The Case for Idealism

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Oh look, you didn't get an answer. What a surprise. Who would have thunk it?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Oh look, you didn't get an answer. What a surprise. Who would have thunk it?

Why are you saying this like it's some mark against me? Someone else's failure to address my points/arguments is their bad, not mine.

 

[*SD*]

Oh look, you didn't get an answer. What a surprise. Who would have thunk it?

Why are you saying this like it's some mark against me? Someone else's failure to address my points/arguments is their bad, not mine.

I don't quite follow, I thought you acknowledged that I did in fact answer?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I don't quite follow, I thought you acknowledged that I did in fact answer?

You did. It seems he's referring to my latest comment that you didn't respond to, which is no big deal to me. It seems Master_Ghost_Knight was just being petty.

 

[*SD*]

I don't quite follow, I thought you acknowledged that I did in fact answer?

You did. It seems he's referring to my latest comment that you didn't respond to, which is no big deal to me. It seems Master_Ghost_Knight was just being petty.

Oh, right. Sure, that's fine. I had to go offline (sleep and exciting stuff like that) - I've just had another look at your last reply to me, I want to re-read your OP and maybe a bit more of this thread before I reply to it. Hopefully someone else will be along to chip in before then.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Oh, right. Sure, that's fine. I had to go offline (sleep and exciting stuff like that) - I've just had another look at your last reply to me, I want to re-read your OP and maybe a bit more of this thread before I reply to it. Hopefully someone else will be along to chip in before then.

Yeah that's understandable. Take your time to make sure you got the argument down and if you have questions let me know.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Am I mistaken here, or did not SD just granted to answer your question while asking you to answer his question in return, and you never did?

 

[*SD*]

Am I mistaken here, or did not SD just granted to answer your question while asking you to answer his question in return, and you never did?

Apologies MGK, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying I hadn't answered MI's question. My mistake!

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Am I mistaken here, or did not SD just granted to answer your question while asking you to answer his question in return, and you never did?

Yes you are mistaken. The questions between SD and myself have been answered, we have an understanding.

 

[*SD*]

Am I mistaken here, or did not SD just granted to answer your question while asking you to answer his question in return, and you never did?

Yes you are mistaken. The questions between SD and myself have been answered, we have an understanding.

Well, some of that is true. The bit that's true is that I did answer your question. Unfortunately the way you've written this implies that you answered mine. So MGK is correct in his observation. You can easily correct this oversight by answering the question you forgot I asked.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Well, some of that is true.

No, all of it is true. I've noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp. The moment you said you understand this is the moment we've established what is necessary for my argument to continue. Premise 1 is not only intelligible but is correct by your own admission. From here it's time to either move on to other premises or at least the form of the argument.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You didn't answer the question. And it is a pertinent one given that a 18 mo doesn't have much of a concept of self. Their understanding is different from that of a toddler, that differs from that of a teenager, from that of an adult, and even from that of a philosophy major.

Although it does not surprise me that you require the understanding of a 18 month baby.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You didn't answer the question.

Yes I did. He wanted me to explain the "I" and I just did and he admitted he understood: from the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of the "I", the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp. We officially have an understanding of what is necessary for the conversation to progress. It's time we move on to discuss other premises or at least the form of the argument.

Although it does not surprise me that you require the understanding of a 18 month baby.

...how on earth did you think this was a zinger...? Of course you need an understanding of an 18-month+ old child to be able to keep up with this conversation. If you're not even as intelligent as an 18-month+ individual then you have no business being here lol

 

[*SD*]

I acknowledged that the "I" exists. I then asked you to explain the "I" - you didn't do that. You're welcome to do it now and we can forget all about this little misunderstanding. Also, could we stop talking about children?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I acknowledged that the "I" exists. I then asked you to explain the "I" - you didn't do that.

Okay this is starting to get dishonest on your part... Your comments are public man, obfuscating your own admission of understanding the "I" doesn't help. Your direct quotes prove I'm right:

SD: And I have acknowledged the existence of the I

Monistic Idealism: That's nice, but you haven't answered my question and I can't continue without an answer. Dear sir, I'm being patient and courteous and merely asking for a yes or no answer to my request for clarification: My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

SD: I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child. And that includes (by default, since I'm not an 18 month old child) the question you asked. So, therefore, yes <--- there's your answer.

