Not necessarily. It’s also weird you’re calling it unresponsive to the situation like there is some objectively correct way to respond to situations.

Also you’re more reinforcing the notion that Buddhism talks about there being no self. So all these different “selves” really just prove there is no self just behavior.

Not something I believe in but for your case the more you argue the more you undermine your point.

I think you’re mistaken. I said I behave same no matter where I go, that “same” being who I am which is considerate.

I’m not a different person in different spaces, I’m the same person.

That’s why I said they’re just wrong that we all portray different selves to people across spaces. If anything that a psychological issue because it means you can’t be authentic and you’re just masking.

There isn’t a difference between “simple” and “complex concepts. You’re just inventing distinctions between the two.

And secondly you can absolutely be mistaken about having perceived something. It literally happens every day.

That said the only way for illusion to really carry any meaning is to know what is real and that’s a whole can of worms right there.

Usually when people say many X believe Y it’s usually none or little

I’d have to disagree with that link. Reality isn’t socially constructed IMO. It is very much an entity apart from us. It’s why you have some philosophies that claim to cut through all that to see reality as it truly is, behind what we paint over it, though if you believe such things.

Also how they’re staying you act differently depending on where you are, but this isn’t really the case for everyone. Me for example I act the same no matter where I’m at, same with others, so how do they explain that.

That’s why sociology is considered a soft science.

and how are they doing that in the links I give. I’ll give you that their knowledge of science poor but how is it the case in the links?

Though I’m also doubtful of their logic. It seems like only a few people there understand how it works. Like one person I was talking to saying:

Actually, I have an argument for the existence of the mind: Consider a change in a substance, X to Y. X and Y do not occur at the same point since otherwise there could be no change and the process is simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y should occur at different points in time. This means that there is a gap between X and Y so X cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore there must be a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y.

Never mind that not only the logic doesn’t follow but also doesn’t demonstrate there is a mind or that the mind is responsible for what’s going on.

I think people on that forum as a whole don’t know enough about science to really cite it. The amount of misuses of quantum physics is already too many.

Though what did you mean by skin deep though?

Not everyone.

is that what you think is going on in the links?

I'm on the spectrum so....yeah, totally feel that.

That's fair, but I don't think they throw it about casually. There is a clear pattern of behavior in their posts that hints at something.

I know because I was the same, though not to that degree. The posts I would ask about stuff would just be me repeating the same thing again and again even though people either weren't bothered by it or understood and didn't care.

Judging from the other users who have more experience with that person than I do it's known, I just joined a week ago and while mental illness isn't something I'd say I can't deny something is really off about some of the users there.

Like I was saying before, they just want an audience for their views not a discussion.

I mean obviously right and wrong are "relative" in the sense that it depends on context, because in a different world then there would be a different framework based on what is right and wrong.

But what is going on with the person I mentioned in that they are using this to avoid criticisms of their points while also trying to use the same framework of meaning that even ENABLES them to argue their point.

But I don't think that's what the people in my quotes are saying.

I think it's more like just not doing anything since everything is just subjective then nothing is right or wrong and everything just "is". It seems more like a cop out to avoid criticism. If there is no objective meaning and everything is subjective then you can't say I'm wrong.

Which is kinda childish IMO.

That's the weird part, his own "logic" negates everything he is saying. Like if everything is subjective and according to you nobody is right or wrong about anything then...why should we listen? Better yet why are you talking, meaning is subjective so the words you use are too.

You see how quickly his own logic falls apart which is why I think he's mentally ill.

Though TBH the whole forum is full of nuts, case in point:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652788#p652788

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it. Because there is no one that is taking occupancy in a child, not until the child comes into contact by association as and through this artificial illusory possession of knowledge, leading it back to it's original image, the illusion of it's reality. The image of the imageless.

It very easy, is hard work.

Which sounds like nonduality, but a horribly flawed version of it. Nevermind that that is not how the self works, that's more like a soul.

It's like I said, these people want an audience, not a discussion.

So pretty much there is no arguing with him over anything because meaning is subjective and everything just “is”.

Or

There is 'just is-ness'.

Which again sounds like Buddhism but that’s getting stuck at the “ultimate reality” and ignoring the “conventional” truth of reality. Or rather committing the mistake that thinking that something being conditional means it’s not real or doesn’t exist.

if you thought that was bad check out this gem:

But what is logic to you if meaning is subjective? Under your own logic there can be no objective logic.

