Heh. I decline to have a serious conversation with someone who insists on denying that there is an objective reality. Because 100% of the time (rounded up) they are just trolling you. I just claim I don’t see any advantage in talking to someone who doesn’t exist. :)
If they maintain that there is still some kind of subjective reality (whatever that could possibly mean in the absence of, like, you know, actually real reality) then my position is: I’m sure their subjective reality is really absorbing for them, but there’s a whole universe of fascinating, surprising real stuff out there, and I’d rather go and find out about that.
Doesn’t mean the conversation is over (although sometimes it is), but it’s no longer being taken seriously. That meets the optional social requirement of not being blatantly rude, while fulfilling the mandatory ethical obligation of calling bullshit.
Because 100% of the time (rounded up) they are just trolling you.
I don’t think so. I think that more likely rounds down to zero. Few are consciously using it as a tactic—though perhaps I’m just a dullard and all this gibberish is a conscious ploy. I doubt it, because I don’t see the general level of philosophical sophistication to believe that is likely. Maybe the world is full of people pretending to be conceptually addled buffoons for some nefarious purpose I can’t grasp, but I doubt it.
No, like faith, unrealism is just a philosophical immunizing strategy that they have gotten away with in some circumstance, so they use it again, like a monkey pulling a lever for a grape.
If you can get away with punting out of any intellectual difficulty with , “I just believe”, “that’s just logic”, “it’s all relative”, “that’s not my reality”, etc., you will. As long as the get out of jail free card works, you’ll keep using it. Well, maybe not you, but a lot of people will and do. I don’t think they’re consciously trolling.
Heh. I decline to have a serious conversation with someone who insists on denying that there is an objective reality. Because 100% of the time (rounded up) they are just trolling you. I just claim I don’t see any advantage in talking to someone who doesn’t exist. :)
If they maintain that there is still some kind of subjective reality (whatever that could possibly mean in the absence of, like, you know, actually real reality) then my position is: I’m sure their subjective reality is really absorbing for them, but there’s a whole universe of fascinating, surprising real stuff out there, and I’d rather go and find out about that.
Doesn’t mean the conversation is over (although sometimes it is), but it’s no longer being taken seriously. That meets the optional social requirement of not being blatantly rude, while fulfilling the mandatory ethical obligation of calling bullshit.
I don’t think so. I think that more likely rounds down to zero. Few are consciously using it as a tactic—though perhaps I’m just a dullard and all this gibberish is a conscious ploy. I doubt it, because I don’t see the general level of philosophical sophistication to believe that is likely. Maybe the world is full of people pretending to be conceptually addled buffoons for some nefarious purpose I can’t grasp, but I doubt it.
No, like faith, unrealism is just a philosophical immunizing strategy that they have gotten away with in some circumstance, so they use it again, like a monkey pulling a lever for a grape.
If you can get away with punting out of any intellectual difficulty with , “I just believe”, “that’s just logic”, “it’s all relative”, “that’s not my reality”, etc., you will. As long as the get out of jail free card works, you’ll keep using it. Well, maybe not you, but a lot of people will and do. I don’t think they’re consciously trolling.