Gettier problems where a person knows the truth by accident, it still holds that truth isn't wholly determined by justification since the justification must answer to a criterion external to itself or end up in infinite or circular regress.

Another irony here is the reddit midwit social constructivism being proposed by OP has been in vogue in Western academia & culture at large for the past century. Perhaps he too is a blind sheep, but he clearly lacks self awareness.



Notice once again, OP doesn't include his own statement in this. HE HAS ESCAPED THE MATRIX, or has he ? The fact of the matter is OP doesn't realize there are a range of paths one can inherit & the choice lies in this. There's no choice outside of the options given to you & looking for one is searching for a chimera.

The subtle error of OP lies in the sophistical argument used by all those who deny choice/free will. They regard the free will or choice to require a free will or choice prior to it in time or essentially, even though free will or choice isn't an object or path one takes. It's based on a category error & nothing more.

607 unc intellectually mogs u aristotle, please lay down the pen your prime is gone

 

[why not me?]