zurew

I don't think thats necessarily an issue, especially once the context is clarified and specified. I think most language (the little I know of) about metaphysics is unnecessarily confusing. Just because something is expressed using a proposition that doesn't mean that the referent which contained within the proposition is itself a proposition. Some issues could possibly come up if the model would be self-referential, but as far as I understand thats not the case.

You don't have to, I kind of get the sense where you are getting at, also I know this is not even relevant to your overall point. I just find it interesting how many ways the meaning of omniscience can be cashed out.

Would you use the 4 ways of knowing model here or you don't find it useful in this specific case? (propositional, procedural, perspectival, participatory) The clearest to me is propositional knowing, the other three are much more blurry when it comes to what they entail.

Do you take Omniscience to mean knowing all true propositions, or do you take it to mean something different?

Death? We would need to disambiguate what you mean by that, but generally speaking I have had my own share of spiritual experiences. But im not sure what any of this has to do with Leo and with my original question and with the problem at hand. Again, having certain experiences that one cant explain or explicate isn't what I have issue with ( although it can be problematic in certain cases, especially when it is used as a justification) , I have issue with taking certain metaphysical positions (where you contextualize those experiences in a certain way) and then not being able to make arguments in favour of it or not being able to defend it. Even If I grant that you two had the same experience from that wouldn't follow that Leo is special, especially given that you said that you don't claim to be special. I don't know, but even if we grant that he has never said anything about it, from that wouldn't follow that he hasnt had any experience and we are yet to establish why having that experience is needed to be categorized as intelligent.

We are not talking about explaining an experience , we are talking about defending metaphysical positions where you contextualize those experiences in a certain way. Do you think it would be impossible to contextualize it under any other metaphysical stance other than what Leo has? Because its not. Thats where he needs to actually make an argument , and thats where he fumbles very hard. Originality in thought in my view indicatates that you probably have above average cognition. Im not sure what makes you think that Leo is above average in any way. Based on what? How do you know that that experience is rare then or something special? Also how do you know that you two had the same experience? Appealing to some vague words when it comes to the content of the experience doesn't really say much. You can project whatever you want on it.

@Vibes Can you name one thing that you think originated from Leo and havent been said before? How do you know that Leo had deep experiences or that he had deeper experiences (whatever that means) compared to other people and gurus? Leo has a track-record of making a bunch of arguments against the weakest possible positions rather than attacking more nuanced and well thought out arguments. Leo also has a track-record of asking questions rather than actually making arguments (as if appealing to incredulity or to the lack of knowledge or lack of answer of his interlocutor would establish any of his points) When it comes to the justification of any of his points about non-metaphysical points he fumbles hard and when it comes to the justification of his own philosophical and metaphysical stances he also fumbles very hard and start to pivot to asking questions rather than actually laying down an argument that stands on its own feet. Nothing is special there, all of that can be done by an average person who spends the same amount of time engaging with philosophy and spirituality.

You don't need above average intelligence to see how Leo is wrong about a given thing. Dont put him on a pedestal, he is not nearly as special as he seems to be.

Sure under certain definitions he could be categorized as one, but under the definition of "he likes to watch" he wouldn't be in that category. And people usually use the latter definition. But regardless all of this is completely irrelevant. People use the cuck point to undermine his points, which is obviously retarded.

Bret "covid vaccines killed 17 million people" Weinstein.

Very important point buddy. Its very much important when it comes to the evaluation of the points he is making.

😂 cant be serious

Is this grounded in a similar kind of argument as what Peterson uses about archetypes? or maybe even the rejection of the fact value distinction?

Could I use only rhetoric to make you change your philosophical positions?

I don't think that the both party is persuaded by the same kind of approach or at least to the same degree. If one party actually cares more (or in any way )about facts, then it might not be enough to just use rhetoric to win their vote. For example, don't you think that a more substance and fact based approach (alongside the usage of good rhetoric) could actually persuade more left wing people to vote for Trump? Who created the algorithm vs computation dichotomy? It sounds a little bit weird to me - I like the structure vs content much better.

Not a good argument. Essentially you are saying - "Scientist was wrong back then, therefore don't ever use the heruistic of trusting experts ever again". We could apply the same kind of reasoning to hard science as well. (like would you use that for physics as well?) . Also, whats the argument for thinking anyone (including you) has a better grasp on a given problem compared to experts? Thats the question that needs to be answered first before we trash the conensus that experts have on a given topic. Like do we think that normies have a better track-record of getting things right in any given area? Of course not, and its not just not getting things right, but the usage of trash reasoning to end up with certain conclusions. Generally speaking people on this topic know fuck all about anything. Most people arent even aware 1% of the research on the topic, and even if they are aware of some research, they have no clue how to properly contextualize it, cause they lack the knowledge and the necessary skills to do so. Its not just that people generally don't have any fleshed out ethics on this topic, its that they have 0 clue about the empirical research and they have 0 clue how to make sense of that research.

Confusion all over the place. 1) You can be a moral antirealist/subjectivist and be vegan. 2) Not all vegans believe in material reality and being a vegan doesn't presuppose any specific kind of metaphysical stance. 3) I don't see the reason why you would make the stance of " to create a healthy society one must promote the healthy development of animals."exclusive to stage turquoise and I don't see why a stage green person couldn't or wouldn't use the same thought process.

Cool ,ty.

Whats the name of the picture?

What is meant by more fundamental there? Something like one is being contingent on the other or you mean something different?

Yes, this is why I said earlier that there isn't any good empirical evidence on this (as far as I am aware) . So we don't really have a good ground to think that it would necessarily reduce it.

It does overlap and thats compatible with what I said. My issue wasn't that it doesn't have any overlap with how normally it is defined, it is that it is too narrow and doesn't have enough overlap with it. Think of it like this: If I would ask whats your definition for 4 legged beings ? and then you would give a definition that only describes horses and exclude all other 4 legged animals and beings. - that case I would say the same thing, my issue wouldn't be that there isn't any overlap, the issue is that the overlap is too small. But again this is just my personal preference, so you dont have to take it seriously and the other thing is that your definition doesn't have to align with how a definition is normally used.

The differentiator is that having a fantasy doesn't entail that you want to act out or to experience that given fantasy in the real world. Thats the difference. Basman's example demonstrates this very well.

Yeah, I didnt meant that it needs to be something extremely precise. The reason why I brought up this definition or way of thinking about this is because under it is clear what the relationship between qualities are and how they relate to each other, but this way of thinking allows for (the content of things that relate to each other) to be vague. So for example, the definition for spiritual development can be something vague, the point is to be consistent with the method that you use when you judge a given quality (at least under this way of thinking).

You shouldn't let him pivot away from that. Press him about whats the symmetry breaker between the two. Because fantasy can't be the differentiator (since both invoves fantasy and in one case he doesn't consider it wrong and in the other he does), so the question is - what differentiates the two, when it comes to the categorization of good and bad?