What Religion are you?

[Cadsuane]

Again, saying that you can be a solipsist without arriving at it rationally does not establish a factual basis.


Hey guys, 2+2=5.

I don't need to support that statement, I said it, therefore it's true, and you're an idiot peasant if you disagree.

There's a difference philosophically between arriving at something rationally and rationalistically. Rationalism doesn't mean "to be rational". And besides, it's essentially a true statement that I supported adequately; I didn't just "say so", you're just that dense. For instance a religion that holds as a belief that life is a dream and the material world is an illusion is said to be a solipsistic religion.

It's more like I'm saying 2+2=4, and you're asking me how I know that's true (math proves math!), and I'm solidifying my opinion of you as an aspie simp.

Awaiting your next "nuh uh".

[Faris]

<_>

[Brill Weave]

Do you see the chaos you have started Firas?

[Plow]

There's a difference philosophically between arriving at something rationally and rationalistically. Rationalism doesn't mean "to be rational".

Either word works.

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

Rationalist means based on... dun dun dun... rational methodology.

And just in case you still don't believe me:

Rational may refer to:

* Rationality, a concept of reason

So, yes, rational works just fine there, thanks.

You would think a philo grad student would realize really simple shit like that...

Or maybe you're not as informed as you want to pretend you are. That's most definitely what it looks like when you try to look intelligent and instead show a lack of understanding.

And besides, it's essentially a true statement that I supported adequately; I didn't just "say so", you're just that dense. For instance a religion that holds as a belief that life is a dream and the material world is an illusion is said to be a solipsistic religion.

OK. You're right about this, if it's not based in rationality, it's not rationalist.

However, for the vast majority of solipsist philosophies, it is based in the rational process of thought, not a raw declaration based on faith.


Which still leaves us with this:

Descartes was a rationalist, not a solipsist,

As not only a raw factually incorrect statement, as Descartes boiled his epistemology down to solipsism, and was in fact a solipsist for a time, before his religious breakthrough brought him to trust empirical methodology...

But also still right on part with a statement such as "he's not a physicist, he's a scientist!"

Not to mention the fact that Descartes only practiced rationalism in the fields where empirical processes were (and in many cases still are) incapable of providing answers at the time. After deciding that his senses were trustworthy, his methodology was empirical whenever possible.

nor does "cogito ergo sum" lead to solipsism. Nice try though.

And the fact that thinking proves existence is still the core rationality behind the idea that only our minds provably exist.

Awaiting your next "nuh uh".

[Effluo]

Firas brought the Jihad to BG... damn Muslims

[Cadsuane]

Either word works.



Rationalist means based on... dun dun dun... rational methodology.

No, it doesn't.

Rational may refer to:

* Rationality, a concept of reason

Notice that wiki didn't say it can refer to RATIONALISM. Rationality is not rationalism. This didn't really prove anything grammatically.

When referring to rationalism you're usually referring to this idea:

Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge.

As opposed to believing that knowledge requires sensory experience (empiricism).

Rationalism does not just refer to the use of rational principles because this would be overly simplistic. I've already explained this:

Rationalism is a philosophy or epistomological stance that vindicates reason as a source of knowledge. This is in contrast to earlier scholastics who argued that faith and revelation were the only sources of knowledge (or at least that it was superior to reason) and later empiricistic positions which argued that experience is the only source of knowledge. Next time at least look up the wikipedia article before making yourself look like an ignorant twat.

Rationalism refers a system of philosophy characterized by philosophers like Aristotle, St. Aquinas, Descartes, Liebniz, etc., etc. I repeat, it is not a synonym for rationality.

OK. You're right about this, if it's not based in rationality, it's not rationalist.

However, for the vast majority of solipsist philosophies, it is based in the rational process of thought, not a raw declaration based on faith.

Sure, except solipsists aren't always philosophers which keeps the intersection between solipsism and rationalism marginal.

