Who was in the right here?

you fucking moron.

He is addressing Donald's statement because he's saying that the source of Donald's information is invalid/not-the-ultimate-source and that the issue must be deconstructed further, however, he is using Kant's epistemology and understands that whatever the reality may be, we are eternally sanctioned off from it and therefore it is impossible to accept any Absolute as an answer. Existence and its issues are Ineffable. What we are left with is the need to achieve a new point of view, one which does not use 'Life' or 'Death' as answers to an existence formulated within time and space.
Materialism is a coward's bargain with his own laziness and limitations and the need to feel as if he has a conclusive idea of how things are, which he does not.

>his
>he
>he
At least females don't have to deal with all this philosophical shit.

my dude. fucking savage.

every female I know is a few bad days away from a mental breakdown

>unwillingless to aimlessly wallow in a sea of unfalsifiable and ultimately pointless bullshit is a sign of laziness and limitations
Let me guess, you're a philosophy undergrad.

just because you're response is to wallow in aimless bullshit doesn't mean that is what others will do.
And by limitations I meant the limits inherent in the person's being by which it is defined. I feel that you are taking 'limitations' as having a negative connotation while I was using it neutrally. Being is a series of limitations that should be accepted. If you chose to wallow in 'pointless bullshit' as a response then I'm sorry. Life would be better spent coming to terms with one's own Person and all that this constitutes and doing this would certainty provide more than enough of an exercise to occupy even a very long life. Discouragement should not be indulged and we shouldn't become hysterical either, getting lost in semantics and syntaxes; instead we should look to cultivate Truth and Beauty, but to do this properly we must recognize that the things which we are interacting with are not the SOURCE of Beauty or Truth, only certain means of measuring it. Proust has a beautiful line that goes something like: 'A man attempting to understand desire by looking at a naked woman is like a child attempting to understand time by taking apart a clock'. The point being that: just as a clock is not the source of time but only a means of measuring it, so too is the human body not the Source of desire, but only a means of measuring it. This outlook can be applied to a lot of things. What we interact with in existence is not the source of it, just different ways of measuring it. There is enough Truth and Beauty in this world to avoid becoming resentful or discouraged and to keep us from 'aimlessly wallowing in a sea of unfalsifiable and ultimately pointless bullshit', but only if we are capable of discerning what is worth our effort. This will require a certain level of self-improvement, so we must not be lazy. This requires that we take Mickey's advice and answer affirmatively to his question: 'Shall you fight? Or perish like a dog?'

>materialism
The answer to the nihilistic pitfalls of materialism is idealism of course.

paragraphs mate

It's a shit analogy. Time exists, whether we measure it or not. Desire doesn't exist outside biological systems. It is indeed wholly a function and a property of theirs, and they are undoubtedly the source of it. Likewise beauty is nothing more than a highly subjective characteristic constructed by humans and determined by our common and individual nature. And Truth with capital T deserves no other response than a drawing of a man in glasses. Your naive idealism is refreshing, but quite silly nonetheless.

This. Not kidding.

Why do you even bother speculating about DUDE BRAIN CHEMICALS when all you have is your experience?

>Desire doesn't exist outside biological systems
Desire, hm? Have you considered it is the desire of the other?

You're going to have a very bad time after Death.

>scientific issues with wording
The act of 'chemicals' cannot be referred to as absurd since they are made up of atoms. Everything in the universe, to our understanding, follows a logical order which is only broken when you reach a subatomic level. But since quantum mechanics are fixed to their scale their absurdity does not affect the material universe, instead providing a clean slate where logical and predictable reactions seem to occur.

>knowing
So let's break down Donald's argument into 'know' and 'love', which are both subjective experiences of our universe. Knowledge by definition cannot exist outside of consciousness as it requires experience. Truth and logic may or may not exist outside our reasoning either as a fundamental part of the universe or of our understanding.

Mickey's argument proposes that we can never truly know which is the case as we can not step outside of our own conscious state of being. But since consciousness is mandatory in order to acquire any form of knowledge, his argument falls flat. Either the same truth exists in every form of consciousness or the universe itself contains these truths. Arguing over which becomes redundant.

>loving
'Love' on the other hand, is a form of desire. While desire is a constant in us, a triggered emotional reaction which can be reduced to chemicals acting up, what we desire is something taught to us, stemming from our knowledge and experience. So yes, there is no intrinsic value in the universe, from our understanding, but it is not due to it being reducible to chemicals, but rather that 'value' is something that is taught, stemming from our desires.

>Time exists, whether we measure it or not.
laughingschopenhauers.png

>But since quantum mechanics are fixed to their scale their absurdity does not affect the material universe,
>i'll just suspend materialist ontology at the point beyond which it refutes itself: science bitch!

Our models are at that point. If they do not explain everything yet, Dahnald is wrong.

Of course, the fact that we existed prior to finding out that model implies that Mickey is right.

This
Just because they have no intrinsic value does not mean they don't have value

>doesn't understand the intricacies of the quantum world however convoluted still add up to very same physical behavior on meso/macroscopic scale
>hurr I will use the word 'ontology' to mask my complete topical ignorance and an exclamation point as a substitute for an actual argument: philosophy bitch!

>but rather that 'value' is something that is taught
Sure thing Foucault, that's why ethical behavior is displayed in animals. Because they were taught it

Knowing this doesn't make me not feel it. Donald sounds like a child and an incel

>muh feels
>acuses someone else of being a child and an incel

>same ultimate result = same ultimate cause
was it autism?

Our neurons communicate with electrons

what is your point

>reddit spacing

>keeps trying to derail into lateral topics for lack of a genuine argument
Yes, yes it is autism in your case.

You'll never be content.

