You have no good fucking reason to reject these things. You can't fucking do it out of hand. Jesus fucking Christ
They aren't confused. You are. Fuck, you're a lot worse off than just confused
i mean the main issue is i dont think you understand a lot of the things you seem to reject
you reduce a lot of those words to strawman versions of the concepts and then confbias destroy the strawmen with your intuitive understanding of things
and your instinct to strawman and feel superior/correct is so strong that you probably couldnt get through a single primary work without doing it
1 Like
He doesn't even look them up. Or when he does he reads the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article and then stops. He literally did that exact thing the other day because I had to cite a definition, went to the same wiki article, saw what he was posting in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph explicitly explained that the argument he was making only holds for very specific things
yes. this is plausible. i dont mind knocking down strawmen. if in fact i dont have basis to disagree with philosophers then there is no problem (to me at least). its a good thing that i am mistaken.
also, supposing its true, it remains that i rejected a lot of stuff which implies a negative answer to mind body duality. and mind body duality is apparently in contention. so there is something besides strawmen.
You don't have a basis because your ideas are incoherent and you refuse to provide any justification or methodology
You realize that's not what's at issue here, right?
i mean i just agree with ewiz all of your ideas are ultimately incoherent and shadows of actual respectable philosophical thoughts
but if you ever happen to take my word for it, my suggestion would just be to give up this shit altogether, not actually "get good" at it
i hypothesize ur philosophical opinions on language are impeding your communication skills.
you told me that matriarchies exist.
i told you wikipedia claims most people think there were never matriarchies.
how can you expect me to pluck out your preferred definition of matriarchy? you can just specify the definition you mean. which apparently is from a specific german sociology school or something. im not against you using words you just have to communicate effectively.
im the one who made language an issue and ewiz is the one who apparently has some thoughts on matriarchy
are you conflating us or
you are the one who is far more incoherent in communicating these thoughts with any audience of {set of actual people who care about the philosophical terms in question}
you have far more communication issues here than ewiz does
no. i already brought up the language issue at the time when he was trying to tell me about matriarchy.
we have the same opinion regarding the language issue.
That's because you literally only read one paragraph and the next paragraph contextualized it and said this was only true for one specific subsection of anthropology
just because youre making attempts at reconciling the communcation gap here doesnt mean youre succeeding
and the reason you cannot succeed is because youre the one using more words in unconventional ways that nobody cares about
w.r.t all your philosophical thoughts, idc matriarchy or other topics involved
well, certainly between you and ewiz my ideas are not getting through.
explanations i can think of are
- my ideas are in fact incoherent and further more incredibly unintuitive to the point not even any of its essence can get across.
- my ideas are mildly incoherent and your backgrounds in philosophy cause critical communication failure when encountering the incoherency
- my ideas are not incoherent and your backgrounds in philosophy have confused you a lot to the point where "regular" ideas are no longer processible
- regardless of the coherency of my ideas im just so bad at choosing what words to use that i cannot communicate with you
what i can say is that my positions are common sense to many people i know and i tend to encounter this situation when dealing with people in backgrounds with philosophy. and its also symmetric in that i find philosophical ideas incoherent. so i think its most likely that either philosophy is bad and confusing or regular ideas are flawed and philosophy people are just incredibly allergic to them and unable to interface with them.
language is contained in the brain. is it so impossible to take at face value? i dont get it. maybe we are defining language differently.
It's not just the communication gap: he literally refuses to read anything on the subject and when he does he dismisses it out of pocket with "well, clearly it's all in the brain" without ever fucking justifying that assumption
yes because youve been positively reinforced by "that makes sense" because your ideas sound palatable to uneducated intuition but are actually incoherent when put up against the people who thought a lot more deeply about each of the concepts involved
you find them incoherent because you are lazy and have a habit of prematurely judging things that take too much work as unnecessary or meaningless
yes this is a distinct possibility but even then you would think that after thinking really deeply about it you would be able to point out my mistakes and misconceptions.
language is in the brain. its plenty palatable to me. it seems for ewiz who has studied philosophy, it is not only super unpalatable, he cannot even understand why i find it palatable. how come after you study something you lose ability to communicate to laymen?