Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:27 pm

This post of my will be used as an OP for this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2 people are driving through the jungle in a car. They stop to rest and enjoy the view, when they notice this animal in the vicinity:

Image

Person A says it's a tiger, it's a carnivore, dangerous to humans, and that it's best to get back in the car.
Person B says it's a cute, harmless, kitten, that it's a vegetarian and that it likes to cuddle.

Person A proclaims person B hopelessly brain-dead and gets in the car.
Person B waits for the tiger to approach him with open hands, ready for hugging and cuddling.

Person B continues: See, it's just a cute, harmless, vege... *FUUUUUUUUCCCKKKK* person B exclaims! The tiger tore his arm off. *AAARRGGHHH MOTHERFUCKER*, he continues in pain. As the tiger is feasting on his arm, person A says: You just got proven wrong, buddy. Person B: NO I DID NOT, SEE HOW IT IS NICE AND TAME AND *OH GOD NO*, he screams again, as the tiger breaks his spine and tears his head off, then proceeds to eat it.

Does person A need to claim to be brilliant in order to recognize that B is a hopeless, brain-dead moron? Does person A claim to be right just because he is right, or does he claim to be right because that's how reality is, despite of B's incredible ability to lie about and deny reality, even when it's hitting him in the face? Does person B's words alter reality? Do they have a magical power, or not? What does person A need to do, precisely, in order to prove to B that a tiger is a dangerous carnivore, if B is so fucking stupid and delusional and insincere that he claims it's not as it is eating him.

When it comes to reality-denial, there is really not much one can do to rationally convince the other, because by denying reality the other has already renounced rationality. The only way it may be possible to convince such a person of reality again, is by understanding what is the primary cause of their reality denial in the first place. If it's a case of fear of suffering, then it needs to be made apparent to them that they will suffer more if they choose to deny reality than if they choose to be delusional. If it's a case of insistence on denying reality for the sake of being consistent with one's previously indoctrinated beliefs, then they may, like person B, insist that reality is un-real and that what is un-real is real despite being proven wrong by the very reality they reject.

So if me and somebody else are sitting in the open and it begins raining, and it makes us both wet, and that other person denies that there is rain despite being drenched in it and having no apparent medical condition that would cause him not to be able to sense this... I honestly don't know how to rationally engage that person, in such a situation, and as I previously noted, I don't think it is possible at all.

In nature, stupidity is usually swiftly punished, so a retard cutting off his legs (just search on youtube "retard cut off his legs") enjoys the consequences of his actions as he is unable to survive. In human created environments, the retard will become almost like a star, and in some societies he will even get handouts.

And people like UPF just LOOOOVE this. They love how retards like them can now escape the natural consequences of their retardation. Now they can claim that strength is weakness, weakness is strength, independence is dependence, dependence is independence, stupid is smart, smart is stupid. They can invert reality as much as they want, they can lie without consequence, yay for them.

And then those of us who call them out, are claimed by other reality-deniers to be the true reality deniers. What a perverted game. And that passes for philosophy in modernity, folks.
I guess my main complaint can be summed up as such: It is way too easy to lie, especially in modern societies. It is also too easy to accuse others of lying, and it is too easy to ignore reality because we are to a large extent protected from it, making unnecessary a honest and direct relationship with it. So people can hide behind whatever lies and delusion they want... either their own, or the state-invented, or religious ones... anything goes. And then folks like statiktech can say "well, person A says this, B says that, but where's the proof" even as B is getting torn apart and killed.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


There is no way to rationally engage such people, like in a philosophical discussion, but because their delusional beliefs will often result in undesirable consequences for non reality-deniers, ways of dealing with reality-deniers must be found. This thread shall thus primarily serve that purpose: it is to contain discussions and ideas on how to deal with reality-deniers in various situations.

The secondary purpose of the thread is to highlight and explain the particular methods reality-deniers use in an attempt to portray their reality-denying as reality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1744
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:59 pm

When reason fails to resonate with those irrational, violence never does.

As can be observed from the example, violence is the golden rule. Those who are brain-dead obey violence first and foremost. They demand that life and existence teaches them "the hard way". Because the "soft way", nuance, intelligence, is beyond and far above them. Their brains are not evolved enough for it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:20 am

Imagine this situation: You and X decide to have an argument on whether there is an elephant in the room, and X decides to argue that there is, and you are arguing that there isn't. Let's say we're talking about an adult elephant and the room is 5 cubic meters.

You think to yourself that this is going to be easy, as there clearly isn't an elephant in the room. Nevertheless, you decide to come up with plenty of arguments why there isn't an elephant in the room. First you point out the obvious - that if there were an elephant, at least one of our senses would perceive it because it occupies plenty of physical space (touch), is quite big (sight) and probably doesn't have a very neutral smell either. Next you point out that, even under the absurd assumption that all senses are completely failing us at the moment (as opposed to for example optical illusions, where only sight would fail us), it would be next to impossible to get an elephant to come here as it is very expensive, it definitely couldn't have passed through the door, so unless the room was built around the elephant (which you know it wasn't), there is just no way for it to be in the room. You continue on and on giving reasons.

Then X's turn comes. X says: "The elephant is in the room."

See how easy it is to tell a lie?

What can philosophy possibly do about it? How do you convince X, if every single possible standard you conceive is rejected?

If it is so easy to lie and lying undermines the possibility of having a rational philosophical argument, then philosophical argumentation is way too easily undermined and thus ineffective. This calls for some alternative, less desirable and less... civilized methods of dealing with reality-deniers. But given that their reality-denying is often threatening to the maintenance of civilization itself, that is fully deserved.

First option is to use a form of deceit, which would be reactionary deceit in this case as it would be retaliating against the true deceiver, the one who initiated deception.
The second option is, as my OP (and AEon) suggested, violence.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:47 am

Argument from consequences...
If there is an elephant in the room, and of what we know of elephants, then it should do this and this...
It will need to eat, to drunk, to breathe...we can now test the hypothesis by controlling the four-dimensional space/time this organism is hypothetically occupying.

The reaction of the liar will give away the lie, or his conviction that he actually believes he is not lying.
If enough liars are convinced there is an invisible elephant in the room, for all intents and purposes, there is one there, in their minds.
Whether there is one, will not matter, because their belief will make them act as if there were, preventing them from testing their hypothesis on the grounds that the animal ought not be harmed...
Thou shall not...

The noetic organism, in their communal heads, need not have a phenomenal signature.
The infected by it minds will convert the shared abstraction, and affect the time/space they occupy, as if there were a real elephant.

One defensive argument they will use is:
"Prove there is no elephant in the room"....the argument form the negative...or
"What does it matter if there is or not a actual elephant, it feels good, it gives us pleasure, to think there is, to be positive, so why be so negative?"
Pascal's Wager....
"Nothing is lost by the belief that there is an elephant that cannot be proven"
But there is a loss.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Fri May 06, 2016 8:40 pm

Before speaking about how to deal with reality-denial, let us first take a step back and explore further the mechanics behind reality-denial, which could possibly answer why it is so detrimental to things which we, or at least some of us, hold dear:

1)Memetic survival (intellectual/mental conflict, philosophical argumentation)
2)Genetic survival (physical conflict, fighting/war)



The consequences of reality-denial for Physical/Genetic conflict and survival



It is obvious how reality-denial is detrimental to surviving physical conflict– if one is faced with a real threat whose existence he denies, or if he has poor judgment and thinks that what is a threat is not a threat, one puts their own life in peril. The consequences of being a reality-denying imbecile usually swiftly follow with regards to physical conflict and survival, as my tiger-example in the OP shows.
The consequences may be postponed if society intervenes, so a stupid person who thinks tigers are cute kittens to be cuddled with may be prevented by the society from going in the vicinity of a tiger, or may be saved and the tiger may be shot by guards if he does manage to get into its vicinity. He may even live his whole life and die a clueless retard, believing tigers are cute cuddly kittens, if he was consistently protected by society from putting that belief to the test.
The consequences can never disappear though – society has to put resources and effort into saving retards from their own retardation, so in place of a single retard suffering, the entire society suffers.


Memetic conflict
is a bit more trickier.

The equivalent of war/fighting for physical conflict would be philosophical, rational argumentation with connection to reality for memetic conflict. Philosophical, rational argumentation demands communication.

