If you want to discuss the nature of reality using a similar lexicon to what philosophers use, I recommend consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/
I have a very strong philosophical background. I’ve discussed many of those topics with the authors.
Basically, what I’m trying to do is draw the attention to something that is usually missed by people engaging in these topics.
That is: absolute is not objective.
There is a fundamental disconnect with the way most people organize truth and reality.
They do no have clear concepts of objective and absolute. The sequence on how to use words, is basically 6 parables that state words are not absolute. It’s such a simple point, but most people can look right at that sentence, and not have the foggiest clue what it means.
Traditionally (in the history of philosophy) the Rationalist is the lone defender of the distinction between objective and absolute.
I’m curious if that tradition is held up by contemporary rationalists.
It may help if you stop focusing on words which seem to be tripping you up when they are used in different contexts. The word “rationalist” means very different things in different context. Don’t conflate “rationalist” in the strict philosophical sense with rationalist in the sense meant generally on LW.
If you want to discuss the nature of reality using a similar lexicon to what philosophers use, I recommend consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/
I have a very strong philosophical background. I’ve discussed many of those topics with the authors.
Basically, what I’m trying to do is draw the attention to something that is usually missed by people engaging in these topics.
That is: absolute is not objective.
There is a fundamental disconnect with the way most people organize truth and reality.
They do no have clear concepts of objective and absolute. The sequence on how to use words, is basically 6 parables that state words are not absolute. It’s such a simple point, but most people can look right at that sentence, and not have the foggiest clue what it means.
Traditionally (in the history of philosophy) the Rationalist is the lone defender of the distinction between objective and absolute.
I’m curious if that tradition is held up by contemporary rationalists.
It may help if you stop focusing on words which seem to be tripping you up when they are used in different contexts. The word “rationalist” means very different things in different context. Don’t conflate “rationalist” in the strict philosophical sense with rationalist in the sense meant generally on LW.
Yeah, I made a huge mistake.