Thoughts you hate the most

Objective reality is a subset of subjective reality.

Come on guys.

Another one:
>All humans should be equal.
You don't need to use the word "all", just say "humans should be equal". And no, they shouldn't.

>implying there are ways to percieve reality outside of our own personal senses
>debating moralities

My pleb-o-meter is ringing

>You don't need to use the word "all", just say "humans should be equal". And no, they shouldn't.
I think we can mostly agree humans should start out as equal as possible, but equality of outcome is a no-no.

Is there any valid argument against inequality so long as the people at the bottom have a good standard of living? (And no, I'm not saying that's currently the case).

>If one examines the postmodern paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a
choice: either reject dialectic objectivism or conclude that narrative is
created by communication, but only if the postmodern paradigm of narrative is
invalid; if that is not the case, we can assume that class, somewhat
paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.

Third one.

>There may or may not be extraterrestrial life.
You don't need to say "may or may not", you can just say "may". And there is extraterrestrial life.

There is a physical reality. However the word objective implies human activity which basic litterature on epistomology quickly will defy. Fucking pleb OP. This is shitty bait.

Not him, but i actually did this a while ago.

p1: If i do not exist in any form, then i cannot experience any form of existence.

p2: If i do not exist outside a simulated reality, and perceive a simulated subset of existence, (Eg, a computer program), i must then be a product of a reality in which the simulation belongs. Otherwise, i could not experience the illusion of existence.

p3: If i do not exist within the boundary and conditional parameters of actuarial reality, i do not exist.

p4: If i exist, in any form, there must, by extension, be an existence in some form to necessitate my ability to perceive and interpret it.

p5: Actuarial reality exists if i exist.

p6: If i do not exist, i cannot know if actuarial reality exists.

p7: If i cannot know if actuarial reality exists if i do not exist, i must exist as a subset of it, under it's parameters, in order to exist.

p8: I exist, because i am experiencing existence.

Therefore, if i exist, an actuarial reality exists separate from my experiences and interpretations.

The takeaway from that is that you can prove an objective reality exists outside your perceptions through pure logic.

- Signed, Steve.

Not that anyone cares, i don't have a degree. Fuck you, school and Veeky Forums.

Which socioeconomic system would you choose for an isolated society of 100 people?

>1'000 resources, 10 resource for each person
>10'000 resources, 10 resources for each person, AND 9000 resources divided to random 5 persons
>1'000'000'000'000 resources, 11 resources for each person, AND 999'999'998'900 resources divided to random 5 persons.

Ok this is acceptable

No. Physical reality isn't proven, unlike objective reality is.

It is possible that space and time only exists as our interpretations of the behavior of some energy system, and not as actual dimensions.

I'll give you an example.
Space in videogame exists only as information, not physical space.

And if I'll expand more on this topic, it is pretty likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts our nervous system use.

>, unlike objective reality is.
How can objective reality be proven? It literally can't be observed, since all observation is per definition subjective.

It's provable that something exists, if absolutely nothing existed there would be no subjective experience. You might be absolutely deluded about everything including your own mind but that delusion must exist.

If you're talking about physical reality, then yes, you can't objectively prove that.

3 is the best in theory, but would - in reality - be so unstable as to collapse in a matter of months.

So I'll go with 2.

4th one:

>Fat people aren't fat because they are lazy, unmotivated, undisciplined, uncompetent and noncompliant. It's genetics.
They are fat because they are lazy and stupid shit pieces.

lmao

>X is "natural" therefore x is "good"

Say that to my face.

It would be better if you said "There should be" or something similar.

QED dreams and therefore anime are real.

This annoys me to no end

>it's not hurting anyone so it's ethically okay
fucking degenerates

>muh degeneracy

People like this have not the faintest clue about history.

> likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts our nervous system use.

But your nervous system, as a network of physical tissues, is itself *part* of space and time.

How about just a simple:
>there is no objective reality
Contradicts itself in making a claim about all of reality?

>All humans should be equal.
Perhaps they should, but they aren't, and won't.

>implying there are ways to perceive reality outside of our own personal senses
I really hope you include the mind when you say "personal senses".

I don't see a contradiction there

If I do not exist, how am I able to perceive and interpret the meaning of existence itself?

...

>I think we can mostly agree humans should start out as equal as possible, but equality of outcome is a no-no.
You think wrongly.

Are you even from this board?

>We believe in peace, they believe in bigotry and hatred

I've seen this sentence thrown around from both sides of politics

why the fuck do you think I give a shit about anything you have to say you retarded nigger, holy shit.

>There is no objective reality
Is this an objective fact or is it subjective to you?

You're a real cool dude and I respect your considered opinion.

When people say:
>a man is a man because he participates in being the form of a man
Like, holy shit nigger, that means there must be a third form of the man participating in the act of the man, which it-self is it's own form that is non-stop repeating.

Subject-object dualism wore out in philosophy in the 19th century, get with the times.

Nietzsche got the ball rolling, and Jean Baudrillard went into further depth with it. Subject and object are interrelated; they are defined via a harmonizing relationship between one another.

i.e. it is erroneous to discuss objective things without considering the subjects perceiving them in your evaluation and definition of them.

...

... as understood by the nervous system

>hating thoughts

Do people actually do this?

More fundamentally, as known by the mind; ultimately, human nervous systems are objects of empirical knowledge, and the mind is the knower to this known, the subject of these physical objects. You can think away space and time, and with them the physical nervous system - but you can't think away your thinking consciousness, so in an important way the latter is more epistemologically fundamental than the former.

I haven't read Nietzsche or Baudrillard, but it seems that earlier Kant, and with him Schopenhauer, had heavily affirmed in their own ways a mutual dependency of subject and object of consciousness.

There isn't but it would be wise to not let the unwashed masses (brown people especially) know that.

Why does it need to be concealed if it doesn't exist?

I don't get what you're saying.

>likely space and time doesn't physically exist, and that they are just concepts
I think relativity blows this away

Maybe there is but you will never be able to experience it.

Close, but we need to go deeper. The mind is a concept created, understood, and rationalized by itself.

>If you believe and work hard enough at it, it will come true
This is the biggest lie people can tell themselves.

Ultimately, there's the known and the knower - no? If the mind is thinking of itself, then there is some aspect of the mind that is the thinker and another aspect of the mind that is the thought-of, and these are not identical aspects. So at bottom, there seems to be this opposition even in introspective self-consciousness, of subject/object, where the former can never be the latter, such that a human mind cannot ever have absolute knowledge of its own being. In the thought "I am conscious of myself," there is the fundamental I, and there is the myself, and they are not one in the same.