Words sharing the referent is necessary for any kind of communication to occur in the first place – if I say „tree“ and somebody thinks of a small furry animal that meows, communication has failed because for them that word has a different referent than for me . Reality is the common referent accessible to all (or, at least, those of us with healthy senses) that allows for communication in the first place. A child learns what the word "apple" denotes by their mother pointing to an object in reality that is perceptible to both. The fact that the word "apple" even though used in different contexts by different people at different times stands for the same thing is what makes it possible for us to say "apple" and the other person to understand what we mean. Yes, relative to the context of a particular speech, "apple" can also denote a category of things, that is to say many things sharing a similar set of properties (the type of things that is categorized as an apple), instead of a single concrete apple, which children also learn in later stages of cognitive development.

Even for abstract terms like "the" we agree that they perform a particular function in a language, and although the referent is in language, language still exists within reality so the referent to reality is vaguely present even in this very abstract sense.

People who deny reality thus deny the common referent which is necessary for communication to occur at all, and they continue communicating usually by inventing a more pleasurable and feel-good common referent, and although the constituents of this common referent are based on reality, their sum is not. A frequently used example to explain this is that of a Unicorn (horse+horn) or Pegasus (horse+bird wings). Although horses, horns, and wings, exist individually, their combinations do not. Every fantasy is, to an extent, based on what was previously perceived, aka, it is based on reality (but again, to an extent/degree).

Therefore, language is no longer used as a tool for communication about reality, but as a toy for communication about whatever feels good, or it denies communication altogether and indulges in self-flattering hedonistic proclamations: „I am beautiful“, „I have value“, „I am the first to deserve sex“ etc. etc.

Given that it is so easy to undermine philosophical, rational argumentation with a simple lie, memetic conflict usually isn't resolved by rational means.
Instead, memetic conflict is mostly settled by more deceitful methods - trickery, seducing the emotions of the masses, flattery, etc. Consider religions – 90% and more of the world are religious despite religions selling obvious horseshit. How so? Simply, religions play to people's weaknesses, telling the masses that they have worth, that they are loved by God, promising afterlife and justice, providing a sense of belonging, etc.

Despite being untrue, religions dominate.

More about that in the next post.


Last edited by AutSider on Fri May 06, 2016 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Fri May 06, 2016 8:42 pm

Reality-denial and masculinity, femininity, environments.


Yes, that's right. Go fuck yourself, Kriswest.

First I will just note that when I am speaking about masculinity and femininity, I am talking from an evolutionary point of view. Men and women evolved to fulfill different sexual reproductive roles. Because of this, they evolved differently and have different traits and abilities. The abstract qualities and functions based on these traits/abilities are masculinity for those connected with the male sexual role and femininity for the female.

Men evolved to deal with the natural environment, the reality, directly, by either providing (extracting resources from nature) or protecting from it (sheltering). Both necessitate an honest relationship with reality because reality is objective, aka, outside of the human subject (brain) and thus doesn't possess any potential needs or wants one could exploit to get what one wants. If you're starving in the middle of the woods, reality doesn't give a shit if you call it immoral that it doesn't magically conjure food for you, or if you cry, or if you lie and say: „Food will appear in front of me!“ or „If food doesn't appear in front of me, I will do X to harm reality“. None of that works. Either you learn how to acquire food, or you die. This was the male task.

Femininity is about seeking the best genes to replicate, the most alpha male, the one who can deal with reality most efficiently so that she is protected from it and provided for. Females are not on average as strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, etc. as males (although it is worth pointing out that the gap in intelligence is significantly smaller than other gaps), they are not capable of dealing with reality on their own, so they submit to the strongest masculine entity they find, which is either an individual alpha male (traditionalistic, obsolete in modernity), or the abstraction of the alpha male - the state. This protection and provision allows females to freely act on their nature and fulfill their reproductive role, within the safe confines of the alpha male's physical and memetic domain. This means that not only did females evolve to be less capable of dealing with nature and thus less capable of an honest relationship with reality, but that in a typical environment in which humans live there is no incentive for them to have an honest relationship with nature because others deal with nature/reality for them.

This is the core reason for the detachment, in short – sheltering. And that is why it is so prevalent in feminine minds.

And while the feminine approach (reality-denial) may function, it is very situational – it only works while the said feminine entities are protected by a masculine entity from reality.

Just like a child can only play around and think that a tiger is a pussycat while its parents protect it.

Since the social environment created and maintained by the masculine entity of the state consists of mutually dependent subjective agents with their own needs and wants, feminine entities can manipulate those needs and wants to get away with their reality-denial and even force others to deny reality for the sake of their feelings. For example, a female may say that unless she is treated as equal to men (unless a man is willing to deny reality, suspend reason and evidence, and treat her as equal when she is not so), she will withhold sex and attempt to socially ostracize that male by speaking negatively about him to other females.

The problems occur when a feminine approach is taken to deal with reality. The perfect example of this is how feminists want to deal with Muslims… you can only blackmail and emotionally manipulate entities which are either feminine or forced to be feminine, an average female cannot control and manipulate an average male without the daddy state standing behind her and holding a gun/sword to that man's throat. If the daddy state does nothing, females get groped, raped, beaten, etc. because masculinity dominates femininity unless prevented to do so by another masculine entity.

On the other hand, it can be more beneficial to take a feminine approach when dealing with society/social reality, because there masculine traits – openly saying what one thinks, honesty, etc. can be considered hurtful and aggressive., so perhaps also a masculine approach to dealing with the social environment is also a problem?

It is because the social environment necessitates pandering to people's feelings that politicians are so feminine and have to constantly keep what they say under check. An exception to this are politicians who are/want to be the embodiment of masculinity themselves, instead of serving an abstraction – tyrants, dictators, monarchs, et cetera. Trump comes to mind – instead of playing the feminine game of pandering to feelings and not hurting anybody, he takes the more masculine approach of directly pointing out real problems and suggesting solutions. This is why many people have taken to him – he represents the masculinity that is lacking in modern times.


Memetic conflict cont. and more on environments


Memetic conflict works within the parameters of natural selection, and natural selection doesn't give a shit about truth, it is about fitness and adaptation to environment, which may also include dishonesty in any of its forms.
Dishonesty/reality-denial is quintessentially feminine as it is a consequence of weakness and not being able to deal with reality, a response to this inability. Take for example some animals which puff themselves up to appear bigger and more menacing, which is a physical type of dishonesty, trying to present oneself as more than what one is because one cannot deal with the other as what one truly is because of weakness.

A human social environment prefers disconnection from reality because the harshness of reality upsets the dull masses.
However, disconnection from reality is only fit if the person is either 1) disconnected about something irrelevant/harmless, 2) if the person's disconnection about a particular part of reality is compensated for by another person who is disconnected about it.
And it is not fit in the long-term as I will show below.

Natural environment necessitates an honest relationship with it, because otherwise one dies (as previously stated).

The human social environment exists within the natural environment, which exists within the larger environment of the cosmos. Most of the known cosmos is a very austere environment antagonistic to human needs. The comfortable, safe, sheltering environments are constructed by living organisms, the most comfortable/safest for humans being human constructed environments, particularly in the West. However, that is not how most of the universe is, that is not its default state.

What makes constructing such safe/comfortable environments possible in the first place is need which arises due to the lack of such an environment. Need is the mother of all invention, or something like that. Once human needs are placated in a sheltering environment, we can see the rise of stupidity, degeneracy, hedonism, and other kinds of behavior which lead to the downfall of a sheltering environment that made those behaviors possible in the first place, as it is impossible to be a hedonist in a natural environment of scarcity and impossible to be a degenerate without the system protecting you from the natural consequences of degeneracy.

The troubling contradiction is this – humans make it so that something which is unfit and swiftly punished in nature is acceptable and fit for human environments. Because the human environment exists within the natural one, it is still judged by natural standards, and so it will, eventually, collapse or get conquered because it contradicts the natural environment.
In a natural environment, because there is a scarcity of food, people will tend to eat as much as they can. This is evolutionarily fit behavior for this environment. However, to retain the same mindset in an environment of abundance leads to poor health and fatness. Yet, most people still do it – they respond very predictably and instinctively to their environment without giving much thought to long-term consequences of their actions.

