You're actually both really pretentious and I'm finding it hard to accept that
1. Opinions and free will are what make us individuals, but also what makes us fight and kill.
2. Human beings are limited by primitive drives (eat, sleep, poop, procreate)
3. Humans start out politically corrupt as kids (smashing things/stealing from other kids to get what they want just because they want it, and thats all that matters).
4. We label everything and create our own mental prisons, then complain about why we aren't free.
5. We love to repeat other peoples ideas to make ourselves feel valued.
6. One of the hardest things to do is to let go of a belief system that makes us feel comfort and safety (even if its proven to be a scam). WE NO LIKE CHANGE
7. Most people are codependent, and need someone else (or a government) to take care of them in one way or another, but claim to be independent.
thats all I got atm, I think about this stuff alot, so thanks for making this thread, ram
If something is real (P), then it will not go away when you stop believing in it (Q)
It has not gone away(Q)
Therfore it is real (P)
Flip it around:
If something is not real (P), then it will go away when you stop beliving in it (Q)
It has gone away (Q)
Therfore it is not real (P)
Another problem is: Who defines what goes away and what stays?
Shut up jeez. If there is a computer screen with Wikipedia making you feel like you're smart in front of you and you close your eyes and then when you open them up it is still there, it is real. For all intents and purposes, the philosophy of reality has no bearing or meaning in our society. The only issue in our society that might be offered the question of reality are schizophrenia cases and maybe shrooms. That's as far as it goes so just shut up about it.
In the middle age the philosophy was that the earth is flat, we're the center of the univers and god is in everything and is everywhere. Now, please tell me how this did not affect society.
Do the same with the Renaissance and every other reality we have embraced as real through out history.
I used deductiv reasoning to prove your argument to be fallacious at least (eventhough I failed at the inversion). Still you have yet to define me "it" in your argument. As it stands it's still fallacious by validating itself.
Last edited by Son44; 05-18-2012 at 06:58 AM.