1131) Arminius, 18.12.2017, 13:34, 13:41, 14:15 (6895-6897)

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example „John sees Mary“ (**|**) includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged „critique“ (**) does not change anything. Furthermore, your „critique“ is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a „social“ situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become „designed“ (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, any kind of subjectity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

You are missing the point again, your „critique“ is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term „empirical possible multiple realities“ (**).

There is only one reality.

Copied post in another thread.

To Trump and his buddies, „life goes on“ means „you are fired“ (**).

1132) Arminius, 19.12.2017, 00:06, 12:25 (6898-6899)

I bet that we can read in her/his (**) next response something like this: *Note that ... Kant and Hume ... were feminists*.

Which of her/his „empirical possible multiple realities“ (**) is the feministic one?

Pandora wrote:

„I see the opposite happening through pushing of human rights agendas worldwide. Also, happiness through dependency (by global banks and corporations). Money is politics and even ethics-neutral, it goes where there is opportunity. In the globalized world, there will be max happiness, but not true freedom because everyone will pay the cost for it. Be careful what you wish for, or you just might get it.“ **

„The way things are going (with advancements in technology, mass media, and medicine), everyone will eventually be cometely enslaved and lobotomized, either genetically, chemically, or ideologically; or a combination of all three. Even concepts like happiness and freedom themselves will change. You may be a slave in reality but you’ll be “free” to think within the ideological limits of your genetically pre-designed and chemically controlled and environmentally reinforced mind. A fish is still free to swim from one side of the fish tank to another, and may as well imagine itself freely and happily swimming in an ocean.“ **

„For those who’re worried about max world happiness, don’t worry, the global pharma/food companies will fix that problem for you. You can be assure you’ll be happy and till the day you die.“ **

This is very similar to what I have been saying for a very long time. It is the inevitable way that modernity has been following since the so-called „industrial revolution“. Now, this process has reached a point where the very much accelerated development gets even more accelerated. The title of one of my threads is the question: „Can we slow down the modern velocity?“ (**|**). If the answer is „no“, what does this mean for the future? It is likely that this does not mean that the people will sit there and be sad, no, they will likely be happy according to their situation in general and their spiritually limited capabilities in particular.

One of the examples could be a cyborg with many artificially optimized muscles and joints but a consciousness that does not work better and more than the consciousness of a dog.

The above example was already anticipated in the last decades of the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century when Johann Wolfgang von Goethe studied the real Faust, designed his story of Faust and wrote it down. And his Faust of the second part died, because he had reached his goal.

Another example could be the humans of the end of history as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel described it in his main work „Phänomenologie des Geistes“, published in 1807.

A further example could be the „last men“ who became famous in 1883: „»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. („»We have discovered happiness« – say the last men and blink.“)

However, these humans or „post-humans“ will not be unhappy. They will live without history (compare the text in my second thread: „Thinking about the END OF HISTORY“ [**|**]) and without work (compare the text in my first thread: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ [**|**]). We - the current humans - think that this will be very sad, and we are absolutely right about that. But they will not think so. And they will not think much but believe much on a very low level. They will be almost absolutely dependent and very naively believe in the opposite.

To me, this development is the most probable one for the future (although presignals have been becoming apparent since the beginning of our modernity). One of the presignals of this situation in the future is the increasing replacement of the human nature by the artificially human technology, thus machines.

The humans will have merely two options or chances in order to stop the continuation of this development or, at least, to slow down the modern velocity. One option or chance is the avoidance of the complete replacement of humans by machines, because this complete replacement will lead to the lost of the human control over the machines, so that the machines will control or even kill the humans. The other option or chance is a huge catastrophe in the very near future that will lead to a new beginning, provided that there will be enough survivors of that catastrophe. The difference between this two scenarios and the most probable scenario is that the humans will not lose their relatively freedom and the extent and independence of their consciousness in the case of the said two scenarios and the exact opposite in the case of the most probably scenario. What will be the worst case scenario then?

1133) Arminius, 20.12.2017, 20:23 (6900)

How would you bring this what you just said into connection with what you said in your thread „Did The Romans Invent Jesus?“ (**)?

1134) Arminius, 21.12.2017, 00:01, 01:30, 02:00, 02:18, 11:43, 21:38, 22:07, 23:58 (6901-6908)

I know that you do not know how important language is. So I am writing this not for you but for readers. There is an interdependence between linguistics and philosophy, science and almost everything else. This is because of the fact that language is the most striking feature, the main feature of humans. And it is not difficult but often very effective to linguistically analyze the speech of philosophers or scientists or everyone else.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object ...?“ **

I have already done this several times! So read my posts!

And you want to be taken seriously? Really? Thus: Objectively?

Show me how you can „nail or ground the real reality of a“ subject ...!