This means that, in order to maintain civilization and resist succumbing to natural cycles of rise/fall of civilizations, it would be mandatory to think beyond the immediate environment and strive to be fit and remain strong in relation to nature/cosmos, not the human made environment, EVEN IF the human made environment currently allows for weakness. If one becomes weak, then one drains resources from the very environment that allows his weakness to persist. It is a self-defeating behavior in the long-term.

In other words, a behavior that is fit in human environments may only be made so in the short-term, until the human artifices fail, which is why it is important to think beyond human environments for fitness and be fit (strong) in relation to nature and cosmos.

Has this fantasy ever happened? That people, when given the chance to fuck things up and indulge in mindless hedonism and degeneracy, don’t do that, but rise above it and seek improvement through conflict even if there is no IMMEDIATE need for it?

Aside from a few, very few, exceptions, this is impossible. The majority of people, and I mean more than 90% , will always remain nothing more but manimals. Because of this, maintaining civilization seems impossible if humans are allowed to act on their instincts and fuck things up.

Thus the only way to maintain a civilization is to have a political system that doesn’t allow humans to act on their instincts and fuck things up - fascism or national-socialism or some other highly authoritarian system that forces people to remain strong and fit regardless of whether there is an immediate need for it or not, but I suspect that even in that case, sooner or later a generation would be born that would fuck it all up with nihilism and hedonism, thinking that they are “progressive”, “hip”, “rebellious” and the usual hippie nonsense. But maybe that can be prevented by proper education. Or the system would fail because authoritarian dictatorships are prone to corruption and can too easily turn into self-interested, short-term thinking oligarchies with no regard for their people.

It can be noticed that the masculine approach (adapting to nature/cosmos) signifies ascent progress, while the feminine approach (adapting to human environments) signifies descent, regress, collapse.

Because of this I also conclude that masculinity is generally superior to femininity, as males are better at adapting to more austere and demanding environments which constitute the majority of the cosmos, while females are better at adapting to sheltering male-made environments, reducing the significance of their adaptation, since it is dependant on masculine entities, and what is dependant on something else is weak/inferior in relation to it.

Then again, men are highly dependent on women to reproduce. Females give birth to a child, but it is because of the male that the child lives on.
Perhaps this analogy can be applied to natural cycles – the destruction/collapse of what was gives birth to a new system (feminine), and males make that system survive by providing for it and protecting it until accumulated feminine energies cause its collapse again in order to give birth to a new one…

Yes, I really went on a tangent with this environment talk, but it needed to be said.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu May 12, 2016 7:09 pm

The societal inversion of natural/real hierarchies of probability and possibility


In a social environment populated by delusional masses, the most practical and feasible solution, meaning one with the highest probability of succeeding at producing a desired outcome, may have the least chance of actually being executed, and the course of action with the lowest actual probability of succeeding at solving the problem may have the highest chance of being picked. Especially if it is a kind of social environment where decision-making depends on democratic processes - voting and mass consensus, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator further increasing the chances the decision will be detached from reality.

This is based on a mistaken perception of reality, more precisely, the principles which govern the interactions occurring in reality, wrongly assigning to them a divine purpose and meaning which is not there, and assuming the existence of a God, which is also not there. It is thus another form of (indirect) reality-denial.

An example: The problem is crossing the river. A small group of people suggest building a bridge. Others decide that it is a waste of energy doing that, when they can just pray for God to conjure a bridge for them. Regardless of the fact that building a bridge has a higher probability of actually solving the problem, people opted for praying instead, as it is a path of least resistance and requires no thinking or working, only blind obedience to a non-existent deity that is asked to do the work and thinking on their behalf, like a parent would for a child.

Is it any wonder he is called the Heavenly father, or the sky-daddy?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Tue May 17, 2016 8:40 am


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat May 21, 2016 5:37 pm

Great video, the reference to the tiger is really in the spirit of the thread.

I was banned on ILP until 20th for saying something along the lines of 'Fuck you, Kriswest' in one of my posts. I said that because Kriswest complained about inserting discussions about gender everywhere, and I was inserting it in this thread. Admittedly, I wrote that with an infantile, devilish smile on my face and hoped it would get taken as a light-hearted joke by anybody reading the post. Apparently, it warrants a week ban.

SJW-level moderation aside, I heard a great joke recently which immediately made me think of this thread.

The joke:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

More on this page:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The contrast between
1) rationalistic(not rational), scholastic, deductive approach of trying to infer particulars from previously established, often only presumed, general principles, or some authority, be it state or religious ancient texts
2) empiricist, scientific, inductive approach of first perceiving the particular, concrete, physically existing things, and building generalizations/abstract principles and categories based on it, where one's own mind is the final judge

You are free to do everything in modern society, of course - just don't examine reality by yourself, directly, without permission and guidance of the holy religious/state authority, that's blasphemous/non-openminded.
Where open minded means being open to having your eyes closed to reality.
Our senses are our connection to reality - is it any wonder that the first step of those who want to trick us into adopting their particular kind of reality-denial will be to attempt to destroy that connection?
Or, alternatively, they will try to insert some sort of a proxy, an authority that would decide which sensual information is accurate, and which isn't.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 740
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 31
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat May 21, 2016 7:18 pm

AutSider wrote:


You are free to do everything in modern society, of course - just don't examine reality by yourself, directly, without permission and guidance of the holy religious/state authority, that's blasphemous/non-openminded.
Where open minded means being open to having your eyes closed to reality.
Our senses are our connection to reality - is it any wonder that the first step of those who want to trick us into adopting their particular kind of reality-denial will be to attempt to destroy that connection?
Or, alternatively, they will try to insert some sort of a proxy, an authority that would decide which sensual information is accurate, and which isn't.



For moderns, “Open-mindedness” is their prime tenet. They reiterate it constantly. An open mind implies a mind free of one’s own judgments and reason and subject to the uncertainties of truth which they adore using as an absolute resolve to any form of conflict, mainly against themselves. To be “closed-minded” is to have your own standards and principles, a big no-no.
 
The same applies to their other beloved tenet of “being different”. They preach their uniqueness, not by worth or quality, but merely by the sole point of having one that is their own and not someone else’s. You see it in the media, the messages of self-uniqueness and the importance of being “original” and going against the grain and being “imaginative”, and any other message that posits some type of down to earth selfhood or healthy productive rebelliousness. That which one lacks, and if they are weak, they will either overcompensate for it or preach and proclaim to the world that they have it. They are desperate to show the world exactly what they are NOT.
 
They love expressing their egos, they just can’t show that they are their own and not part of the circulating amorphous mass of insignificant identities. As long as the message of their “originality” gets thrown around enough, that is sufficient to influence most simple minds that they are in fact unique.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:03 am

Gellner wrote:
A generation ago Frank Ramsay wittily defined scholasticism as pretending that what isn’t clear, is: a new species has arisen—pretending that what is clear, isn’t." [The Devil]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:10 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Gellner wrote:
A generation ago Frank Ramsay wittily defined scholasticism as pretending that what isn’t clear, is: a new species has arisen—pretending that what is clear, isn’t." [The Devil]

The two types of reality-denial:

Dogmatic, typically religious - claim that something which is not, is, and claim it with absolute certainty, leaving no room for doubt. It is considered to be exempt from the epistemological standards applied to everything else - so while there are no more proof for the Christian God than any other deity, Christians will claim that all other Gods are fantasy and theirs just happens to be the one. Dogmatism is usually applied about ideas people are most uncertain about and have no other way of proving them, so they have to exaggerate their position to one of absolute certainty in truth - 100% probability, no other possibilities, tendency towards absolute order.

Skeptic, typically leftist/liberal approach - Claim that something which is, is not, and set the standard of evidence conveniently too high for anybody to prove it, or reject the possibility of it being proven in the first place on the grounds that it would be bigoted to even consider such an idea - morality intervening in epistemology. The same means of obtaining knowledge that would lead us to conclude that animals are different from humans (observing animal behavior and human behavior, perceiving differences amongst them and generalizing on the basis of those observations) can be used to further perceive differences between humans - races and sexes, but then it suddenly and for no obvious reason becomes unreliable. Skepticism is usually applied very selectively to socially controversial ideas in order to undermine their validity to avoid hurting the emotions of the masses and keep them docile and happy, they exaggerate absolute uncertainty to the point that all possibilities are equal and no probabilities can be discerned, rendering discrimination/differentiation bigoted and biased, as it is indeed without basis from this point of view - tendency to absolute chaos.


