Your realty is constructed by your unique experience, and thus unique to you

Thus perhaps it's not the world that is wrong, but your view of it, such as your expectations.

>imblying Kant isn’t a cunt
You deny objective measures?

>You deny objective measures?
Only interpersonally.

>he's an idealist
C u c c

Also
>he's not aristotelico-thomist

>world is not wrong (including the other people)
>only you are wrong
if you apply this "theory" to multiple people, you immediately get a contradiction

hi kantbot

Not being wrong does not mean you are right.
Nice binary fallacy though.

>he's not aristotelico-thomist
Virtue ethics fag detected.
Kant is based. He was wrong about everything naturally but reading him is like meditating, it just feels right.

>feels
there you go. emotions =/= logic

Unironically reading Kant.

lol who's that little book-worm lookin bugman in the beanie looks like a straight pussy bet he can't even do a pull up

Right and wrong are a binary, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Ie everything is either right or not right, meaning wrong.

You can have multiple things be right which is where your perception of a fallacy occurs.

>Kunt
get outta here

CRNA GORO MAJKO NASA

Kako da signaliram POL na rukometnoj utakmici

>Your realty is constructed by your unique experience, and thus unique to you


Enlightenment is a lie, your life is a gift from God.

I said nothing of 'right'

>apply to person A
person A is wrong
person B is not wrong
>apply to person B
person A is not wrong
person B is wrong

two contradictions, simpler there are none.
now, if you want to debate what the meaning of 'is' and 'not' are, i would direct you to speak with bill clinton

But my experience is only unique in the sense that a snowflake is unique.

a unique pattern in the strictest sense, but ultimately of meta-similar construction in every way shape and form.

the reality of the situation is that the uniqueness of ones experience is in-fact so opposite to the truth, that we've evolved a collective narrative in our minds; a script-less, wordless, picture-less mind-braille of pure instincts we cannot help but follow along with, that evolved to fit well how humans were, time after time after time experiencing the world in the most meta of senses.

The truth of the matter, and the ill with your post is that the assumption the world is right and we are wrong is missing the reality of the matter that the world itself shaped us, and thus our perception of it is that same world manifesting itself in us, for how else could it possibly be?

Kant said we cant really reason dick in a desperate attempt to save religion.

He was a fucking hack

/thread

>he believes in existentialism
Evola all the way newfag

I think these existentialist ideas are interesting or fun in the same sense as mathematicians have fun playing with the concept of infinity (in any direction).

But no one should leave, after reading them, with some conviction they're actually describing reality.

When I speak of wrong, in regards to Kant, I don't mean a person's inability to know. What I do mean is that you can understand (by your faculty of perception), or you can pretend that your understanding can be related outside yourself.

>The truth of the matter, and the ill with your post is that the assumption the world is right and we are wrong is missing the reality of the matter that the world itself shaped us, and thus our perception of it is that same world manifesting itself in us, for how else could it possibly be?

You cannot conclude that since we cannot know another way, then it must be the only way we know.

That is where both meta and hierarchy takes over.

By what metric are you attempting to measure 'correct perception of the world'?

I, and i think many others would argue that 'correct' is an aggregate value sourced from the quintessence of whatever actions and perceptions are producing the best results (thus far), having a utopian too-far-forward-thinking mentality that 'some superior method' is right around the corner almost any minute now, hold on here it comes -- is ultimately severely self-defeating.

There's no doubt as to the fact we walk through this dark world with a dim lantern, and what we perceive will always have its restrictions, but to suggest what we can and are perceiving is no more valid than anything else (might be, maybe) is just sorely misguided and fundamentally nihilistic.

Our perception of reality is very likely the most accurate of all things, because within that reality we are undoubtedly the most successful (not just in raw primitive survival exemplars, but in our capacity to create amazing new things) - if our perceptions were as wrong or neutrally-valid as you suggest, we wouldn't be even one fraction as creative as we are.

The simple facts of the universe is that although it may very well be infinite in scope, it is DEFINITELY not infinite in working solutions for things; that fact itself is a driving meta-force that forges ALL hierarchies...

>Our perception of reality is very likely the most accurate of all things, because within that reality we are undoubtedly the most successful (not just in raw primitive survival exemplars, but in our capacity to create amazing new things) - if our perceptions were as wrong or neutrally-valid as you suggest, we wouldn't be even one fraction as creative as we are.
No argument that or perceptions are similar, just not interpersonal relatable.

>fraction of achievement
We don't know how much we could achieve with a more intimate/exact understanding of realty.

>No argument that or perceptions are similar, just not interpersonal relatable.
>just not interpersonal relatable.
Somewhat offtopic, but are you a girl?

>We don't know how much we could achieve with a more intimate/exact understanding of realty.
Then ask god for the cheat codes.

