Nationalism is inherently an ‘ideal’. There is no ‘material’ border, which means the ‘borders’ are ideological. I’m not against borders by any means but clearly you’re wrong here.
‘the sphinx is baffling’ it’s a lion statue that aligns with the constellation of lio, not hard to grasp.
I agree that post modernism is bullshit. It’s putting the responsibility on the viewer to do all the work which is just lazy.
‘treating abstract concepts as physical object’ your ignorance of the world of forms is showing. The triad of reality agreed by many physicists today is that the highest and most consistent/truest form of reality is made of maths.
You are using ‘completion’ in this vague sense. In one second you say art is completion and then you say artists use completion in an impactful way. Artists use art - circular definition, just like the Greeks.
A wave is both a verb and a noun. The verb came after the noun. This undermines the next five minutes. We say something is waves because it undulates like ‘a wave’.
Object permanence…what is your point here? That imagination exists? Again, your use of the word completion is all over the map. Remember, you said art is a synonym of completion.
‘theists imagine an old man in space’ damn, this is stupid. You’re setting up strawmen all over the place. ‘They’re imaging something etc.’ These are just strawmen. Who is imagining it? Who are you talking about? Some imaginary idiot you can easily argue against?
You have to define completion. You’re just waffling.
Your fundamental mistake is that idealism conflicts with the material world. ‘materialism is poisonous to idealists.’ What? A lot of Idealists understand cause and effect, it’s just a matter of hierarchy. That the material world is one of the dimensions.
you look at a bird and it’s basically a bird… Your argument is getting really thin here. You argument is that ‘things are what they are.’ This contradicts your idea of Euphoria and fantasy because these are subjective terms.
‘Our brain involved with pictures of woods. which is why we like the woods.’ Yes it did. You’re on the thread here of idealism here, the symbolic world, how the symbols of the collective unconscious are time-binding and determine the material world in the sense that everything that is man made was first an idea. Woods are not man made, no, but the material world came out of nothing, what was once just quarks at the big bang is now a tree, that’s a form of resurrection.
Spiritual euphoria is dependent on material conditions - ‘the atoms that are going through your brain’. This is so wrong. The entire concept of hermitage, the trappists, Asceticism disproves that. In fact, the highest form of spiritual euphoria comes from the absence of material conditions. And then if your argument is that ‘the absence of material conditions is a material condition in and of itself’ you are engaging in the exact same circular arguments as you criticise. As an idealist, i don’t ‘hate’ the mechanistic world of cause and effect. I do not have ‘poor material conditions’. I understand that the world is first a forum of action and then secondly a place of things.
A lot of religion is this ‘you have a really bad life’. Read ‘The history and origins of consciousness’. Religion most likely stems from the advent of consciousness, when we went from animal to Human, that moment is described across ancient religions as the coming of the light, ‘let there be light’ is not in reference to the big bang, but in reference to us being able to ‘see’ ourselves in the world outside of nature.
I think you need to stop spreading yourself so thin. You seem like a smart guy but very didactic. Sadly, since you have so many holes in your logic, this comes across as ignorance. You’ve said some smart things about certain topics, but If you dig many holes, you won’t find water. Clearly you are reject idealism, and thats fine, but don’t try and start teaching people about it because you haven’t actually engaged with it deeply, you’ve only engaged with it at the level of criticism.
Border is a concept, and therefore does not exist. A nation is a physical object. It’s a shape on the Earth’s surface. This shape has a distance between me and it; therefore it “exists.”
damn, this is stupid.
Please read rule 1 in the forum rules. (“Be nice”)
Sadly, since you have so many holes in your logic,
We operate off of an entirely different logic from what you’re familiar with. We have a completely new approach to science, math, knowledge, rationality, time, existence, etc.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on philosophy. But I know enough to say that the field has serious underlying problems.
Sorry, I don’t mean to offend you. I thought ‘stupid’ was a pretty benign word to describe the reduction of theism to ‘old man in the sky worship’.
No, a ‘nation’ is not a shape. A landmass has shape. What makes a ‘nation’ are borders, and borders are just an idea of where a jurisdiction ends and another begins. Which is why you can have border disputes. No one can dispute when a landmass ends, as its an objective thing.
I actually don’t think we’re that dissimilar in our logic it’s just that you reject idealism and I think that the rational world exists in a nested system that extends outside the material world. I’m just pointing out to watch your blind spots. I find this physics stuff very interesting but im ignorant in a lot of it, but I stay curious. I also don’t know how knowledge of this theory bleeds into other more mystical, idealist theories. This guy in the video thinks that god has to have a physical presence to exist. But I ask- does Love exist? I would say yes. I would say Love is one of the most real things in my life, as a determining factor of my actions and decision making. And I don’t think love can be reduced to chemicals firing in the brain. if that was so, i could make a love potion and make anyone fall in love with me. Just making a point.
Concepts are words that invoke two or more objects. Love is a concept; objects love each other. But love does not meet the criteria of the word exist.
Definition - A limitation placed on the usage or extent of a word.
Exist - Physical presence (object + location)
Object - That which has shape.
Shape - “That.” (points to shape)
Location - The set of distances between an object and all other objects.
Distance - The space between two objects.
Space - That which doesn’t have shape.
Bugs Bunny is an object, but Bugs Bunny does not exist. There isn’t a distance between me and him.
Kangaroos jump, but “jump” doesn’t exist.
Concepts are not words…Words make sense of concepts. Before language, concepts existed. Words and language are ultimately metaphors, abstractions of internal processes and external realities. Lacan believes the unconscious is made up of words, but I’d go a step further to be with Jung, and say the unconscious is made up of symbols, which then, with evolution were made sense with words. We drew pictures before we wrote poetry. We performed rituals performed we wrote plays.
Love is a ‘concept’ yes. But you are saying it doesn’t exist because you have chosen a definition of exist that is material. That’s what I’m trying to say, you can’t apply your ‘map’ to every single ‘territory’.
’ Exist - Physical presence (object + location) The standard defintion is, from google,
have objective reality or being.
And it’s that ‘being’ in which love falls under existing. Love is a ‘concept’ that we experience in ‘our being’. You can ‘be in love’.
Just wondering, are you still arguing that a nation is a physical object? I’m not sure why you’re talking about bugs bunny.
Jump is a verb. It exists as a concept because things do jump. the word ‘jump’ doesn’t exist, because it’s just a metaphor for the action of jumping. in spanish it’s called salta. Within the spanish language ‘jump’ doesn’t exist but things still jump. The way we conceive of the world is just a map of the territory not the territory itself.
Concepts refer to patterns of intuition that aren’t physical objects. What all of these patterns have in common is that they invoke or embody two or more objects.
The definition provided by Google is made up of synonyms. Exist - Have objective reality or being is just saying “being is existing,” “existing is being.” This is a shell game where you provide a synonym and then you go on a tangent about what the synonym refers to. It utilities Error of Completion.
When we say that something “exists,” we have this concept because there are objects that do not. For example, Santa Claus. What is the difference between Santa Claus and any other object? Location. Can abstract concepts have a distance between themselves and me? No, because they aren’t objects; they don’t have shape.
this is interesting and think we are touching on this in our other discussion on the other thread in which i just replied. You want to move this discussion over to that one too? I think my most recent comment replies to this one as well. Thanks for the discussions btw. Nice to put the mind to the whetstone.
Thank you. I will create a new thread.