Dogmaticism gives leeway to certain ideas and specially exempts them from further examination while still holding ideas it does not like up to ordinary epistemological standards while skepticism does the contrary and selects specific ideas whose validity it doubts on purely emotional grounds and holds them up to often impossibly high epistemological standards despite those ideas being based on the same kind of reasoning as other ideas which are accepted.

Both dangerous in their own right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1014
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:24 pm

There is also leftist dogmatism - claiming that someone is 'racist' because they're benefactors of privilege.

In this, they say that something 'is' and then set the standard for 'evidence' (more like mental gymnastics) against it too high and also threaten you with incarceration for even entertaining the idea and exploring it openly. It is no different in form from a radical religious person declaring some person heretical.

Another interesting exploration would be how they can concoct injustices such as the 'racism' claim because of institutional bias. It is, after all, more like conspiracy nuts - the simpler explanation being the natural one than the 'human' economic/education one for racial differences in intelligence. The only thing more 'complicated' about the natural explanation is that it flies in the face of their whole world view, causing massively unbearable cognitive dissonance.

I would say that the modern leftist is a religious egalitarian, more than a so called 'skeptic'.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1944
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:24 pm


If there is no interest in truth, no drive to understand reality which is strong enough to usually outweigh the need for psychological comforts then there can't be any kind of honest discourse about reality.

The burden to the ego can be lessened, things can be brought forward calmly, carefully step by step but is it not so that if somebody cares about truth that he may not agree on the spot or be defensive to try to save face but if there is love of truth, that he will adopt the proposed viewpoint if it makes sense?

But there are scenarios where one may compromise on truth. For example to invoke a sense of fairness in the other, even though this has nothing to do with being fair in the ancient sense, at least I don't think so. With this emotional ease induced in the other one may secure temporal cooperation when time is of the essence. Though it is a waste of time in the pursuit of truth about reality, as is being too nice in arguments. Not if this niceness requires effort anyhow.

As for fairness, somebody might say, the races are all the same in their potential. Another person might say, no they are not. The 'let's be fair and meet half-way' might say, "Well their body is different but their mind isn't." Which is a lie but this let's meet half on the way can and is often sold as a kind of reasonableness. Why not also throw in agreeableness with reasonableness and make it all about making up and being nice to each other.


So if truth does not matter to them then maybe bully them into something or create an argument which does two things - provide an advantage for oneself and pay the other with self-flattery. That's how modern man gets cucked and cucks himself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:29 am

"Reality deniers"...a rejecting of the limiting order found in world, and of the immutable, determining past the present/presence, is a manifestation of.

Goal: to replace the criterion of evaluating, from what leis out of human hands, forcing man to adapt to it, to one where man decides, within a controlled environment.
Only limiting rule that it does not disturb the other's, the neighbour's, "right", to live in his/her own private world.
"Open-Minded" but closed to all outside human artifices.
Open to the infinite possibilities of human brains released from the demands of an indifferent, world.
Argument founded on absolutes: if no absolute, certainty, is possible, then all is possible, and equally probable.
From this premises, all-inclusion demands the "benefit of doubt" be reason enough for parity.

Premise: all cost/benefits are to be intervened upon by the group, through institutions.
This can be sued to direct human actions, by determining the degrees of cost/benefit on the individuals.
Intervening upon costs, makes judgment trivial - all mistakes are childish exploration of possibilities- eternal play, with minimal costs.
Connecting [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] here...signaling personal quality using self-handicapping is reduces in risks, turning the competition into a game of absurdities: who can outwit the other by fabrication the most outlandish theory, art...
The outcome is not the cost but the appeal to the majority.
The "quality" of an idea measured by numbers/quantities, when the outcome is mitigated by a sheltering force that reduces the cost for any potential benefit.
Philosophy becomes political, sexual... seduction based: more attractive ideas are considered "true", whose that insult, hurt, are "wrong".



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:23 am

Reality-denial and modern SJWS vs more moderate liberals/leftists



From here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This recent development is interesting. More and more people are denouncing SJWs and feminism lately. The majority of people now call themselves egalitarians and will hold very confused views about men and women. From my experience, most often they will claim that the differences are minor, and mostly social constructs, and that neither males nor females are generally superior, but that they supplement each other in their weaknesses and strengths. Those a bit on the edgy side and a little less mainstream may also pretend to acknowledge some more important but still shallow differences between men and women, and they consider this proof of their intellectual honesty.

SJWs have succeeded in promoting leftist/liberal ideas in that the SJW ideology is such blatantly insane bullshit that now its less radical variants are starting to seem like a good deal in comparison to the average person. Those who are moderately detached from reality and moderately stupid will pride themselves in not being extremely so. Yet they still buy into the core of the leftist/liberal bullshit, which is also the core of SJW ideology. For example, they will also take immense pride in not being "racist", and they will constantly use comparisons to "nazis" and "fascists", usually only as buzzwords and without actually understanding, or caring to understand, NS and fascism. Not to mention the comparisons to Hitler, who is pretty much made out to be the modern Satan.

Then there are those women, like Shit-Maiden, who noticed that it is very unlikely that they will get more than the current amount of privileges in modern societies without male backlash, so they decided to settle for what advantages they had managed to procure so far. They will try to preserve the current status quo and pacify men and convince them that this is how things are supposed to be. Best examples are those anti-feminist-but-egalitarian, and usually anti-MRA chicks you can find on YT.

The ones with a somewhat deeper understanding of things, like Karen Straughan (girlwriteswhat), may support MRA, because their ideals are based not on an instinctive response to the current environment, but on an understanding of the prevalent and harsh natural environment underlying the facade of human technology and social constructs, so they may notice that castrating their own men legally will backfire in the long-term.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Continuing on that:

I dislike the Milo guy whom some consider to be at the forefront of this anti-SJW movement when it comes to RL activism. I see the entire idea of him opposing SJWs or whomever because he is gay so he cannot be criticized or shamed like heterosexual men as a capitulation to liberal/leftist tactics and an admission of defeat. The same goes for Christina Hoff Summers. The fight against SJWs is only a fight against the most extreme forms of detachment from reality, while the majority of channels doing that, like thunderfoot, Sargon, and all other channels like Bearing, Skeptorr, etc. (most of which I don't watch much anymore, and I never watched the likes of Bearing and Skeptorr) concede that the less extreme forms are alright, or even belong to these less extreme forms of reality detachment themselves.

Issues like inequality between the sexes are usually only admitted on a trivial level, such as pointing out female higher sexual value and male higher physical strength, mention intellectual differences, cognitive differences, differences in sexual roles, and suddenly everything becomes mystical, too complex to make any judgments confidently, or you're simply outright bigoted and a Hitler-like fascist nazi or something.

Inequality between the races is even more of a taboo and you're pretty much guaranteed to be called a racist if you point out some of the relevant advantages of whites over blacks, while of course nobody will mind if you point out blacks can run faster and jump higher.

If you think that the racial/sexual inequality should result in inequality before the law and inequality of treatment (as we humans do with pretty much all other categories, both within the species such as child-adult differentiation and interspecies, the human-other animals differentiation), you might as well have proclaimed your love for Hitler and the evil nazis, which means that 99%+ of the open-minded free thinkers will immediately disregard your position without any rational consideration.


All of this leftist/liberal and SJW nonsense is merely an adaptation to globalism and the need to integrate all humans in a single, multicultural society to avoid conflict and make them easily malleable by one global elite. Given that it goes against the nature of people to be around those from radically different genetic and cultural backgrounds it requires indoctrination and reduction of everything to pure hedonism that all can identify with, with no cultural and genetic identity permitted as they would give out the existence of relevant differences.

In a broader sense, it is merely a short-sighted response to the immediately perceptible human made environment, where submitting to authority and being tolerant is necessary to ensure short-term survival. In the long-term, however, it leads to extinction of some races, either "peacefully" by low birth rates and race-mixing, or violently, by increasing numbers of lower races breeding due to handouts by higher races.

