I have nothing

[Klasik616]

my senses are telling me rn that you are lying

Prove it.

 

[theRetard]

Prove it.

how? these aren't logical propositions so by your own logic (senses) they can't lie

 

[Klasik616]

how? these aren't logical propositions so by your own logic (senses) they can't lie

I got you dog. Never said it was knowledge.

 

[theRetard]

I got you dog. Never said it was knowledge.

my senses are telling me this again, i sense a lie

 

[Klasik616]

my senses are telling me this again, i sense a lie

You're repeating yourself. A lie has nothing to do with an object or what you perceive, a "lie" is the inadequacy between what is said and what you think of it. This original "lie" meaning is a realist one, that says someone else is "hidding" the truth (jfl). So much that people think lie and error are different things. Once you understand truth is just agreement and not universal or necessary you're free from this "reason" bs discussions. The problem comes with thinking language can descipher objects like if they had an essence or natural purpose. Not understanding worldy beings as tools or as surrounding items instead of "chests to open".

 

[GynoGladiator]

Damn bruh what happened in the 30 mins I was gone

 

[dps2008]

Damn bruh what happened in the 30 mins I was gone

I think I saw you yesteday in a post.

 

[theRetard]

You're repeating yourself. A lie has nothing to do with an object or what you perceive, a "lie" is the inadequacy between what is said and what you think of it. This original "lie" meaning is a realist one, that says someone else is "hidding" the truth. Once you understand truth is just agreement and not universal or necessary you're free from this "reason" bs discussions. The problem comes with thinking language can descipher objects like if they had an essence or natural purpose. Not understanding worldy beings as tools or as surrounding items instead of "chests you need to open".

if truth is an agreement, then i don't agree with that it is an agreement

 

[theRetard]

You're repeating yourself. A lie has nothing to do with an object or what you perceive, a "lie" is the inadequacy between what is said and what you think of it. This original "lie" meaning is a realist one, that says someone else is "hidding" the truth (jfl). So much that people think lie and error are different things. Once you understand truth is just agreement and not universal or necessary you're free from this "reason" bs discussions. The problem comes with thinking language can descipher objects like if they had an essence or natural purpose. Not understanding worldy beings as tools or as surrounding items instead of "chests to open".

your anti-realism is so self-refuting. can you stop it?

 

[Klasik616]

if truth is an agreement, then i don't agree with that it is an agreement

You have to because you're a human subject and not the only one. The more people agree on something, the "truer" and "natural" it becomes. Explains common sense as common sense NEVER asks for the object in question. Once a subject gives proof of the contrary, others will have to agree otherwise is not true. Nowadays we live in the truth of science.

 

[theRetard]

You have to because you're a human subject and not the only one. The most people agree on something, the "truer" and "natural" it becomes. Explains common sense quickly as common sense NEVER asks for the object in question.

why should i agree with that truth being an agreement? why can't i disagree? is there's any logical purpose to make an exception for me agreeing that truth is just an agreement? oh, there's no purposes at all as you said, i forgot

 

[Klasik616]

your anti-realism is so self-refuting. can you stop it?

Is not. It's the future of philosophy, you're just too much into Aristotle and not empirists / pragmatists.

 

[theRetard]

Is not. It's the future of philosophy, you're just too much into Aristotle.

so can you debunk him? or maybe these are just your senses tell that aristotle is wrong and relativism (literally sophisms) is right

 

[Klasik616]

why should i agree with that truth being an agreement? why can't i disagree? is there's any logical purpose to make an exception for me agreeing that truth is just an agreement? oh, there's no purposes at all as you said, i forgot

Because language ≠ object in question. So language and communication are above metaphysics. Wittgenstein already debunked it. As a human you have to use the logic of language to make an argument, realists are cooked from the start.

 

[theRetard]

Because language ≠ object in question. So language and communication are above metaphysics.

saying that language and communication are above metaphysics is already a metaphysical claim though

 

[Klasik616]

saying that language and communication are above metaphysics is already a metaphysical claim though

The old kind of, replacing metaphysics with study of language just gives a new meaning to the study of philosophy. "A new metaphysics", starting with the axiom of logic of argumentation.

 

[Klasik616]

so can you debunk him? or maybe these are just your senses tell that aristotle is wrong and relativism (literally sophisms) is right

I can debunk some things he said not all are wrong.

 

[theRetard]

The old kind of, replacing metaphysics with study of language just gives a new meaning to the study of philosophy. "A new metaphysics", starting with the axiom of logic of argumentation.

oh well, but where i replaced them? metaphysics is always above the language, i never said otherwise

I can debunk some things he said not all are wrong.

let me guess you can debunk his claim that females have less amount of teeth than males

 

[Klasik616]

oh well, but where i replaced them? metaphysics is always above the language, i never said otherwise

let me guess you can debunk his claim that females have less amount of teeth than males

When Aristotle wrote his book, the study of language and it's logic didn't exist. I can't blame Aristotle or any other greek for ignoring this.

 

[theRetard]

When Aristotle wrote his book, the study of language and it's logic didn't exist. I can't blame Aristotle or any other greek for ignoring this.

having a linguistic naiveness doesn't really debunk him

 

[theRetard]

When Aristotle wrote his book, the study of language and it's logic didn't exist. I can't blame Aristotle or any other greek for ignoring this.

If truth is just agreement then aristotle was right until someone counted teeth. Did women suddenly grow more teeth when people stopped agreeing with him?
and on your wittgenshtein claims, If language is above metaphysics then aristotle claim should have been true forever

 

[GynoGladiator]

Keep going