If meaning is relative then everyone is right and wrong under one context or another. If there is no objective meaning then your statement is subjective and opinionated.

If I say everything results in paradox and contradiction then by default I and everyone else have to end in contradiction/paradox. If I contradict myself, and at the other end point to the contradictions in others, I am only proving further that everything ends in contradictions/paradox.

I am un-sensify things.

Apparently if meaning is subjective then everything means nothing and nothing is right or wrong. No sense in arguing or doing anything.

Pretty sure the dude is mentally ill. Even philosophies like Buddhism distinguish between conventional and ultimate reality.

What do you mean by insulation?

And if you weren't restrained?

You know I didn't realize that at first but a lot of his threads did have 4 7 and 10 of this or that.

It says it is but it's really not, and there's some users on there who know it.

There's more than a couple who just want the place to be an audience for their own views, and if you try to call them on their stuff they accuse you of not being certain or everything just being an opinion if meaning is relative in order to deflect.

Case in point with that Eodn whatever user I kept asking what was the point of any of the threads or reasoning and never got an answer. They just want an audience not a discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to call them on the BS.

Yeah I've noticed that. The forum is part of a magazine that seems vetted but unfortunately the forum itself is not moderated, which explains a lot.

I'm just a little worried that the damage might be done.

So it truly is all bullshit then? I'm just asking for clarity. Let's just say I have a terrible track record when it comes to falling to crazy shit (hell I fell for the Illuminati conspiracy theory).

Did you have a look through the threads? I'm just wondering. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it was just bullshit but for some reason there is a part of me that think's it's right and some secret wisdom.

Like, to give an example (beware migraines): https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652101#p652101

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

Dude is literally arguing against philosophy, meaning, and logic. Bear in mind this applies to HIS STUFF TOO!!!

Additionally from the same page:

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

You say that but if you take a look at my discussion with them in the threads where I replied it seemed like there wasn't any point to what they say. They're just asserting things and then when questioned attempt to refute me by saying what I am saying is a contradiction or paradox, even though every criticism could apply to them.

well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” (cough Jordan Peterson cough).

so if it just stays in this obscure realm of “what if”?

Yeah unfortunately the forum I got it from has people who think that metaphysics means I can just say vaguely say spiritual bullshit and call it philosophy.

So it’s just nonsense?

you may have a point there. I guess some part of my brain thinks it’s some cryptic wisdom only discerning minds can understand

not some sort of secret mystical wisdom if you look hard enough?

Number 1 was about the most clear thing said, and that's being generous. Though transparency has more to do with making something understood. To make something clear means it's understood, like what someone means by a word or something.

Though number 4 is just...nonsense. Doesn't explain how order is a contradiction. It might have something to do with 2 but 2 is playing with a MASSIVELY loose definition of transparency. Though even by all definitions it still doesn't make sense. The word has nothing to do with barriers but understanding.

Overall though it's just a bunch of assertions without anything to back it.

I don’t know, ask that dude in the quote

I don’t think that’s what the OP had in mind.

You might be right but the rules and methods of argument are vital to civil rights today where the rhetoric is important and terms matter A LOT.

No it’s not a problem the guy on the forum was just spouting nonsense.

Even by his own points he wasn’t right as I showed. This was from the metaphysics sub forum which apparently to some means they can just preach whatever spiritual nonsense they want without logic or argument and people need to just accept it.

We aren’t talking about the incongruity of different ideas but more just knowing what we are talking about. If you can’t define the terms and what they mean then it’s not two ideas it’s just folks talking past each other

Well they managed to convince populations they’re broken for doing nothing.

Yeah. Even though ostensibly they might say they’re not when you actually get into them you’ll find they’re not that welcoming.

The ones that are are pretty far removed from Christian teachings.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the reason the current environment in the states is hostile to most progressive attempts is due to Christianity. Without that there wouldn’t be anything in the way, or rather a significant roadblock would be gone (though I’d argue the only one since the roots are God based).

I know that without Christianity my childhood could have been spared soooo much grief and many others too.

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example. — Mikie

You’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t. Most religions have something against it.

I agree, if by salvation you mean securing a place in heaven (or at least believing you have). Your list of social benefits is well thought out. — Janus

They invent the problem and sell the solution.

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights.