Jkrebs
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
| Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2021,07:08) | | Quote | 51
William J Murray
July 24, 2021 at 4:30 am
KF,
Yes, we have been down this road several times, and you’re still tilting at straw men, at least when it comes to your responses to my comments. You keep reiterating arguments that do not apply to what I have said, as if they do.
At this point, I don’t think you are capable of actually understanding my argument and position, or my objections to various aspects of your ontology/epistemology. I’ve corrected you many, many times, to no apparent avail. |
LOL |
WJM is a pretty interesting guy and a clear thinker, despite some of some of what I consider crazy ideas he has. Here is does a good job of dissecting KF, although it won't affect KF in the slightest:
| Quote | KF said: "Re-labelling a fairly serious reductio issue .""
I haven’t re-labeled anything. I’ve pointed out that the labels do not, and should not, determine how we think about that which has been labeled. Labels do not represent reality; the are ways of pointing at something. The labels “sensory experience” and “experience of embodiment” do not point at any particular ontological arrangement of what is being labeled because those labels point at the experience itself, not the ontological interpretation of that experience. ...
As I said, it is apparent you cannot or will not accept that there is a fundamental difference between what we experience and what we believe that experience means or refers to. You don’t get your interpretation for free; your appeal to “common sense” has no weight; your appeal to “common human experience” is a projection of your own experiences writ large; your insistence that my perspective is inherently self-referentially absurd and leads to “grand delusion” is entirely a strawman argument because you clearly do not understand my argument and repeatedly mischaracterize it; you arguments about duty to right reason is one of mind-reading and projection which you hold as if you know my thoughts and motivations better than I do.
Your “argument” consists entirely of regurgitating your own ontology and epistemology over and over and over as if it somehow applies to mine, as if it can be used to evaluate mine, spending almost zero time even trying to understand mine. You take what I say, change it to what the words I say mean under your paradigm, and respond to that as if that is what I meant when I said those words, even in the teeth of being corrected multiple times.
Because of this, it seems to me that you are incapable of understanding concepts that diverge from your own ontological/epistemological perspective. Either you do not understand them, or you’re just refusing to address those actual concepts, and are choosing to restate them as different concepts entirely so that you can issue forth canned responses to them. |
This is a good summary of a problem that pervades lots of discussions in the world today: people talking, thinking, and hearing entirely within different frameworks, and entirely incapable of realizing that they are blindly embedded in their own framework. KF is an extreme case.
|