Erich Fromm

Ions in fact. But you are correct, electrons are subatomic and stable, I should've noted that. When speaking of desire as a chemical reaction, I had in mind dopamine and opioid peptides.

Well, yes, I don't believe in absolute values. We have basic instincts, but our values are usually taught from parent to child.

>We have basic instincts
but not intrinsic ones, of course
>electrons are subatomic and stable, I should've noted that. When speaking of desire as a chemical reaction, I had in mind dopamine and opioid peptides.
>well sure chemicals are molecules
>and molecules are driven by atomic interactions
>and atoms are driven by quarkyonic interactions
>but I promise there's a magical cutoff point somewhere before the quantum level!

>once again trying to pass of an exclamation point as a valid argument
Is there anything more to you other than pure autistic contrarianism?

Intrinsic value to the universe? No
A series of survival mechanisms? Yes

Xenophobia for one is a natural instinct, whether or not you see it as a 'value' is entirely up to you, your upbringing, experience and ethical standpoint.

As for the quantum cutoff, quantum mechanics can't be measured due to the uncertainty principle. We have no idea why things happen at a quantum level, only the probability that they do.

From 'Why quantum theory cannot hurt you' (A pop-science book, but when it comes to quantum physics, there's really not much of an option)

>The shocking truth, which stares you in the face every time you look at a window, is that the whole Universe is founded on random chance. So upset was Einstein by this idea that he stuck out his lip and declared: “God does not play dice with the Universe!” The trouble is He does. As British physicist Stephen Hawking has wryly pointed out: “Not only does God play dice with the Universe, he throws the dice where we cannot see them!”
When Einstein received the Nobel Prize for

Quantum theory, born out of the struggle to reconcile light and matter, was fundamentally at odds with all science that had gone before. Physics, pre-1900, was basically a recipe for predicting the future with absolute certainty. If a planet is in a particular place now, in a day’s time it will have moved to another place, which can be predicted with 100 per cent confidence by using Newton’s laws of motion and the law of gravity. Contrast this with an atom flying through space. Nothing is knowable with certainty. All we can ever predict is its probable path, its probable final position.
Whereas quantum is based on uncertainty, the rest of physics is based on certainty. To say this is a problem for physicists is a bit of an understatement! “Physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict what would happen in a given circumstance,” said Richard Feynman. “We can only predict the odds.”
All is not lost, however. If the microworld were totally unpredictable, it would be a realm of total chaos. But things are not this bad. Although what atoms and their like get up to is intrinsically unpredictable, it turns out that the unpredictability is at least predictable!

Wanna resume that thought friend?

>literally only has his experience
>acts like he, let alone all of us as humanity, can definitely know any single thing
You're extremely pretentious and pathetic. Logic is circular, you dumb retard, you can't "prove" it until you use it, also blew you out. Just leave, you're is embarrassing.

>Everything in the universe, to our understanding, follows a logical order which is only broken when you reach a subatomic level.
You forgot about chaos and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Radiation too which is quantum effects with obvious effects on the 'material world'.

You don't know enough about this to be using it for your argument. Funny that...

Thank god at least some people on this board are not total retards.

I can smell the reddit on you.

because our experience (and its long elaborated extension, science) bears out the relevance of brain chemicals to itself

both are spooked as hell, right and wrong and even arguments themselves are all spooks
let the property believe what it wishes

Both of them are right, I guess. I know that seems like a "dude centrist lmao" kind of answer, but it's true.

Mickey is right in saying that we (I) cannot prove our (my) reality is what we (I) believe it to be. We (I) could be in the matrix, dreaming or, hell, even under some wizard's spell. We (I) can't prove that this reality is real, but we (I) have to live life how we (i) see fit because there's always that chance that none of this is real. Perhaps it's all real, but thats impossible to prove.

That said, if one wishes to live how one sees fit, one must still operate within the confines and limits of the reality presented, so Donald is also right, in a sense.

If the intricacies of the quantum world still add up to the same physical behavior on the atomic and greater-than-atomic scale then, in turn, the intricacies of this scale could be said to add up to the same purported pre-atomic behavior of firmaments supported by elemental elephants or whatever by a pre-Classical Materialist school of thought.

You can't have it both ways. Materialism is fundamentally self-refuting.

No, that doesn't follow in any way. Stop trying to engage in things you don't understand.

>is fundamentally self-refuting
Kek. It's fascinating just how often that phrase is used by people who lack the basic understanding of logic and/or have no idea what they're talking about.

How does that not follow? What stops it from following? What am I not understanding?

Can YOU tell me what I'm talking about?

>How does that not follow?
It doesn't follow because it's retarded babble that has nothing to do with materialism.

Materialism says that the behavior of smaller, more basal particles dictates the behavior of larger, more complex material aggregates. According to Materialism, and ONLY Materialism, what happens on the quantum scale dictates what happens at the atomic scale by the same qualitative and quantitative measure that what happens on the atomic scale dictates what happens on the celular scale.

Also, your behavior dictates that you should go back to /r/eddit.

They could be lying you know?

Mickey, obviously.
Donald is being deterministic, assuming that everything is beyond our control. Mickey tells him to not simply accept that our consciousness to realize that our consciousness is built from chemical reactions is not deterministic but a desire above it. Accepting that notion in defeatist and nihilistic. This is why Mickey's last statement to fight or die is apt. To accept that we our simply chemicals means that there's no value or worth to fight, so we might as well die. To fight is to live and find our own values, even if there are no intrinsic value in this materialistic universe.

You guys should actually read philosophical texts instead of arguing among yourselves using said texts you haven't read as sources.

>OP asks specifically "who was in the right"
>thread discusses correctness and rightness
Why discuss lit if you don't even give basic respect to the words used and what they mean?