Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?
If you are not choosing it over responsibilities, and it's not a financial burden, is it really bad?
My main drug in question is marijuana.
Would it be more immoral to lie to people that "it makes them crazy, rapists, and killers?"
My main drug in question is marijuana.
Would it be more immoral to lie to people that "it makes them crazy, rapists, and killers?"
Comments (1080)
Wait, are you even talking about the morality of taking illegal drugs? No, nothing on this page about that.
So which Kant argument do you take to support your representationalism?
Think about and answer these for a moment:
When you taste something, is it your taste that you're tasting?
When you take something, are you taking your taking?
When you give someone something, are you giving them your giving?
If you mash some potatoes, are you mashing your mashing?
You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.)
Why in the world would I think that a tree is subjective/mental?
Why in the world would I think that a perception of a tree, or knowledge of a tree is identical to the tree? What would the words "perception of" or "knowledge of" even be doing there if we believed them to be identical? We'd just say "the tree" in all cases because there would be no difference; just like if you thought that taking or tasting a cookie was identical to a cookie--there would be no need to say "taking/tasting a cookie." Simply saying "a cookie" would already tell you this (at least as long as it is known that the two are identical, supposing they are).
(And if you can't believe that this is material we'd have to cover outside of a short-bus kindergarten class, join the club.))
That your perception of the tree isn't identical to the tree doesn't imply that "Your perception is not of the tree but rather of your own mind," by the way. Just like that your taking a cookie isn't identical to the cookie doesn't imply that you're rather taking your taking (or your hand, or whatever we'd want to say), and not the cookie at all.
"When you take a cookie you're really just taking your hand, because your hand is the only way to take the cookie." <---This should be a pretty obviously stupid argument. And so should "When you perceive a tree you're really just perceiving your mind, because your mind is the only way you perceive the tree."
I wish you'd give a more substantive reply . . . but in any event, to repeat:
"You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.) "
How about a more substantive reply? Maybe offering reasons that you believe representationalism? Maybe addressing my attempts to straighten out the confusions you have over my views?
On my view you're not perceiving your own mind. I explained this above. That's just like you're not taking your own hand when you take a cookie.
Your mind is perceiving. It's not perceiving itself. Your hand is taking. It's not taking itself.
Maybe you could try to support why you think you're perceiving your own mind/taking your own hand?
Again, the view you described is representationalism. Maybe there are some differences between your views and representationalism, but you haven't detailed those views yet.
Quoting tim wood
I don't recall what the argument is for that. It sounds nonsensical on the face of it. So what is the argument for it?
If it's just saying that there is no "intransitive perception," I agree with that, but why would we say that there's any trouble with it? Perception needs to be of something, like a(n objective) tree.
The same goes for taking. There's no "intransitive taking." You need to take something, like a cookie.
Quoting tim wood
Again, this just sounds nonsensical on the face of it. "Put the perception 'into the order'"??? What was Kant's argument for that again?
Quoting tim wood
"Synthesis of perception of the object and mind" is just gobbledygook. Perception is a mental activity. "Perception of the object" is not something different than a mental event. Saying that it necessarily involves reason doesn't follow (again, what's the argument for this?), but that doesn't really matter, anyway.
Quoting tim wood
As "ground"? Why think of anything as "ground"?
Quoting tim wood
That bears no resemblance to anything I say. Shouldn't you be able to paraphrase my views in a way that I'd agree with prior to criticizing them?
Quoting tim wood
That's not really saying anything aside from "reasonable beings are reasonable." Well, duh.
Quoting tim wood
What definition of mine says that everything is subjective or objective?
Quoting tim wood
Irreconcilable with which definition?
Which makes it irreconcilable with which definition?
Good god, the TREE is objective, the idea, image or memory of the tree is subjective.
You are an imbecile, belligerently ignorant, aggressively arrogant...you aren’t really reading what anyone is telling you and are clueless as to how foolish and stupid you sound when you run around in these pedantic, semantic and wholly dishonest circles. You have not argued in good faith here in the slightest and you should be embarrassed. You constantly side-track, ignore and accuse your opponents of doing the things that you yourself are doing. What an absolute disgrace to a forum like this, I find you to be just as offensive as some of the trolling or bigoted/racist shit that the mods delete or ban.
It is foolish to engage with Tim Wood everyone. Just say no to the troll. (That rhymes if you say it right).
I don't mind to take him as sincere, but it does seem like pulling teeth to try to get to any focused discussion about anything.
I know this won't help, but I'm kind of getting an impression of him as a Kant fanboy in the vein of people who are hardcore religious apologists or Randroid Objectivists (or we could just say cult members in general), where anything that leads them off script is something that they basically can't parse. They try to veer things back on script, where they can wax poetic within comfortable boundaries.
