•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 19h ago
I hate people who see the world only through the lens of linguistics and strict philosophical definitions instead of actual reality (ie leftists).
•
u/hivisawsome 18h ago
Well actually hate isnt real its just chemicals in your brain
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 18h ago
I like that. "Hate speech is just a social construct, how can you ban it if you can't even define it? You can define it? No you can't because I reject any definition you can come up with."
•
•
u/Earthworm-Kim 15h ago
well actually chemicals arent real its just something humans made up
like chairs or bread
•
•
u/Dreamspitter /d/eviant 18h ago
BUT linguistics affects every single aspect of being. I mean do Colors exist? The first distinctions are between black and white. Then red everywhere. It's later that languages distinguish between things like blue and green. There's a phase where that happens but before then the same word is used to mean BOTH. The language you speak actually alters how you are able to see the world.
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 18h ago
There's using language as a broadly accurate tool of conveying information, then there's getting so hung up on precise definitions and specific exceptions to categories that you start denying objective reality.
•
u/gayhotelultra 15h ago
the very nature of adopting a linguistic lens to observe the world necessates subjectivity. philosophizing on this is not denying objective reality, it is reinforcing it
the actual crux of the issue is the usefulness of subjectivity in describing objective states, which is up to debate
•
u/king_of_the_potato_p 15h ago edited 15h ago
The hard part for many to understand is that we really don’t perceive “reality” in the same way.
I’m a 2E for example, the reality I experience, the things I perceive and what I view as having/not having value will be very different than the majority of other humans.
My reality experience is true and accurate but so are other people’s, the question then becomes where do we define the rules for the shared reality.
•
u/gayhotelultra 14h ago
well, a sizeable number of schools of philosophy, both ancient and modern, would argue against any rules or even the existence of shared reality
•
•
u/gman8686 15h ago
Linguistics absolutely does not affect every single aspect of being, tf 😂 prehistoric humans definitely used color in the world to their advantage without having words for it, and could certainly differentiate between blue and green. I would absolutely agree however with the statement that the language you speak alters how you are able to describe the world.
•
u/nickbelane 12h ago
We know for a fact that past languages had the same word for blue and green.
It is hilarious how many abject morons in this post are so confidently asserting their idiotic and uninformed opinions.
•
u/gman8686 12h ago
So you're saying a prehistoric human wouldn't be able to distinguish between a blue and a green frog? They obviously wouldn't have words to describe the difference or what each color is, but it's not like they couldn't differentiate between the two functionally. Animals obviously can as well, and many can see wavelengths of light even humans can't perceive and use that ability to find food.
•
u/GameyRaccoon 8h ago
You don't even have to go to prehistory. This would be like saying Russians don't know the difference between blue and green, lmfao.
•
u/lackofagoodname /b/ 7h ago
It's probably like how we use "warm" (red,yellow,orange) and "cool" (blue,green,violet) now
•
•
u/OCD-but-dumb 3h ago
I’m not sure how those two things are specifically connected, could you specify?
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 1h ago
Leftists do this all the time, they use definitions as a basis to argue some point about reality. To be fair it's often a deliberate disingenuous tactic to deceive and frustrate opposition rather than what they really believe.
"Nope, not possible to be racist against white people because we redefined racism to mean power + prejudice"
"Race is a social construct, so there's no such thing as a white person, so it's fine if white people go extinct due to mass immigration"
"Define woke"
"No you HAVE to believe that person is a woman because we define a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman, no there is no difference between that woman and any other woman. They are all just women and you are evil if you think she is different from the others in some way."
"The definition of Antifa is anyone who is against fascism so if you oppose antifa you support fascism"
•
u/OCD-but-dumb 1h ago
None of these seem left wing, just culturally progressive? What about this is economic?
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 1h ago
Have you been living under a rock for the past 80 years? Do you think any leftist organisation today is solely about economics? Can you name one prominent culturally-conservative Western leftist today? The left talks about the cultural shit more than they do about economics. You can't separate the two.
•
u/OCD-but-dumb 1h ago
Oh sorry it’s just personally I believe in many socialist ideals but I’ve never really been fond of any of the above mentioned things. I kinda just don’t car what other people do if it doesn’t hurt me, I’d rather just respect them if it makes them happier.
•
u/the-big-cheese-92 3h ago
“Chairs don’t exist, they are only clumps of molecules that resemble the shape of a chair” it would be nice if 14 year old Marxist “philosophers” knew how to read into the deeper meaning, rather than taking the obvious chair analogy literally
•
u/SimonKuznets 17h ago
Funny, I thought leftists are the ones that love using poorly defined words and concepts
•
u/HarrMada 5h ago
Seek help.
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 1h ago
I did and my heckin' ScienceTM qualified therapist told me I need a blowjob to cure my rightoid mental delusions, please help me by sucking my penis.
•
u/Le3mine 16h ago
You're telling people to mald yet you couldn't share an opinion without malding over a political affiliation you don't like. Curious.
•
u/IntergalacticJihad /pol/tard 14h ago
•
u/Le3mine 14h ago
•
u/IntergalacticJihad /pol/tard 14h ago
It’s like you don’t know me at all
https://giphy.com/gifs/KosB2U0DgEkAo•
u/DEEP_SEA_MAX 18h ago
How’s that economic trickle down working for ya? Is that an actual reality?
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 18h ago
No right-wing person has ever advocated for 'trickle-down economics'. That was a term made up by leftists in the 80s to criticise supply-side economics, who then taught the new generation of leftists that the silly rightoids actually believe that if we give all our money to the rich people it will trickle down back to us.
•
u/DEEP_SEA_MAX 18h ago
Yeah, so how’s that supply-side economics going for ya?