The majority will, of course, choose the easier route and simply respond to the immediate environment, accepting the globalist premises. Going against this natural flow of things is difficult and demands immense mental strength. Going against the natural flow itself demands at least an intuitive understanding of natural processes, unlike going with the flow, which every beast and manimal does instinctively. It means being aware of cyclical natural processes of rise and fall, and maintaining a constant rise even if the environment allows for a fall. It means acting in response to natural environments even if the current environment is a sheltering, human one. It means being noble.



Conclusion and how all of this relates to reality-denial


The extreme insanity of the SJWs ultimately only served to reinforce the leftists/liberal delusions, because after witnessing such extreme insanity, less extreme insanity seems like sanity in relation to it. Few will actually continue questioning and exploring the issue beyond moderate liberalism/egalitarianism. This is because the basic premises of it were never questioned, since they are shared by both the moderately detached from reality (egalitarians, MRAs) and extremely detached from reality (SJWs, feminists).

Moderate reality-denial uses extreme reality-denial as its justification, and it places itself in the center and claims itself to be reality, while putting reality on the other side of the spectrum opposite to SJWs, making it seem just as insane. Egalitarians claim for what is actually reality to be another form of reality-denial on the opposite side of the spectrum from SJWs (the horseshoe theory). For example, since SJWs have a blatant hatred for whites and men and thus constantly criticize them (if you can call that criticism), anybody who criticizes blacks and women, regardless of whether their criticism is true or not, will be considered equally as crazy as an SJW. This is how SJWs were actually useful to egalitarians and moderates, whether they like to admit it or not.

That kind of reasoning is consistent with the logic of equality and egalitarianism, however the problem is that equality and egalitarianism themselves are reality-denying, since no two things are equal, much less all humans.

To people like that the primary concern is whether a claim is comparable to some other claim made by some other group of people, instead of whether the claim is true (has referents in reality). This already signifies the desire to detach from the real and remain in the clouds of their mental abstraction of equality and egalitarianism, which to maintain itself must denounce an honest exploration of reality. For them reasoning is checking whether a claim conforms to their own self-constructed ideals, instead of checking how it relates to reality. This makes them self-referential, since they deny reality as the referent, which also, obviously, makes them reality-denying.

Let us explore a concrete example of this kind of reasoning, and why it is reality-denying.
If somebody says "blacks on average are less intelligent than whites", it is irrelevant whether that person's claim is comparable to the claim of some black supremacist/SJW/whomever that "whites on average are less intelligent than blacks". The only thing that matters is whether the claim itself is true. You don't get to reject the claim as untrue just because its logical structure resembles some other untrue claim in the sense that both claims are proposing that one race is less intelligent than another. This is the faulty logic of egalitarianism, consistent with itself, but inconsistent when applied to sensual information about reality. The claim is to be rejected or not based on its referents in reality, or the lack thereof. If intelligence is a mental trait that has consequences in reality, then it is to be observed whether the expected consequences of intelligence manifest more in black or white societies, whether the behavior and accomplishments of whites or blacks demonstrates intelligence. But of course, this would require an honest engagement with the world - honestly perceiving and processing information. It is already taken for granted in modernity that most people are either incapable of it, or refuse to do it, which is why discussions are reduced to such pathetic "arguments" and word games and aren't philosophical at all. It is pseudo-philosophy parading as philosophy.

Like most reality-denial, its psychological foundation are cowardice (inability to cope with reality mentally) and/or stupidity (prone to indoctrination, incapable of perceiving beyond the immediate environment). If it ever gets a little glimpse of reality about something superficial and/or irrelevant, like the existence of God or feminism, it will attach itself to that and hold on to it, sometimes to the rest of its life, happy to separate itself from the more extreme reality-deniers, feeling sane in comparison. It is most observable in those people who after becoming atheists talk about and explore nothing else for years and make it the purpose of their life to spread atheism and talk about atheism, when they usually buy into humanist nonsense, which is Christianity sans God. Or those who are determined in fighting the "evils of feminism", not seeing that feminism is only a symptom of a problem that goes beyond ideology and is deeply rooted in culture, biology, physics, and ultimately, metaphysics, and that feminism is nothing but a consequence, not the cause.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:27 pm

Nihilists must become hypocrites to survive.
Their idea(l)s are so supernatural, surreal, detached from the real, that they remain theoretical and only useful when there is a system present that excludes the real.
Their theories only have meaning within brains, and so a community of like-minded, of brains infected with the same meme, is the idea(l) state.
Their theories cannot survive in a world indifferent to human artifices, art, symbols, language.
Symbolism, metaphors, only influence minds that share the same meme - the "magic" only has power when there is a shared semiology present, and no external factor to intrude it the communion.
They function within cults, or popular ones they call religion, or ideology.
This is why "cult" is the first attack on those that contradict them or do not buy into their lies.

Take any example...
Christianity....the christian will not survive long if he were to apply his own dogma religiously....
Take Buddhism, same thing.
Take Marxism....the socioeconomic experiment failed, because it was not quarantined from reality to a degree where its convoluted understanding of human nature could be shaped - social engineering.
Consider humanism...if the races were to be given their own territory to compete with each other, which race would dominate, once more? they know this and this is why race-mixing is central in their "philosophy".
Take this ongoing "debate" over subjectivity/objectivity.
If the individual were allowed to face the full consequences, good and bad, of his/her own judgments, there would be no debate, no question; no word-games would suffice to deal with the obviousness of cost/benefit.
Take these "intellectuals" who profess support for free-speech and democracy, their won ideals, in the way they define these terms, and how fast they exclude, and silence those that they cannot deal with.

Their theories only have meaning when they are sheltered. They are immediately contradicted, abandoned using all kinds of childish excuses, when they come face-to-face with a reality outside their theories.
Their thinking is so buried in Nihilism that not even they can live by their own principles.
In theory, and where some other force, some community, shares the burden, the costs for their poor judgments, their fantastic fantasies, their perspectives are equal to any other.

Look at how "philosophy" is practiced by these manimals.
Words purposefully left vague, connecting to emotions, to personal interests, to whatever the audience wants them to connect to - like abstract art. The artist simply insinuates, and the audience, after prodding, peer-pressure, marketing, buys into the lie and injects his/her own emotions, sensations, into the piece.
The art piece has no meaning. It is left to the discretion of the audience - to make it personal.
This world in "philosophy" - perspectivism pushed to its limit.
words left vague, sometimes meaning this, at other time that,....relating to any emotion, sensation, any esoteric desire coming out of the reader - always "misunderstood" by their enemies, and always "understood" by their friends.
Words left purposefully vague, because they are not supposed to clarify, connect mind to world, but to gratify, to impress, to trigger in the listener whatever (s)he desires the most.

Related to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...a call to one's own kind, even if it means certain death in the real world.
words used to impress, to seduce...because they have no use in the real word, like the spots car to the modern male - insinuating, attracting a particular kind of mind, a specific memetic sub-category of the genetic category "human".

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:42 pm

The confusion between  objective-reality,and objective morality, is the result of this association of world with humanity; the confusion of word, as representation of a subjective interpretation world, as indifferent objective, with the concept world itself.
From this the concept "good" can only mean "moral good", a product of an omnipotent god, or an omniscient humanity.  
God, as the singular representation of the multiplicity mankind.
Words the holy spirit, humanity's soul, connecting the individual with the whole.

The Modern Nihilist, being obtuse, or a coward, prefers this confusion, and he cultivates it, because he has no way of defending his desire to escape need/suffering, and mortality, other than by trying to numb himself, confuse himself, and also all others - because a delusional mind is still not safe, unless the world, as humanity, is also deluded with it.
It intuitively feels its own inadequacy and must reduce all down to it, hoping this will trick the cosmos.
He, then, religiously, rejects a world outside human principles, as if this subjectivity will protect him from a world that remains indifferent to human needs.
This is why he refuses to consider the meaning of such words as "love", and "morality" outside his humanistic Nihilistic delusions.
The possibility that "love", and "morality", describe behaviors that can be witnessed in other species, or that this behavior evolved to facilitate survival and reproduction, he needs to deny, because this will soil the purity of the words he relies on to remain safe, to feel safe form a world that does not bend to verbal pressures....no prayer can save him.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14003
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:23 pm

A christian';s last line of defence is the insinuation that the unbeliever "does not understand" and that Scripture is more complex than the infidel can imagine and hope to contradict.
This means that the Christian is unable to defend his own perspective and must evoke some ambiguity, only he and his fellow believers, can feel, as his last effort to imply what he cannot prove nor explain.