It is absolutely obvious that you are not able to understand what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean. They are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object. It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand. You want to eleminate yang - hoping that yin can exist without yang as a yin/yang principle. That is more than ridiculous.

A solipsist is someone who says that the subject, thus the subjective I with its consciousness contents, is the only being. I am pretty sure that your answer is exact this or a very similar statement. So you are a solipsist. But a solipsist is not able to explain what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean. And if you are a subjectivist, then it is difficult but not impossible to do this. But if you are nonetheless not able to change the perspective and become an objectivist for a moment, then you are an extreme subjectivist, thus a solipsist, and a solipsist is not able to explain what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean.

Your „intersubjectivity“ has nothing to do with objectivity. I will say this again and again, regardless how often you are trolling against it. The goal of the extreme subjectivists and thus solipsists is to eleminate the object and thus objectivity too. This means that they try to eliminate the whole epistemology. Subject and object are part of the same phenomenon. If this pheomenon lacks one of the two, then it is kaput. One can try to circumvent the subject/object dualism, for example by concepts like Husserl’s „Intersubjektivität“ or Heidegger’s „In-der-Welt-sein“ or Luhmann’s „Kommunikation“, but „circumventing“ does not mean „replacing“ or „overcoming“ the older concept (subject/object dualism). So if you and the other solipsists were successful, then epistemology would lack an important concept, then philosophy and science would have lost.

So you and the other solipsists should be absolutely silent when it comes to philosophy and science. („Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein [„Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent.“])

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„My point is, your »It is an objective fact that there are subjects« (**|**) is based on intersubjectivity.“ **

Your point is just that you are not capable of understanding what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.“ **

Your philosophical views are not tenable, especially your schizoid and delusional term „empirical possible multiple realities“ (**).

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.“ **

But that is not objectivity but merely intersubjectivity.

Try to learn words before becoming the lackey of philosophers you do not understand.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

And you want to tell us something about „both sides“? You? A solipsist!

Also, you have no other one who agrees with you (so: where is your „intersubjectivity“ here?). You - the solipsist - will never become an intersubjectivist, since you will remain such a stubborn and ignorant solipsist.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I expect ... ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. ....“ **

You have no arguments - as everyone knows here and as I have said many times already. How often do I have to repeat this? No one of those who have posted here agrees with you. You are a solipsist.

You have used ad hominems. So stop whining here.

And stop preaching. You are preaching and preaching and preaching and ignoring everything else. Your stubborn and naive belief in your false gods gives evidence that you are by far more religious than the average human.

It is not necessary to be an atheists or an antitheists or a theists in order to know that Prismatic is wrong.

It is no accident that a solipsist can never find another solipsist who agrees with him/her. Prismatic's says „intersubjective consensus“ (**) and likely means „intersolipsistic consensus“ in „multiple realities“ (**) of which Prismatic is speaking so often.

I was joking a bit. You (**) are right, it is more like climbing, of course.

Oh, yes.

I like climbing very much.

And after climbing something like this (**|**|**|**).

You were once in Eastern Asia, so you are „very familiar with Eastern Philosophy“ (**)?

That is again one of your childish pseudo arguments - very similar to this one:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.“ **

What a pure stupidity!

Alf wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Prismatic 567 wrote:

›Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.‹ **

Gyahd ....

›I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about.‹ - 13 year old boy.« **

»I inhaled and exhaled once, so I am a medical specialist for breath control.«“ ** **

Like I said: Prismatic does almost always not know what Prismatic is talking about.

In addition, you are lying, Prismatic. Not you, you liar, but I was the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who said that the subject/object duality can never be eliminated. You are the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who wants to eliminate the subject/object duality.

Your interpretation of „intersubjectivity“ is „intersolipsism“ in „multiple realities“ (as you have said so often in several threads), and that means nothing else than a schizoid and delusional solipsism.

Statistically said, the most ILP members are here because of TALK, not because of philosophy.

Rank 1-6	Off Topic Subforums	2,133,972 Views	38,077 Replies
Rank 7-9	Other Subforums	509,683 Views	7,814 Replies

You (**) are seldom posting in the subforum „Off Topic“ (now called: „Non Philosophical Chat“). Right?

Thank you (**) very much.

1135) Arminius, 22.12.2017, 02:10, 20:40, 22:05, 22:16, 22:30, 23:05, 23:59 (6909-6915)

Arminius wrote:

„Statistically said, the most ILP members are here because of TALK, not because of philosophy.

