If we can ground objectivity then it is

But is that something we can do

Sure, you start with the principle of being and you can discern plenty of things from obviously correct premises

But on the grounds of discussing things like religion is subjectivity not inescapable

It's plenty escapable

By all being the same faith I assume

But we aren't

@Doktor Goon @Eoppa The scientific method has no scientific proof for its validity. It is incomplete under its own bearing (authority), as the Godel was also able to say. To accept it as true, another reference is needed, and another. Thus it must be ground either arborescently or hierarchically, but it must be ground, as pragmatism dictates.

Yeah idk why you said that but sure

That is correct

It's the argument behind this one

But I'm not arguing scientific method

@Doktor Goon we don't need to be the same faith to argue objectivity

@Doktor Goon replace "scientific" with whatever method you are arguing

I'm completely fucking lost this started with Mongolite telling me I do things by ego

Which if you know anything about psychology that's why anyone does anything

The ego is a spook <:really:591181753625083905>

But I feel like that is defining psychological egoism into truthhood

@Doktor Goon According to the Freudians. Other psychological positions must deny the Freudian account. They cannot all be compatible under "psychology"

I'm more of a Jung kinda fellow

@Doktor Goon For example, Jung denied Freud's ego as too reductionistic of the self.

Join the Deleuzian anti Freud coalition

In Latin, "ego" just means "I" in the first person, but Jung saw that as too limited within the experience of the self to either account for the self or how the self tells stories about itself across time. Rather, Jung saw the self more than just a referent. It was alive at each point it was referenced, though not distributed across all its references.

Thus, to Jung, the self wasn't gestalt nor operative.

Freud was like, "what are you on bro".

😂

Freud was like "how's it about sex though"

@Doktor Goon But, Eoppa makes a good point. If you can understand the subject this way, for what it is, you then have to talk about how it came there, both historically and logically; correspondantly and consistently. This is why subjectivism from subjectivism (from subjectivism....) only gets you as far as "elephants all the way down". And, reality isn't built on strict reference alone, since patterns are perceived, not just patterned. That story of self cannot tell you the origin, either in terms of an originating act or an originating subject. And, so you come to a place of mystery (as mysterium).

But what does this have to do with Mongolite being a tool

I dunno. Maybe I'm giving him a good argument. Maybe I'm giving you a good argument. I care about the truth and telling it, which means I'm saying this to the people with ears for the truth, nothing else.

That's all well and good

I don't think it's solved much

Since the big root of the argument is "my rejection of christ"

ok nerds

^

@Doktor Goon Solving implies dissolution. The centralizing claim of Christianity is that Christ is the Logos; that is, in essence, "ratio rex", Word, the first fire, the last law, the rule of rule, or the resolution of resolution, and so on. This philosophy is what holds Christianity together technically, historically, and, by definition, logically. Thus, the rejection of Christ (through rejection of the Logos) is true for you extensively (ie if you say you disbelieve), but that is also true for most "Christians", for they primarily pay sincere lip service to the Logos. However, if you intensively reject the Logos, you adopt a "revolutionary spirit" against all truth or standing, as seen in devout communists, for example. Like you said the root is found in rejection, but the treetop is found in welcome. The Christian answers that the axis mundi of this tree is this golden branch. It is a metaphysical assertion. Nonetheless, the question of meaning for any man is: What is his rejection of Logos, the golden branch? Yet, he is answered in the questions of how far down, how simply, and how intensively he rejects Logos, not in his knowledge of climbing, branches, and abstraction (as many "Christians" have you believe).

This is a long winded answer not for a question that's "Why is this sperg being a dick to me?"

@Doktor Goon treat it as a technical meme, a high effort/ long form shitpost

You know what

I will

spergs sperg, for it is their nature