A Modern will reject a definition of "love" that connects the feeling to a survival necessity, and when pressured to explain the concept, in his own words, will use vague metaphors, sensations, other "positive' words also remaining ambiguous, to evade the challenge.
His belief is intuitive, instinctive... it cannot be defined or described using words - it has to be experienced.  
He will also deny this.
The motive has to come from "inside" each and every "believer."

All "philosophies" based on the Judeo-Christian/Islamic Ambramic Nihilistic dogma, will use the same method.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:40 am

Anfang wrote:

If there is no interest in truth, no drive to understand reality which is strong enough to usually outweigh the need for psychological comforts then there can't be any kind of honest discourse about reality.

The burden to the ego can be lessened, things can be brought forward calmly, carefully step by step but is it not so that if somebody cares about truth that he may not agree on the spot or be defensive to try to save face but if there is love of truth, that he will adopt the proposed viewpoint if it makes sense?

But there are scenarios where one may compromise on truth. For example to invoke a sense of fairness in the other, even though this has nothing to do with being fair in the ancient sense, at least I don't think so. With this emotional ease induced in the other one may secure temporal cooperation when time is of the essence. Though it is a waste of time in the pursuit of truth about reality, as is being too nice in arguments. Not if this niceness requires effort anyhow.

As for fairness, somebody might say, the races are all the same in their potential. Another person might say, no they are not. The 'let's be fair and meet half-way' might say, "Well their body is different but their mind isn't." Which is a lie but this let's meet half on the way can and is often sold as a kind of reasonableness. Why not also throw in agreeableness with reasonableness and make it all about making up and being nice to each other.


So if truth does not matter to them then maybe bully them into something or create an argument which does two things - provide an advantage for oneself and pay the other with self-flattery. That's how modern man gets cucked and cucks himself.



I think it stems from the false sense of Stirner's definition of atomic individuality.

To acknowledge a fact is letting others have power over you, which is a shame that must be saved face through whatever means, where one has to show, they still retain their power, their 'individuality', their 'unique perspective'.

False atomisms are at bottom dictated by hedonistic terms of pain/pleasure.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:44 am

AutSider wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Gellner wrote:
A generation ago Frank Ramsay wittily defined scholasticism as pretending that what isn’t clear, is: a new species has arisen—pretending that what is clear, isn’t." [The Devil]

The two types of reality-denial:

Dogmatic, typically religious - claim that something which is not, is, and claim it with absolute certainty, leaving no room for doubt. It is considered to be exempt from the epistemological standards applied to everything else - so while there are no more proof for the Christian God than any other deity, Christians will claim that all other Gods are fantasy and theirs just happens to be the one. Dogmatism is usually applied about ideas people are most uncertain about and have no other way of proving them, so they have to exaggerate their position to one of absolute certainty in truth - 100% probability, no other possibilities, tendency towards absolute order.

Skeptic, typically leftist/liberal approach - Claim that something which is, is not, and set the standard of evidence conveniently too high for anybody to prove it, or reject the possibility of it being proven in the first place on the grounds that it would be bigoted to even consider such an idea - morality intervening in epistemology. The same means of obtaining knowledge that would lead us to conclude that animals are different from humans (observing animal behavior and human behavior, perceiving differences amongst them and generalizing on the basis of those observations) can be used to further perceive differences between humans - races and sexes, but then it suddenly and for no obvious reason becomes unreliable. Skepticism is usually applied very selectively to socially controversial ideas in order to undermine their validity to avoid hurting the emotions of the masses and keep them docile and happy, they exaggerate absolute uncertainty to the point that all possibilities are equal and no probabilities can be discerned, rendering discrimination/differentiation bigoted and biased, as it is indeed without basis from this point of view - tendency to absolute chaos.


Dogmaticism gives leeway to certain ideas and specially exempts them from further examination while still holding ideas it does not like up to ordinary epistemological standards while skepticism does the contrary and selects specific ideas whose validity it doubts on purely emotional grounds and holds them up to often impossibly high epistemological standards despite those ideas being based on the same kind of reasoning as other ideas which are accepted.

Both dangerous in their own right.





Satyr wrote:
Complicating the Simple.

"What is most intimate is what has the potential of being the most known, and then understood.
This is how know Thyself reveals itself as a motto describing self-consciousness, and the self-discipline, and self-love, this may lead to.

But when the motive is not to clarify, to bring into the light, but to hide, obscure, darken, then what is most intimate, most knowable, is defined as the most complex, so as to hide its simplicity, relative to the unknown, alien.
It is the one who feels violated, vulnerable, by this coming into the light, this disclosure of essence, of spirit, of nature, which are the first to declare the complexity of what is the most knowable.
It is the simpler ones that hide their simplicity behind declarations of complexity, or of not fitting into any category.
It is the one who is afraid of being seen, of being understood, who is quick to declare himself far too intricate to be known through appearances.

To preserve the possibility of equality, or an ideal, or superiority, the mystery has to be reinforced. What is to be protected must be made into something mysterious, mystical, magical, so as to not lose the power over us, and the benefits it offers us.
Complexity, or the illusion of it, is exaggerated, so that the possible remain open to any hypothesis.
The mythology of sameness can only maintain itself in multiplicity when a secret thing-in-itself, some beyondness, some other-worldly, outside space/time, possibility remains part of the possible.
It is only because man is complex and genetics so mysterious, that no definite conclusion can be made concerning races, or sexual specialized forms.
Disparity is blamed on social conditioning and cultural effects, so as to avoid the probability that culture is a product of genetics, and not the other way around, and that only so much can be excused away using the same possible hypothetical reasoning.
Glass ceilings and systemic bigotry can go so far.
Instead of wanting to illuminate the human condition, one wants to hide it beneath artificial complexities."


Simplifying the Complex.

"In the area of philosophy, the thinker tries to find a few underlying patterns of human cognition, so as to construct ideals, ways of acting (thinking being an activity).
This reduction of complexity, by a sophisticated mind, to a few simple, underlying, patterns, presented as wisdom, insights, transcendental truisms, is what makes certain concepts easily imitated and repeated.
The simpler mind comes across them already reduced to their most concentrated form, and having no ability to comprehend the complexities involved in the reduction, it settles for repeating the concentrated linguistic representation, as if he understood it.

In this way Nietzsche's Will to Power, Freud's ego and id, Christianity's God, can be disseminated within a population that need not know about the complexities involved, but only learn and repeat the condensed form of the concepts in the form of a few phrases, and then repeat the defensive arguments in their support, without truly comprehending the relationships or the underlying structures involved.

This can result in the illusion of parity, or of understanding what is known.
The simpler mind having come across the phrases, and the words used to construct these phrases, alluding to simplifications of what is complex, becomes dismissive or convinced, without really knowing why or how."

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:22 am

Modern liberalism/lefties part 2


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A bit modified:

Far-left, like communism, and hippies, is taken to be good (if at least in theory), and far-right, like nazism, fascism is bad and evil by definition, or even the very definition of bad/evil, for some. So much so that calling somebody one of these two, or indeed being one of these two is taken to be enough in current political discourse for everything you say and advocate to be discredited and rejected without consideration.
Cucks accept these premises wholeheartedly, which is why they constantly cede ground to the leftists, which is what makes them cucks.
Lefties/liberals can only "argue" (complain and blackmail, really) against those who already accept the premises they are so used to, because then it's only a matter of working out the details.

When they say "racism" they want to see the other squirm like a little bitch and desperately try to disassociate themselves with it. The entire point of using that word is to make the reality-affirming idea that races are different (which, consistently with all our other behavior towards all other different categories of beings, would merit different treatment) look "wrong" and "immoral". The response of the cucks is usually one using the strategy of trying to outliberal the liberals, and it is ineffective as it only provides resistance to liberalism on the surface, while accepting the core idea that racism is bad. This is the kind of worthless, pseudo-opposition that is the only one permitted in modern political discourse, and this is great for liberals, as it means that either extreme liberalism or moderate liberalism will prevail. The cuck response doesn't address the core issue of relevant differences between the races, which is the source of both, problems in society like crime, and inequalities. It doesn't acknowledge that races tend to have an in-group bias for their own kind, meaning that to force them to live in the same society will inevitably result in inequalities, conflict, and instability.