Which still leaves us with this as not only a raw factually incorrect statement, as Descartes boiled his epistemology down to solipsism, and was in fact a solipsist for a time, before his religious breakthrough brought him to trust empirical methodology...

Descartes proved his own existence, but to be a solipsist he would have had to assert that it was all that could be proven. He didn't, so he wasn't a solipsist. He certainly contributed to it, but "I think therefore I am" needs to be accompanied by "and that's all we can know" to be solipsism.

Not to mention the fact that Descartes only practiced rationalism in the fields where empirical processes were (and in many cases still are) incapable of providing answers at the time. After deciding that his senses were trustworthy, his methodology was empirical whenever possible.

I'm dying for you to expand on this.

[Faris]

PLEASE FORGIVE ME;;

[Neosutra]

2 old ladies were sitting on the porch of the richer of the 2.

The owner says "My parents paid for me to go to college, so that I could live out my dreams and have a good life."

The other says, "That's nice."

The owner then says, "And my mother bought me that Rolls Royce so that I could travel in comfort and style, and always make a lovely entrance."

The other says, "Oh, that's nice."

The owner says "And my father left me all this land and this beautiful house, so that I would always be taken care of, and could get myself through even when the world wasn't doing so well."

The other says, "That's nice."

The owner then says "I love thinking about all the great things they did for me. What did your parents do like that for you?"

The other one says "My parents sent me to reform school so I'd learn to say 'That's nice,' instead of "fuck you."




And so I say to you...



That's nice.

lol. That's nice.

Would be a great analogy if you assumed anyone that was more successful that you did so via handouts, instead of just working harder than you, which I am sure someone like you assumes.

"Those more educated know nothing of fields they dont have phds in, and certainly not more than a sophomore in poli-sci".

"Those more successful must have had handouts to get there!".

"Those who point out errors just dont understand!"

"Those who have achieved more must not have worked as hard to get there".

You're perspective of the world and everyone that disagrees with you is so blatantly ignorant that it goes right past offensive and jumps into just plain silly.

But oh wait, you've worked harder than anyone here will in their entire life, before you were even 18!

[Cadsuane]

Just to add, what the hell makes you think I'm a philosophy grad student?

[Arew]

Was raised Roman Catholic, I have family that's Baptist and have been to some of their services, and am now Wiccan.

[Effluo]

Location: Ft. Belvoir

I'm sorry

[EternityEnd]

Only a religion thread started by Firas could surpass all those started by Neo.

[Arew]

I'm sorry

lmao, I totally forgot about that. I've since moved the hell away as soon as I graduated. Was such a horrid place to live.

[Effluo]

Yes, it was pretty horrible. Glad I was only stuck there for 3 years, lol.

[Arew]

I was there about the same, I think about 2.5? Sophomore year till graduation.

[Effluo]

I was there about the same, I think about 2.5? Sophomore year till graduation.

Luckily I just had to live there while I was stationed in DC, and didn't have to deal with the school. I can only imagine what base schools are like ><

[Plow]

No, it doesn't.



Notice that wiki didn't say it can refer to RATIONALISM. Rationality is not rationalism. This didn't really prove anything grammatically.

When referring to rationalism you're usually referring to this idea:



As opposed to believing that knowledge requires sensory experience (empiricism).

Rationalism does not just refer to the use of rational principles because this would be overly simplistic. I've already explained this:



Rationalism refers a system of philosophy characterized by philosophers like Aristotle, St. Aquinas, Descartes, Liebniz, etc., etc. I repeat, it is not a synonym for rationality.

Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationality in the philosophical sense is the basis for rationalism.

You're too stuck on the layman's terminology-- the idea of rational as "reasonable."

See also

* Rationalism (disambiguation)

Notice it does in fact refer to rationalism?


The concept of rationalism is using rational means to arrive at a conclusion.


Again, I point you to the dictionary definition:

relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

This is not a hard concept to put together... rationally.

Sure, except solipsists aren't always philosophers which keeps the intersection between solipsism and rationalism marginal.

Not being a philosopher "officially" does not change rather or not you are a rationalist. To use a simple cliche: everyone's a philosopher.

Descartes proved his own existence, but to be a solipsist he would have had to assert that it was all that could be proven. He didn't, so he wasn't a solipsist. He certainly contributed to it, but "I think therefore I am" needs to be accompanied by "and that's all we can know" to be solipsism.

I'm dying for you to expand on this.

...

You don't actually know anything about Descartes at all, do you?

Read the wiki. Here, I'll give you the important part:

Descartes concludes that he can be certain that he exists because he thinks. But in what form? He perceives his body through the use of the senses; however, these have previously been proven unreliable. So Descartes concludes that the only indubitable knowledge is that he is a thinking thing.

Yes, Descartes *did* boil his epistemology down to solipsism.

And just for the lol factor @ neo's expense as usual:

Because God is benevolent, he can have some faith in the account of reality his senses provide him, for God has provided him with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him. From this supposition, however, he finally establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge about the world based on deduction and perception.

lol. That's nice.

Would be a great analogy if you assumed anyone that was more successful that you did so via handouts, instead of just working harder than you, which I am sure someone like you assumes.

"Those more educated know nothing of fields they dont have phds in, and certainly not more than a sophomore in poli-sci".

"Those more successful must have had handouts to get there!".

"Those who point out errors just dont understand!"

"Those who have achieved more must not have worked as hard to get there".

You're perspective of the world and everyone that disagrees with you is so blatantly ignorant that it goes right past offensive and jumps into just plain silly.

But oh wait, you've worked harder than anyone here will in their entire life, before you were even 18!

That's nice.


It wasn't an analogy.

[Plow]

Just to add, what the hell makes you think I'm a philosophy grad student?

and uh, you said some shit about "am I a philo grad student?" as if that was what was required to participate in a philosophy discussion, I would hope that comment wasn't made as a layman participating in a philosophy discussion...

[Cadsuane]

and uh, you said some shit about "am I a philo grad student?" as if that was what was required to participate in a philosophy discussion, I would hope that comment wasn't made as a layman participating in a philosophy discussion...

You really have a talent for misreading things. I said, if you don't have a graduate degree in philosophy, and you're talking about philosophy, cite contemporary philosophy in support of your argument. You know, that thing I've been doing throughout this thread? This would have been in response to your comment that you "think for yourself" which I assume was your excuse to ignore accepted definitions for things like rationalism and solipsism in favour of your own bumbling reinterpretations.

Speaking of which, how about those? Are you abandoning them finally or composing another tenuous rebuttal consisting mostly of petty personal attacks?

[Cadsuane]

Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationality in the philosophical sense is the basis for rationalism.

You're too stuck on the layman's terminology-- the idea of rational as "reasonable."

You're too stuck on a stupid simplified definition you invented. You can be rational without being a rationalist. See: David Hume.

Notice it does in fact refer to rationalism?

Notice how it's in the see also section which says nothing more than it's a related article?

Again, I point you to the dictionary definition:

A definition for rational or rationality. You're again not actually defining rationalism. How do you even not notice how absurd these arguments are? The only definition you haven't referred to in defense of your position is the definition of RATIONALISM which is simultaneously the only thing that's relevant and the only thing that proves you're completely psychotically unable to admit that you're egregiously categorically FUCKING WRONG.

Not being a philosopher "officially" does not change rather or not you are a rationalist. To use a simple cliche: everyone's a philosopher.

When losing an argument, resort to semantics mongering. At least you admitted it was a banality.

Yes, Descartes *did* boil his epistemology down to solipsism.

Notice how, having proved his own existence, he used that as an axiom to continue proving things? Descartes never stopped at self existence but used it as a first principle. Ergo, not a fucking solipsist.