Boom, you admitted right there that you understand my explanation of the word "I". We already have an understanding of the "I" then by your own admission. We have an understanding of the "I" that is necessary. I've noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp and that more fundamental issues on the matter deserve their own thread.

 

[*SD*]

I acknowledged that the "I" exists. I then asked you to explain the "I" - you didn't do that.

Okay this is starting to get dishonest on your part... Your comments are public man, obfuscating your own admission of understanding the "I" doesn't help. Your direct quotes prove I'm right:

SD: And I have acknowledged the existence of the I

Monistic Idealism: That's nice, but you haven't answered my question and I can't continue without an answer. Dear sir, I'm being patient and courteous and merely asking for a yes or no answer to my request for clarification: My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

SD: I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child. And that includes (by default, since I'm not an 18 month old child) the question you asked. So, therefore, yes <--- there's your answer.

Boom, you admitted right there that you understand my explanation of the word "I". We already have an understanding of the "I" then by your own admission. We have an understanding of the "I" that is necessary. I've noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp and that more fundamental issues on the matter deserve their own thread.

This is all looking very familiar. I'm sure I've read this somewhere before....

And you are indeed correct that my comments are public, man. And I'm glad they are

 

[Monistic Idealism]

This is all looking very familiar. I'm sure I've read this somewhere before....

Because I had to shove it back in your face since you're lying about what happened. You didn't merely acknowledge that the "I" exists, you admitted that you understand what I mean by the "I". Come on man...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If it were merely that simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

 

[Monistic Idealism]

If it were merely that simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

lmao you just proved me right in 2 different ways:
1. You just admitted this is a more fundamental issue, which is an admission that it's a topic of study in its own right (philosophy of self) which means its deserving of its own thread if we want to get more fundamental. For instance, we all affirm things as true but we're not grilling each other on theories of truth right now since that's a more fundamental topic deserving of its own thread. The mere fact that you're not grilling everyone and de-railing everyone else's threads by going off on theories of truth right now is proof of this.
2. Your own source says the same thing I've been saying:

Most philosophical definitions of self—per Descartes, Locke, Hume, and William James—are expressed in the first person.

That's exactly what I'm doing lol

 

[momo666]

Yes you did and you still haven't given an answer you coward. Pick one:

No, I did not, you dishonest coward. I am under no obligation to pick from any of your beliefs. I will defend my own claims and for that you need to quote me directly. But it's ludicrous that you would think I somehow have to adopt one of your beliefs.

>I understand nothing about the I
>I understand that the I exists and notices

Those are not quotations of me. However, notice that what you are stating is not, in fact, a dichotomy. The reason you fail to see that is because you don't really read my comments and merely blindly repeat your own assertions. Observe:
Remembering that "I" is a term that is used to refer to "that which notices", your false dichotomy can be thus restated:
>I understand nothing about that which notices
>I understand that which notices exists and notices
To notice is what this supposed thing does, not what it is. So it can not serve as an explanation of this "I" because you were not asked to explain what that thing does, but what that thing is. And since only existing things can perform acts, one need not state that which notices exists, since that is already implied. So "existing" is not an explanation of "that which notices".

This is how clueless you are. You don't even realize the second option of your supposed dichotomy is really an elaboration of the first one.

You have to pick one. Either you understand or you do not understand. That's the law of excluded middle, there is no third option. To state otherwise is to be a logic denier...</U>

Except that I don't and that nonsense you posted there is not a dichotomy to start with. It's just that your poor understanding of logic prevents you from seeing that obvious fact.

<U>

The problem is you already claimed that there is an I that notices, which contradicts the claim that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I:

That is not a contradiction. One can say there is something that notices while also saying that which notices has not been explained. So you are just grasping at straws here.

Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

That is logically impossible.

And I will just point out to everyone what an absolute hypocrite you are. You whine and lie all day long that people supposedly ignore your points and that they repeat themselves yet here you are, ignoring the better part of my comment that demonstrates your claim to be absolutely devastating to your supposed case and you just repeat the very assertion I just analyzed. I just thought you act this way because your ego is hurt, but now I seriously consider the possibility that you are insane.