The trying to outliberal the liberals strategy:

When a cuck is accused of racism towards blacks because some white somewhere said something "hateful", a cuck will make sure to disassociate himself from anything so bad and evil, and will probably point to some cases where it was blacks who were saying "hateful" things. It is based on the acceptance of the reality-denying liberal premise of equality in the first place and the denouncement of racism as something that is by definition "wrong" and "immoral", instead of exploring whether there are actual reasons for whites or blacks to be racist regarding certain things.

With the recent Orlando attacks the same thing is now happening with homosexuality and transsexuality, cucks on the right are now trying to outliberal the liberals and show how they are more open-minded about homosexuality and transsexuality than liberals themselves, because liberals prefer Muslims over sexual deviants, while cucks prefer sexual deviants over Muslims. This trying to outliberal the liberals is based on accepting the liberal premise that homosexuality and transsexuality are fine and something that ought to be protected in the first place.



Same with sexism and pretty much all of the leftist/liberal nonsense. It's all taken as given, they aren't used to having these ideas challenged, and anybody who does so is swiftly silenced by means of social ostracization or even having their life ruined by both, leftists/liberals and cucks.

I don't think Trump is necessarily racist himself, but I've never seen him become a bitch to leftists when they use one of their buzzwords, and he doesn't do a cowardly dance around some of the crucial issues like others do, which is why he is so dangerous - he doesn't submit. He isn't ideal, but the very resistance that he dares to openly display against current mainstream politics is admirable enough.

Just imagine somebody whose opinions are based on how reality actually is, pointing out the reality that there are good reasons to be racist and sexist, both in the 'is' sense (that there IS a difference between races and sexes) and in the 'ought' sense (that these differences, as all other differences between all other biological categories, mean there should be different treatment).
The liberals and lefties would be scared shitless of engaging such a person in a rational discussion. Their tactic is to seduce others into their reality-denial with nice words (tolerance, freedom) and condemn anybody who refuses their reality-denial with words denoting some kind of evil (racist, sexist, bigot, intolerant, fascist). Their position is based on an instinctive response to the immediate environment which necessitates tolerance and submission in order to avoid conflict and survive. Liberals/lefties are the ones who are actually close-minded, partially because of cowardice and stubbornness, partially due to stupidity. When somebody tries to expose them to the larger picture and points out the nature and natural environment underlying this facade of human social constructs, they can't and/or don't want to see it because it threatens them and everything they've been brainwashed into believing.
If the other is connected to reality, they cannot do anything in a rational argument, because they are detached from reality. They are subconsciously aware of it, which is why they will never try to engage the other rationally, which is one of the main reasons why arguing with them is pointless.

Instead of rational argumentation, they will resort to other tactics of convincing people.

One is to simply intensify their tactic of shaming and discrediting the other and begin including new terms which would attack not only the political beliefs, but the very core of the character of the person they are attacking, terms like "psychopath", "sociopath", "insane", etc.

Another tactic is to use guilt by association. If they argue with Western far-right they may try to make them abandon their positions by pointing out they are similar to the positions of those who the Western far-right claim to oppose (Islamic far-right). This would at best make the Western far-right hypocrites, but for anybody whose views are a bit more refined than the caricature of a religiously fueled blind nationalism that people like Wyld have in their heads, this does nothing. It's also not an actual argument that would disprove a position, just an attempt to make somebody ashamed of that position by associating it with something they otherwise claim to despise.

The last and most commonly used is the appeal to popularity. If the majority are as deluded about reality as you are, and you don't care about reality, why even attempt anything resembling an argument? Just accuse your far-right interlocutor of having an unpopular position.

Another is to throw in some other words which would serve as justification for why a leftie/liberal wouldn't even begin considering such ideas, like calling them "immoral", which implies a position is wrong according to some objective morality that all have to abide by, another thing you won't have to prove but can simply assert and the masses will swallow it hook line and sinker.



This entire situation with liberals and lefties reminds me of the church in European middle-ages. They also took the premise that God exists as a given, and only those who accepted this false, reality-denying premise were permitted 'free-speech', while all others were socially ostracized, silenced or ignored at best, and at worst tortured and killed.
God gives you free will so you are free to do anything. Act in a way he dislikes though, and you go to hell. But hey, you're free to do anything.
The liberal/leftie state gives you free will to do anything. Act in a way the state dislikes, and you get put in jail or killed. But hey, you're free to do anything.
You also have the freedom of speech, so you can say anything, but say something they don't like, blaspheme against the scripture (be it the Bible, Quran or humanist manifesto) and you invite the wrath of God/state upon you, as you are socially ostracized, your life and career ruined, and you might even be killed. But hey, you're free to say anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:58 am

Someone should tell that OP there, ISIS hatred is blind, and it was homos today, and heritage sites last week:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If they were 'true nationalists', they would do it there:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Xt. conservatives do with memes, what ISIS do on the physical plane… erasing past, histories.

Both these emotional self-hate has nothing to do with the real right, and their ranking homosexuality as Inferior modes of existence.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:14 am

If bleeding heart libs. find it a crime to stereotype patterns in reality:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

then bleeding heart libs. pay. Unfort. some innocents too.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1014
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 am

A short observation (nearly a dream because it occurred just as I woke up): the issue with SJW accusations of idiocy or evilness is we know, generally, what they believe the sentence is for when one is perceived as such. One only has to express a support for racism and out will come the accusations that one wishes to kill or one hates a different race. Taken as a principle of a racist's reaction to "evil", if ever an SJW finds you to be "evil", we can expect the sentence to be the same. If ever they are ignorant and wrong, again we would expect the same sentence/judgment which they projected onto the "evil racist".

They are not expressing what a racist would do, but instead what it is they would do if they found someone to be "evil". Their lack of moderate consideration expresses the emotionality with which they would respond if pressed hard enough with a truth they did not want to accept.

(TL;DR) That is to say: That they attribute genocide as the intent behind "race realism" or "racism" is an expression of their radical/extreme intent when they, themselves, declare someone as "evil" or "idiotic". They have projected their own radical intent upon the intention of "race realists" by not accepting any moderate intent on the part of the "racist" individual.


This, even if not completely accurate, I think, is working within their own mutated nihilistic (golden rule) and emotional logic. If nothing else, it's to be presented as a means to cause them cognitive dissonance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 934
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:59 pm

Slaughtz wrote:
A short observation (nearly a dream because it occurred just as I woke up): the issue with SJW accusations of idiocy or evilness is we know, generally, what they believe the sentence is for when one is perceived as such. One only has to express a support for racism and out will come the accusations that one wishes to kill or one hates a different race. Taken as a principle of a racist's reaction to "evil", if ever an SJW finds you to be "evil", we can expect the sentence to be the same. If ever they are ignorant and wrong, again we would expect the same sentence/judgment which they projected onto the "evil racist".

They are not expressing what a racist would do, but instead what it is they would do if they found someone to be "evil". Their lack of moderate consideration expresses the emotionality with which they would respond if pressed hard enough with a truth they did not want to accept.

(TL;DR) That is to say: That they attribute genocide as the intent behind "race realism" or "racism" is an expression of their radical/extreme intent when they, themselves, declare someone as "evil" or "idiotic". They have projected their own radical intent upon the intention of "race realists" by not accepting any moderate intent on the part of the "racist" individual.


This, even if not completely accurate, I think, is working within their own mutated nihilistic (golden rule) and emotional logic. If nothing else, it's to be presented as a means to cause them cognitive dissonance.

From the insanity of the ADL, the "Pyramid of Hate"

Quote :
The Pyramid shows biased behaviors, growing in complexity from the bottom to the top. Although
the behaviors at each level negatively impact individuals and groups, as one moves up the pyramid, the behaviors have more life-threatening consequences. Like a pyramid, the upper levels are supported by the lower levels. If people or institutions treat behaviors on the lower levels as being acceptable or “normal,” it results in the behaviors at the next level becoming more accepted. In response to the questions of the world community about where the hate of genocide comes from, the Pyramid of Hate demonstrates that the hate of genocide is built upon the acceptance of behaviors described in the lower levels of the pyramid

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Belittling jokes" can lead to genocide if we're not "careful"...

"Justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people"...whatever that means..maybe just simply organizing yourself among others who share similar values is a potential sign of the genocide to come...which must not be "accepted"...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:10 pm

These people are guided by their emotions, which are guided largely from social pressure. They will do anything with enough social pressure. If one makes few declarations, doesn't openly, or to himself, make opinions about matters for which he neither needs act on nor has much understanding of, then he may have principals despite not being able to describe what they are. They simply might be undeveloped in a conscious way. But, when one does make such declarations, and yet can't explain his principals, you can be near certain, that he has no principals, even the more innate ones, because if he did, the social pressure to make such declarations would have been impeded by the inner pressure to not.

With that said, to a large extent the reason for those people's actions are nothing other than they feel pressure to read a certain social script based on limited queues. The question is about when there is some actual thought and emotion that goes into the subject matter itself, even if mostly unconscious. We can take it for granted that they project themselves on all others. So they would never consider anyone of being capable of acting on values that aren't based on social pressure. And they see others doing little thinking. So when they see one with ideas antithetical to the society they're immersed in, they don't see him as there because of reasoning, they see him there because of social pressure and consider that he would do anything he was pressured to do.

When social pressure makes them adopt the idea that certain beliefs held by a person will leave him capable of extreme actions, they have no reason to doubt the validity of that conclusions, should they even bother considering the validity of that conclusion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1014
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:55 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
From the insanity of the ADL, the "Pyramid of Hate"

Quote :
In response to the questions of the world community about where the hate of genocide comes from, the Pyramid of Hate demonstrates that the hate of genocide is built upon the acceptance of behaviors described in the lower levels of the pyramid

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Belittling jokes" can lead to genocide if we're not "careful"...

"Justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people"...whatever that means..maybe just simply organizing yourself among others who share similar values is a potential sign of the genocide to come...which must not be "accepted"...

Thanks for the link. The emotional triggering of the holocaust and, subsequently, the ADL, are heavily connected with reality-deniers in the West. That they made such a pyramid, I see as an opportunity for criticism and exposition more than I am threatened by it. The recent (((echoes))) debacle is putting a larger spotlight on the Jewish influence on politics and culture.


Stuart- wrote:
We can take it for granted that they project themselves on all others. So they would never consider anyone of being capable of acting on values that aren't based on social pressure. And they see others doing little thinking. So when they see one with ideas antithetical to the society they're immersed in, they don't see him as there because of reasoning, they see him there because of social pressure and consider that he would do anything he was pressured to do.

When social pressure makes them adopt the idea that certain beliefs held by a person will leave him capable of extreme actions, they have no reason to doubt the validity of that conclusions, should they even bother considering the validity of that conclusion.

Good analysis of the social aspect. Part of being continually adolescent, even into 'adulthood', is this concern over what an other thinks about you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:36 pm

One doesn't need to have yet taken the time to understand reality and to know himself to avoid being such a person; a reality denier as is said in this thread's title. One simply needs not decide to hold beliefs that one doesn't understand -- and by not holding them not speak on them. One simply will have to tell people he doesn't have an opinion on many matters; just say he lacks the information. When one declares beliefs that when questioned he can neither explain why he holds them, beyond an appeal to his feelings, nor go into any depth on them, he exposes himself as being capable of taking part in any type of action. The irony is striking when such a person exposes himself in that way, then goes on to speak of how ignorance leads to atrocities.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:51 pm

The reason I use the term "reality-denial" instead of "lying" is that lying has the connotation of not necessarily being of much importance and consequence, and also includes the possibility that it is done about small, irrelevant, particular things - like lying to your teacher that you did your homework.

Reality-denial as explored in this thread is about the underlying assumptions behind delusional politics, epistemologies, ontologies, etc. I felt using the word "liar" in this context, would not fully express the seriousness of the things discussed given the otherwise somewhat casual use of the word 'liar'.

Reality-denial is a type of lying.
It is the type of lying that denies the most fundamental patterns found in reality.
It is when the denial has a comparably huge impact, even if in long-term.
The lying of a liar is most often a product of deliberate, conscious intent to deceive the other. Reality-denying is most often a product of psychological defense-mechanisms, coupled with weakness and cowardice, resulting in the organism deceiving itself to preserve itself because on a subconscious level it understands the implications accepting reality would have on its own well-being.

This makes reality-denial a much more serious matter than lying.

This post shall serve as my justification for why I have chosen to use this term. It's a bit stylistically awkward maybe, but I can live with that, and I have to admit it's somewhat grown on me as it does describe the situation quite accurately.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:21 am

perpetualburn wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Belittling jokes" can lead to genocide if we're not "careful"...

"Justifying biases by seeking out like-minded people"...whatever that means..maybe just simply organizing yourself among others who share similar values is a potential sign of the genocide to come...which must not be "accepted"...


I like how they inserted "social avoidance" in the second from bottom base...


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:24 pm

Listened to a good video by BlitheringGenius recently titled 'God is a telomeme'. In it he mentions two main ways of how sets of ideas/worldview (memes) propagate.

One way is tradition where ideas are passed down by genetic descent, from parent to child. Since this type of propagation is reliant on reproduction, the memes reproduced tend to be in favor of reproduction as well.

The other way is fashion. He compared fashion to a disease because it spreads from adult to adults. Instead of being adaptive in evolutionary terms, a fashion is about being persuasive. I don't remember if he actually said it or suggested it himself, but I think humanism can be classified as a fashion.

All the new forms of media in the modern world such as the radio, TV and internet help spread fashions because fashions due to their persuasive nature propagate easily through mass media, while traditions do not. Unlike traditions, which are selected for their ability to help people survive and reproduce, fashions are selected for appealing to as many people as possible.


Although this is interesting and encompasses how most people form their worldviews, I think there is a third way. It's called realism.
What differentiates it from the previous two?

A traditionalist's beliefs might include some religious or mythical components which can be based on reality to various degrees. In order to propagate them, traditionalists need to educate their children about them from an early age, possibly because they are absurd and/or difficult to accept either rationally or emotionally, usually it also includes promises of rewards, or threats (belief in God)

If one cares about fashions, their beliefs might include emotionally motivated distortions of reality, so the fashionable people must constantly use emotional blackmail against others, and use emotionally based premises to justify their beliefs and threatening with social ostracization if you reject them (human rights are unquestionable, if you disagree you are evil, psychopath, racist, sexist, ...)

Realism needs no indoctrination, and it needs no emotional blackmail. Realistic beliefs are based on observing reality with honesty and using healthy senses. A realist doesn't need to argue much to convey his ideas (at least about simpler topics), for his ideas are based on observing reality directly, reality which we all share. He doesn't need much more than to point with his finger, and say 'Look! Do you see what I see?'. All he needs is such a simple appeal to reality to propagate realist ideas.
If the realist finds it that the other person is telling something new and interesting, and exposing him to ideas he finds reasonable but may not have considered yet, a realist can change his mind. Likewise, a realist can change the mind of another fellow realistic minded individual who might still be ignorant about a certain topic by simply appealing to reality and pointing out things that individual might not have noticed, or dared to speak about.

Another thing I dislike about traditions and fashions is that they often use circular reasoning, so they demand that one should accept something, no matter how stupid or even blatantly wrong it is, just because it is "the tradition" or "the current fashion".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 795
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:20 am

Cartesian doubt: I'm gonna doubt in and be skeptical of everything that is right in front of my eyes and that my senses tell me obviously exists such as the sky, earth, color, sounds, and I will even consider my own hands, eyes, flesh and blood to be mere deceptions. I will assume none of that exists.

I will, however, assume that an evil demon/spirit exists whose specific purpose is to trick me into believing the above things actually exist when they don't, even though I have absolutely zero fucking basis for assuming the existence of any such being, much less that it has the specific intention of tricking me into believing some things exist, and others don't.

This will be the basis for all of my further reasoning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

^^ I'm supposed to treat this la-la-land nonsense as serious philosophy according to some. It's very typical religion-influenced thinking in that it ignores the actual reality and pretends it doesn't exist while at the same time coming up with complete bullshit for which they will claim is reality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers

Back to top Go down
 
Reality-denial and dealing with reality-deniers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Half dream half reality
» Dreams and 'reality' intermingling?
» perception versus reality
» Seduced by myths and stories - ignoring reality - an example from today's NYTimes
» Spirituality and Reality

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: