Message from @sydtko

Discord ID: 654436175003648039


2019-12-11 21:23:22 UTC  

I found the next good meme

2019-12-11 21:23:24 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/628013859776626711/654433075811450916/0mxuf43m0x341.png

2019-12-11 21:24:24 UTC  

when I said the sub was repetetive

2019-12-11 21:24:27 UTC  

@Dodger101 i meant it

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/628013859776626711/654433342741151745/unknown.png

2019-12-11 21:24:28 UTC  

@actual_communist_boi Oh i saw you posting the quote tbh.Well if i remmember the dialectic started with the issue of exceptions and and then at one point you posted the responce to the objection from collapse from standford page

2019-12-11 21:24:51 UTC  

@Castore sure, I guess I need to read yoru PDF both on what the original and revised incoherence objection are

2019-12-11 21:29:43 UTC  

@Deleted User @Sasha This is for the boghossian stuff you were talking about earlier https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-018-0369-0

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/628013859776626711/654434666648174632/unknown.png

2019-12-11 21:31:30 UTC  

I'm getting baited by papers I know that are going to be utter trash

2019-12-11 21:31:31 UTC  

Fuck

2019-12-11 21:31:32 UTC  

Fuck

2019-12-11 21:31:34 UTC  

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk

2019-12-11 21:31:41 UTC  

@sydtko who are you

2019-12-11 21:31:48 UTC  

i didnt even ping you for the paper

2019-12-11 21:31:51 UTC  

Your father. Go to your room. Stop posting

2019-12-11 21:31:54 UTC  

triggered by eliminativism?

2019-12-11 21:31:57 UTC  

Or you're grounded

2019-12-11 21:32:20 UTC  

Triggered by non-eliminativists

2019-12-11 21:34:38 UTC  

i have a something that will really trigger you eliminativism cannot be self defeating because truth is a folk psychology notion https://philpapers.org/rec/PARITM

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/628013859776626711/654435906651947038/EGTZY7cVUAAjy7h.png

2019-12-11 21:35:27 UTC  

I mean, you could choose to "eliminate" occams razor the strongest eliminativist principle but...

2019-12-11 21:35:31 UTC  

What in the actual fuck does that mean to you?

2019-12-11 21:35:42 UTC  

Believing you can't make a distinction between identity and non identity?

2019-12-11 21:35:45 UTC  

🤣

2019-12-11 21:36:53 UTC  

And yes... all representative concepts are false as per to the concept they represent... that's obviously true

2019-12-11 21:37:13 UTC  

I can't imagine how this is a novel idea

2019-12-11 21:38:30 UTC  

```Nevertheless, the reply reveals that a mental fictionalist ought to be a kind of quietist. ``` I'm kind of biting, but that's just not the case... you can be a fictionalists of all sorts, enjoy saying false things, knowing they're literally false

2019-12-11 21:38:53 UTC  

So........ you're not bound to norms of old pragmatic discourse. IE: You ought not assert X unless you think X is true

2019-12-11 21:39:02 UTC  

Warranted assertibility

2019-12-11 21:39:13 UTC  

You'd want to live in the best world possible that benifits you not other people lol

2019-12-11 21:39:41 UTC  

If having African slaves benifits you and you were an egoist your want that

2019-12-11 21:39:56 UTC  

Yes? Generally? I mean, I think the world that best benefits me also happens to benefit others.

2019-12-11 21:40:16 UTC  

A world where I have a consumptive demand for the african slaves making blood diamonds is a better world where there isn't the demand

2019-12-11 21:40:33 UTC  

Granted, there's *an even better conceivable world* where there's a different demand, rather than blood diamonds

2019-12-11 21:40:36 UTC  

@sydtko not necessarily unless part of the benifit to you is some emotional attachment you have to people and value you place on them

2019-12-11 21:41:05 UTC  

Well, this is all fictional discourse, right?

2019-12-11 21:41:37 UTC  

So the demonstration of the principle is that hypothesizing and constructing counterfactual situations are fictions, they are not literally true

2019-12-11 21:41:48 UTC  

So we've slipped into fictionalism... as always happens

2019-12-11 21:42:14 UTC  

So it's like... what do you want from me? To legitimately have the emotional attachment to them? Because I don't think I'll ever have that

2019-12-11 21:42:35 UTC  

Or do you want me to speak about the principles or belief system I have on how one ought to think about this type of hypothetical?

2019-12-11 21:43:35 UTC  

I don't really care if you have emotional attachment to them or place some kind of moral value on people. I don't generally

2019-12-11 21:43:58 UTC  

Ok, so my emotional attachment seems irrelevant now. So what did you want answered?

2019-12-11 21:45:17 UTC  

I'm not asking you to answer anything lol I'm just saying what benifits you isn't necessary what benifits others so this idea that utilitarianism is generally what egoists want is silly