Rank 1-6	Off Topic Subforums	2,133,972 Views	38,077 Replies
Rank 7-9	Other Subforums	509,683 Views	7,814 Replies

“ ** **

All first 9 Ranks		2,643,655 Views = 100%	45891 Replies = 100%
Rank 1-6	Off Topic Subforums	2,133,972 Views = 80.72%	38,077 Replies = 82.97%
Rank 7-9	Other Subforums	509,683 Views = 19.28%	7,814 Replies = 17.03%

This seems to be according to the Pareto distribution again.

Thanks.

The orbit of our Sun (the planets and we are not seen).

Thanks to all other well-wishers too.

Zero Sum wrote:

„Assuming we don't have an economic collapse or go into a full world war and that I have the ability to keep a job long enough where I don't have to worry about having a roof over my head I did plan eventually trying to go back to school in becoming a plumber. Why a plumber? Many trade unions employ plumbers and residential or commercial plumbing companies make an obscene amount of money just for on site visits. Another reason is that I don't think robotics or automation will replace plumbers in the next fifty years, certainly not master plumbers or engineer plumbing.“ **

Two days ago my wife and I ordered two plumbers. Plumbers are still needed. But the interesting question is whether they will be replaced by machines in the next fifty years. It is quite possible, because the technological development is an exponential one.

Do you go by car or take the bus or walk instead?

And what is the temperature over there today?

Yes, that's right.

The one side is misusing its religion as a terror system actively, the other side is suffering from it passively because its „politically correct“ system is just too passive.

But when will Impious decently come down from his „literature heaven“?

Arminius wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Statistically said, the most ILP members are here because of TALK, not because of philosophy.

Rank 1-6	Off Topic Subforums	2,033,972 Views	38,077 Replies
Rank 7-9	Other Subforums	509,683 Views	7,814 Replies

« ** **

All first 9 Ranks		2,643,655 Views = 100%	45891 Replies = 100%
Rank 1-6	Off Topic Subforums	2,133,972 Views = 80.72%	38,077 Replies = 82.97%
Rank 7-9	Other Subforums	509,683 Views = 19.28%	7,814 Replies = 17.03%

This seems to be according to the Pareto distribution again.  “ ** **

The 80% are the effect of the 20%. So, the 80% are here because of the 20%.

1136) Arminius, 23.12.2017, 00:19, 02:06, 17:04, 17:09, 19:59 (6916-6920)

Copied post in another thread.

Prismatic, you are jeering about you yourself.

In addition, it is exaggerated to say that „Protagoras was an anti-realist“.

Protagoras said that „truth is relative“, because „all interpreters and even each of all interpreters do not remain the same but always changes during the time“. Protagoras was a relativist but not an anti-realist. Additionally, Protagoras was more a subjectivist than an objectivist.

One can also say that „all and each of all interpreters are relative“, because „truth never changes, whereas all interpreters and even each of all interpreters permanently change during the time“. And this one who says this is not an anti-idealist but merely a relativist too. Additionally, this one is more an objectivist than a subjectivist.

So we are again at the point of the subject/object duality.

A master plumber and a building architect can also be replaced already, at least theoretically. It is merely a question of time (a) when this replacement will be economicall efficient too and (b) when certain lobbyists will have to give up their lobby (first partly, then totally).

So in this case, the only question word is: When?

** **

You (**) are again refusing to - at least - try to understand what other ILP members say. This is because of your stubborn ignorance. You are ignoring all arguments that have proven you wrong, and you are isolating those arguments of the other ILP members that can only be attacked then if and only if they are isolated from their context, so that they just look like mere statements but not like arguments any more. Your many logical fallacies and your anti-logical mindset in general can be proven very easily. Almost everyone has done this in each of your threads.

Another point is that you misuse famous, preferably the most famous philosophers like Kant and Plato as strawmen. The last time you misused Kant as a strawman, this time you misuse Plato and Protagoras as strawmen.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Note Plato mentioned 'absolute truth' [not interpretations] in the first para and refer to Philosophical Realism in the latter para.“ **

Plato interpreted as well as you do. You yourself quoted this:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Wikipedia wrote:

»›Man is the measure of all things‹, interpreted by Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth, but that which individuals deem to be the truth.«“ **

Yes, INTERPRETED BY PLATO.

Note what I said about the truth.

But what does your „anti-reality“ mean?

Every „anti-reality“ refers to reality. It is also an interpretation of reality. Otherwise a speaker of „anti-reality“ would not know what this speaker is talking about (this reminds me of somebody.)

Plato said that the true reality was an ideality as the reality of the ideas. The ideal realm is different from the real realm. But in order to exist, the ideal realm must be a bit similar to the real realm. Otherwise we could not say anything about it, since we would not know know what it „is“. We have to refer to reality even then if we are talking about ideality.

