Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 684128019807469601
You're asking me to argue idealism from the perspective of an idealist
which is impossible
Well I'm yet to see a refutation of it. You said it was false, and your argument as to how it was false presupposed the falsity of the conclusion, which I assume you know is a fallacy. You cant presupose the falsity of a conclusion within the argument against that conclusion
Also I never demanded that. I demanded an argument against idealism which doesnt presuppose invalidity of idealism within one of its propositions
To suppose that idealism is real for a minute is to be an idealist entirely
That's just ridiculously wrong. I can epistomologically conceive of X without believing X
Varies on if you're an empiricist or not
Let's say it's a warm day
but you're cold
Can you conceive it's warm?
No because you're cold
You can make-believe all you want
it's still cold lol
You are a rationalist
I'm an empiricist
You can conceptually? But again i seem to be noticing a pattern that whenever you get cornered, you start derailing
So, let me ask again. You asserted X was wrong. I asked for evidence as to how X was wrong. Your argument against X presupposed the falsity of X within one of its propositions, therefore making it a fallacious argument. Do you have an argument that's not fallacious against the position you asserted that was wrong
It's human nature to derail when in bouts of confusion
Its a yes or no question, dude
So forgive me for being human
I haven't derailed, i've sticked to the topic in fact
Are you going to answer my question?
well you said it was human nature, and im human thus id be bound by that rule, and im evidently not since i havent derailed
are you going to answer my question though?
Its a simple yes or no question
I will answer your question
Alright, lets see it
I did answer it.
Quote yourself.
There is nothing wrong with my answer of previous
That idealism is a tool of mass control
I demonstrated what's wrong with your previous argument
And I still don't understand your criticism
You're typing in fucking hebrew
Your argument presupposes the falsity of the conclusion it aims to rebut, in one of its propositions
Let me clear this up for you
Appreciate it
Click <#587029719162290176>
Suppose that i believe morality is objective.
You asked me to back that up
And I, in one of the premises in the argument i aim to use to substantiate my claim that morality is objective, ASSUME that morality is objective
So, proposition X is true because Y and Z, and Y is true because X is true. this would be a circular argument and not a coherent refutation
I don't understand why you're struggling with this, its quite simple
So you're asking me to use a situation where idealism is true to argue the falsity of idealism
Well then I can't because it's true in that situation