But until he answers you, the ONLY way and hope we have to move forward is doing what we've been doing since the enlightenment and scientific revolutions - building on what we know and adjusting our perceptions when results become nonsensical.

>tfw your unique experiences construct a view of reality in which the one thing that isn't constructed is that it is constructed.

fuck me

i can't handle the high quality of posts on this board tonight

you were asked a question -
By what metric are you attempting to measure 'correct perception of the world'?

don't dodge it

how would you quantify "a more intimate/exact understanding of realty."

>>No argument that or perceptions are similar, just not interpersonal relatable.
>>just not interpersonal relatable.
>Somewhat offtopic, but are you a girl?
I'm non binary.
>>We don't know how much we could achieve with a more intimate/exact understanding of realty.
>Then ask god for the cheat codes.
Funny thing is that happiness is dependent upon how our achievements commiserate to others. We don't gain from super human understanding.

>But until he answers you, the ONLY way and hope we have to move forward is doing what we've been doing since the enlightenment and scientific revolutions - building on what we know and adjusting our perceptions when results become nonsensical.
True. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking we know more than we do.

>Sup Forums babbies attempt philosophy
Wew

I'll make sure to tell this to leftist filth from now on.

>you were asked a question -
>By what metric are you attempting to measure 'correct perception of the world'?

There is no correct (insofar as we know), only perceptions that any number of people agree with.

>how would you quantify "a more intimate/exact understanding of realty."
You kan't. However, more exact understanding of reality will increase the efficiency of our actions- even though such cannot be recognized.

>I'm non binary.
That explains (or rather coincides with) your wishy-washy approach to perception as an ongoing construction.
That wasn't meant as an insult, mind you.

The "gender is fluid" claim of recent history is an interesting one, because i think it crystallised just exactly how sheer reality can manifest itself.

For example, in the beginning (of organic life), gender most certainly did not exist.
But as time pressed on, within the possible working roles a given species could take, two working approaches arose; masculine and feminine - these are realities that require no matter to exist, only to manifest - as the roles were taken and objectively performed better as a binary, so too did the genetic biology of the creatures adopting this winning strategy climb like wrapping vines around this newly discovered reality.

Yet you claim to be non binary.
So yes... very much coinciding with your view of reality here so far.

>Funny thing is that happiness is dependent upon how our achievements commiserate to others.
I'm not sure i understand you.

>We don't gain from super human understanding.
I would argue understanding itself is progressively superhuman; human is what we do understand, superhuman is when we snatch something new out of the aether and crystallise it forth into reality.
I think we gain very much from that. As for omnipotent knowledge; it's a tasty fantasy but i think little more...

>But we should not delude ourselves into thinking we know more than we do.
A lot of edgy kidz fall victim to that, yes, but reality breaks it out of them in time. And that socratic phrase rings true once more... "true knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing".

But i've spoken to people who say the sort of thing you've said a lot, and each time i hear it, i get a steadily stronger gut feeling that they're saying it to themselves more than anything...

Which is a whole other dimension of interesting as to why that is...

What are you afraid of?

>But i've spoken to people who say the sort of thing you've said a lot, and each time i hear it, i get a steadily stronger gut feeling that they're saying it to themselves more than anything...

>Which is a whole other dimension of interesting as to why that is...
It's going to take me a day to understand this.
>What are you afraid of?
Being a social metaphysician.

>realty
>leaf
>thus
three strikes and you're a maplefaggot
>in all fields

what does understanding this concept actually change though

>Being a social metaphysician.
why?

>>Being a social metaphysician.
>why?
I, like you, believe people are incredibly dishonest with themselves.

Which is reputed to an idea I seen, that the highest IQ is the least deluded...highest iq meaning highest ability to succeed.

What I believe is that people lie to themselves in order to avoid social hostility. Which I believe most anons don't care about as much as normies.

Man does my scrotum smell bad right now.

pic isn't quite correct - MM&C should be at the top of the pyramid not outside it, and there is another pole at the top, dual to the unordered potential energy - you wanna guess what it is?

how you understand concepts. it wouldn't matter if no one did philosophy (although not much would get done at all); but if some is doing it everyone needs to otherwise we reach various undesirable outcomes. Essentially more people need to read more philosophy because this is how we keep getting out-fucking-skilled by the jews

...

>but your view of it, such as your expectations.
But, if views of the world are wrong, how do we know the world isn't wrong?

What is best in life? Conan said it best. That's all you need to know. Now let's go terrorize mexicans til they're all gone.

>Nice binary fallacy
Nice attempt to make your believe system invincible. I bet you got the idea from Hegel.

>realty

You think you have to be some sort of genius to realize this?
>14 year old laps as an intellectual