You don't perceive perceiving. You don't take taking. You don't throw throwing.
You don't perceive your mind. You dont take or throw your hand/arm.
Your mind is what performs the action of perceiving. Your hand/arm is what performs the actions of taking or throwing.
Perceiving, taking and throwing are examples of transitive verbs. They're something you do, something you perform, with respect to particular objects.
You're conflating perception and what the perception is of.
It would be just like conflating taking and what we're taking. Conflating your hand and a cookie. You wouldn't do that, would you? So why are you getting so easily confused when it comes to perception?
You can't seriously be mystified at how that's supposed to work.
Seeing involves light, obviously. So how in the world would you take that fact to be against the notion of seeing a tree?
Is this some sort of game where we pretend than we don't understand preschool-level language?
"We don't actually see the (objective) tree" isn't how it's supposed to work.
My money is on “mostly retarded”, or trolling. If it IS trolling its pretty elaborate. Its much more shameful than some of the threads ive seen shut down by mods.
You are certainly wasting your time. So am I lol
The only way that this would suggest that you don't see the tree to you is that you don't at all understand the notion of "seeing" in common language. But that would be inexplicable. How could you be capable of tasks like tying your own shoes while all the same time having zero grasp of what "seeing" is supposed to be? What in the world would you be thinking that "seeing a tree" should refer to that's not met by talking about light reflecting off the tree, etc.?
Are you thinking of "seeing" as referring to something literally touching your eye, akin to tactile contact?
(If so, follow-up questions would be why would you be thinking of sight that way? What usage are you familiar with that suggested this definition to you? And you'd be aware, then, that you'd be confusing sight for another sense, namely touch, right?)
If that's how you're thinking of sight, you could "see" a tree by rubbing your eyeball on the bark. I wouldn't want to see a tree in that case.
All you’ve done is once again ignore whats been said. Stop for a fucking second and think about the consequences of points made and the implications of the distinctions. They negate your responses. Its fucking painful dude, but only half as painful as me knowing better and still responding to you.
Im not interested in this topic anymore, I want to discuss your stupidity and outrageous ignorance, I want you to defend yourself from the accusations of dishonesty and deliberate thick headedness.
Why are you such massive fucking douchebag? You got nothing better to do but irritate people trying to have real discussion with your dim witted, mindless repetition? Everything you've said can be summed up in 2-3 sentences, and the other 34 pages is just people trying to get through your thick fucking skull. Pathetic.
Shut the fuck up and LISTEN. You are being idiotic, dont you want to learn how?
Common language is how it really works for understanding what "seeing" refers to.
Again, what in the world are you taking "seeing" to imply, so that it would suggest to you that we don't see objective things such as trees?
Quoting tim wood
Recraft them for what reason? Why not focus on resolving your confusion instead?
The questions you quoted from me above this response weren't rhetorical. Could you answer them?
If taking is all in your arm/hand, then how do you take something like a cookie? This isn't a rhetorical question. I want you to think about it and answer. Because it's just the same confusion that's occurring in the question I quoted above.
The answer I'm looking for is you telling me how you can take a cookie if taking is something that your arm/hand does.
Think about it for a moment. The answer needs to explain how you can take a cookie despite taking being a function of your arm/hand.
An easy way to make sure that you're answering the question I'm asking is to copy/paste the following and fill in the blank:
"The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is ___________"
I have confidence that you won't do the stereotypical Internet jerk move of typing a long response where you don't follow the request here, or the alternate move of just ignoring it or just giving some short crack or something.
Sure, but the issue is that taking something is a function of your arm/hand. Given this, how can you take something that's not your arm/hand?
The way you take something, such as a cookie, is with your arm/hand. But how do you actually do this if taking is something your arm and hand do? Doesn't that imply that really all you can take is your arm/hand?
This reminds me of the phrase "wet water." Almost like saying "All you can make wet is water (which discounts that all you can't make wet is water, because water is what makes wetness, and so, cannot in and of itself be made wet, nor wetter).
So, I see the point. Perceiving perception is redundant to consider. [I]Any[/i] perception (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, space [proprioception]) is meant to orient us with objectivity (the latter, proprioception, helps us sense all or part of our anatomy in relation to everything else, and even to distinct parts of our own anatomy in relation to those respective structures, i.e. enabling someone to bring their fingertip to their nose even with their eyes shut.)
That doesn't mean that the end product we percive is completely free of objectivity, only that the objectivity is incomplete because our tools to percive it are limited. Our subjective predispositions add on to the misconstruction.
There are some who contend that we have no knowing access to Objective Reality (that which is), and that the world we observe with our senses is not necessarily O.R. I think from your words that you refer to something a little less absolute than the Objectivist's Objective Reality; is that correct?
Yeah, and there are people who think they're Napoleon, too. :razz:
I wouldn't say that I'm positing something different than "Objectivists' objective reality," but I think that objective reality is relative, not absolute. (If that makes sense to you. I might have to explain it.)
In any event, in some circles, including seemingly on this board, there can be an attitude that "we have no knowing access to objective reality" is something that doesn't need to be supported. That's not at all the case. And in my opinion there's no plausible way to support it.
OK. I was only seeking to clarify what you meant by the phrase "objective world". Subjectivity/Objectivity debates can often be fun. But because they are fundamental to so many different topics, it's easy to derail almost any topic by raising it. So I'll stop here, but make a note-to-self that you and I will discuss what you posted another time, in another topic (an O/S topic). OK? :smile: Should be fun... :wink:
Boredom.
Lol, amazing.
I more meant bored in the context of this forum. There is nothing much that interests me currently, and this Tim Wood guy is perfectly representative of the vastly sub par interactions common here so Im here, trying in vain to get something past the wall of hubris and dim understanding. I feel like if I can get through that thick skull, something like peace in the middle east or convincing the worlds corporate masters to chill the fuck out will be childs play.
I write what I "mean" without beating around the bush, so when I say, "I'd be happy to continue the phil of perception discussion, but only if you answer the last post in the other thread, where I asked you a non-rhetorical question that I expected you to think about and directly respond to (via quoting something and filling in the blank)," I mean that.
It's up to you. If you're not interested enough in the discussion to do what you'd need to do for the other necessary party to continue, that's cool with me. I'm just letting you know the requirement.
If you think that's acceptable, then you'd have no ground for saying that this isn't acceptable:
"The way that you perceive a tree, despite perception being a function of your mind is to see it. You see it by seeing it."
Is that acceptable?
If not, then we've got to fix our account of how we take a cookie.
That's fine. Just change it to:
"The way that you see a tree, despite seeing being a function of your mind, is to see it. You see it by seeing it."
Is that acceptable?
You said that the way you take a cookie is by taking it. You take it by taking it.
Isn't that what you just said above?
Is that "informative in exactly the area where information is being sought?"
Two things here. One, re the general discussion, I'm not going to have it with you if you don't systemically go through the deal with the taking etc. analogies. I'm bringing that up for a reason (that I also can't just give, because it won't work for the purposes I have if we don't go through it a la a Socratic dialogue).
Aside from that, re the question in relation to me saying I agree that there is no objective truth, I already wrote a response to you about this earlier in the other thread. It was a response that you didn't respond to in turn. Here's a link to it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/301585
This is the way I'm answering it. Either you play along or I don't participate.
First, if what you gave me is "the most accurate answer you can think of," then you should be fine with "The way you see a tree is that you see a tree. You see it by seeing it," if that's the most "accurate" answer that someone can think of.
But at any rate, I explained in more detail. I'll do so again. With a simpler question to follow.
When you take a cookie, it's something that your arm/hand does. Does that mean that taking a cookie is actually just your arm/hand, and it doesn't involve something that's not your arm/hand?
You have already had it explained, the problem is you aren’t getting it. Do you admit you might be confused here? am I wasting my time trying to tell you how?
Dont let the door hit you on the way out.
And that I'd do, but a requirement, as a student, is that you do the assignments. Otherwise you get an F.
Nope. I'm literally asking you a question about whether taking a cookie is actually just your arm/hand, since it's something your arm/hand are doing, and whether it thus doesn't involve something that's not your arm/hand (namely, a cookie, where the cookie is different than your arm/hand)?
An answer to that is that in your view, it actually IS something that's only your arm/hand--there's no "cookie" that's different than your arm hand, or it isn't something that's only your arm/hand--there actually is a cookie that's different than your arm/hand.
Sorry to triple post, again. I just think that this is good advice.
Pilsner Urquell is pretty good, but, I can't see throwing down for it on the reg. If you really want to drink good beer, you'll have to go to a place that serves them on tap. I think that I remember having an Einbecker that I really liked. It might have been the Pilsner. The brewery had another beer that I really liked, but, can't remember the name of. I actually kind of like Chimay Bleue if you feel like dropping 9-10 dollars on a beer and aren't around an independent brewery.
Craft brews can be fun to try as well. You honestly really do only want to get two of them unless you're out with friends.
I've just begun to ramble and apologize for this. Anyone can respond to whatever.