If ideality is to you what you call „anti-reality“, then it is your interpretation, so that you would have to tell us what your definition of „reality“ is, but you have already said almost everywhere that you believe in your schizoid and delusional „multiple realities“ (**). So it is very probable that you believe that the „anti-reality“ also belongs to this „multiple realities“. In addition, you believe in an „anti-objectivity“, which means that you believe in solipsism. So according to your belief, each solipsist has an own reality or/and an own „anti-reality“ or/and even own „multiple realities“, and you do not care about the contradictions that are integrated in your belief and religion.

1137) Arminius, 24.12.2017, 00:01; Alf, 24.12.2017, 00:45, 01:12, 02:23, 16:05 (6921-6925)

Topic: Can solipsists be humanists?

I believe that solipsists are not able to be humanists for several reasons. The main reason is that most humans want economical wealth based on technological progression; technology and economy are mainly based on rationality; rationality is mainly negated by solipsists. Solipsists are extreme subjectivists, anti-objectivists, anti-realists, anti-rationalists, even anti-logicians, ... nihilists. Merely their own thoughts their own perceptions exist according to them. They are merely believing in their subjective thoughts and their subject perceptions. So they are isolating themselves from all other humans, and this means when it comes to humanism: solipsists are anti-humanists.

This thread is not about ethics. So it is not meant for the discussion whether solipsists are ethically good or evil people. This thread is about the logic behind solipsists and solipsism on the one side and the logic behind humanists and humanism on the other side.

The proposition is that solipsism and humanism are incompatible.

Ready, steady, discuss!

I voted „no“. Solipsism and humanism are in fact incompatible.

George Berkeley was a solipsist and most certainly no humanist. There are more examples.

And ILP is even teeming with solipsists.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Are people supposed to be humanists?“ **

No.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had ancestors that „evolved“?

« ** **

Do you mean that the first five or that all six „guys“ in that picture represent the ancestors?“ ** **

Doesn’t the picture show this?

I’m celebrating Christmas.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Prismatic, you are one of the ILP examples I spoke of, since you are a solipsist, as you and many others have proven, and you claim to be a „humanist“. You have also said that you believe in „multiple realities“ (**) which are schizophrenic delusions.

And this explains everything about you and your religion.

You are a solipsistic theist believing in the „humanity“ god of multiple realities for each solipsist. And each strawman is your angel.

And the fact that you are ignoring everything besides you has to do with the reason why you can live as a solipsist in multiple realities: schizophrenic delusions.

1138) Arminius, 25.12.2017, 00:01, 02:09, 16:11 (6926-6928)

Urwrong wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The 80% are the effect of the 20%. So, the 80% are here because of the 20%.  « ** **

Exactly, the 80% are consumers and they are here to seek out the 20%, the producers.

Production in Nature is rare. Consumption is the norm. It is rare to »move things forward« or to »progress« in life, Evolution. And progress requires conflict, competition, overcoming adversity, etc..“ **

20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links.

80% of all ILP posts exist because of the fact that 20% of all ILP posts exist. 20% of all ILP posts deliver 80% of all really philosophical (which are few) ILP posts. And if we assume that the number of the ILP main-posters (those ILP members who are mainly posting, regardless in which of the ILP subforums) is about 40, then 32 (80%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters post on ILP because of 8 (20%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters. This also means that this 8 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called „philosophers“. But perhaps the number of the ILP main-posters is not 40, but 20, so that merely 4 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called „philosophers“.

I estimate that the average number of the really philosophical ILP posts per day is about 1.5.

Before becoming astouned, you should note that this „1.5 ILP posts per day“ also mean „more than 9000 ILP posts since the bginning of ILP in 2001“.

@ EVERYBODY.

Merry Christmas.

Thank you (**) very much.

And: Santa did not deliver, but the Christkind („Christ-Kind“ = „Christ Kid“ [„Christ Child“]) did.

Did Santa deliver to you and Joker?

1139) Arminius, 26.12.2017, 00:01 (6929)

Thanks a lot again. The same to you (**)!

The Christkind deliverd „materialistic“ things too, for example: a really good book and a bottle of really good whiskey ...

1140) Arminius, 27.12.2017, 00:00; Kathrina, 27.12.2017, 01:39 (6930-6931)

At the bar?

See **; especially **.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links.

80% of all ILP posts exist because of the fact that 20% of all ILP posts exist. 20% of all ILP posts deliver 80% of all really philosophical (which are few) ILP posts. And if we assume that the number of the ILP main-posters (those ILP members who are mainly posting, regardless in which of the ILP subforums) is about 40, then 32 (80%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters post on ILP because of 8 (20%) out of 40 (100%) main-posters. This also means that this 8 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called „philosophers“. But perhaps the number of the ILP main-posters is not 40, but 20, so that merely 4 ILP members are the only ones who really deserve to be called ›philosophers‹.« ** **

Besides me, I wonder who the other three are?“ **

Here are the other three:

==>