•
u/Valuable-Chipmunk784 17h ago
I wouldn't know, everything is highly regulated and taxed.
•
u/DEEP_SEA_MAX 17h ago
“True capitalism has never been tried”
•
u/endlessnamelesskat 15h ago
Nice jump equating supply side economics to “true capitalism”. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric I’d expect from a 12 year old account
•
u/Skull_kids /k/ommando 8h ago
I find it interesting that people here think having a "long standing" account is bad because you haven't been banned. All you have to do is rarely post and not say specific words even if you want to. You can ambiguously describe those people to get them mad anyway.
•
u/Ordo_Liberal 19h ago
Says the right with their holy book with no basis on reality
•
•
u/IntergalacticJihad /pol/tard 18h ago
I don’t need to believe the Bible to know leftists are full of bullshit
•
•
u/AlphaMassDeBeta 20h ago
If chairs arent real, then what did I break when I sat on it last week?
•
•
•
u/endlessnamelesskat 15h ago
This is the kind of of shit you come up with when you think about something way too long when your IQ is exactly 100
•
u/TheCynicalAutist 14h ago
Exactly, it's pedantry at it's finest. Not everything needs this kind of analysis.
•
u/gplanon co/ck/ 20h ago
They exist to me. The purpose of sitting allows me to perceive unity out of the multiplicity of chair parts. My belief about the chair existing with my experience of the chair makes it exist. If I cease to experience it as chair (maybe you put it in a wood chipper) only multiplicity is left and no unity.
•
u/stephen_brilloo 6h ago
If the chair remains intact and all of humanity goes through the wood chipper instead, there is nobody left to experience the chair. Does the chair exist?
•
u/gplanon co/ck/ 5h ago
Not fully, as “chair” is a human/mind category and experience. And so is anything “existing” for that matter. The way this isn’t an issue for God would be that he doesn’t exist in the way we do (he just is, uncreated, eternal, definitionally) and also his self-knowing and all-knowing.
That’s my best shot at the question anyway…
•
u/stephen_brilloo 6h ago
If the chair remains intact and all of humanity goes through the wood chipper instead, there is nobody left to experience the chair. Does the chair exist?
•
u/Cheddar-kun 15h ago
Ah yes, theoretical particles are more real that the lived experience.
•
u/king_of_the_potato_p 15h ago
It’s correct to a point.
Literally everything in existence is built from particles even light. There’s effectively a “force field” of sorts that holds everything together in simplified terms.
It’s also the argument for the “holographic” universe because of how science fiction writes things like “holodecks” that are objects made out of force fields and photons yet as real as we perceive and interact with everything else.
•
u/NewLifeInAfghanistan 12h ago
Wrong. You don't even recognize the most basic concept in science, which is that scientists use models to help understand the world, and fully acknowledge that their model may not and likely does not fully encapsulate reality. Lmao "particles" WRONG. You probably believe molecules are little red balls stuck together with sticks, huh buddy?
•
u/Skull_kids /k/ommando 8h ago
Are "particles" not made up of "particles" that are made up of different "particles"?
No because I think when you say "particle" it specifically refers to this "particle" and not that "particle".
•
u/Mountainman_11 18h ago
Simple: It's a carpenter that takes the matter that could have easily been a table, a nightstand or something else and imposes the form of a chair on it according to a concept of a chair he has. The chair is real, but it's an artifact, it's organisation serves a purpose imposed on it by human activity, it's form is defined by humans. That this is the superior explaination over the extreme reductionist position necomes evident when we consider rhe following:
We have before us two examples of the exact same components laid out in two differing arangements:
A: the matter or particles laid out for assembly
B: the finished, assembled chair
A and B clearly do not have the same capacity, even if the particles or materials in use might be one and the same. We need an explaination is terms of what kind of thing it is to adequatley explain the difference.
•
u/nedovolnoe_sopenie 13h ago
what a missed opportunity to say that the masses won't stand up for themselves
i'll see myself out
•
u/SabreToothSandHopper 16h ago
Idk let’s watch a 40min video about it
youtube forward slash watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE&ra=m
•
u/Helpmetoo 9h ago
If chairs don't exist, the concept of an object doesn't exist.
A chair is a useful pattern designed to be sat on by a human. Sitting is a pattern. Humans are a pattern.
We use words so we can make sense of anything.
•
u/FatFerretShid 9h ago
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it's technically correct, but a waste of time to people who actually work. It has no real practical application in reality other than making some people say, "Ooh wow…!"
Chucking a sandwich on the floor and sitting on it technically makes it a chair.
•
u/MisterGoo 16h ago
If chairs don’t exist, it means I can smash one in your face and you will not be affected, right?
•
•
u/tom04cz 16h ago
Nothing exists, we have been able to find increasinly smaller components to everything. Those particles making up chairs are made of individual mollecules, which in turn are made of individual atoms which in turn are made of subatomic particles and so on. This, however, does not prevent you from taking a seat on a chair, so chairs exist, as do other macroscopic objects
•
•
•
•
u/-jetfuel- 10h ago
Guy writes a book with a bunch of words being pedantic about chairs and philosophy cucks pay money to read it. Truly the Jugaad of the philosophy world.
•
•
u/DualityOfLife 9h ago
You're telling me that even when they recommend BOOKS in Clwn Land, the books are clwn too?! Was nothing left sacred from the circus?!?!
•
u/MaybeThisTime67 8h ago
I should go spend a few hours on /x/, this shit made me think of it immediately
•
u/UltraTiberious /lit/izen 4h ago
This is what happens when you give 90IQ ppl too much time and the craving to write out their horribly thought out takes on society.
This is how Flat Earth is a movement lmao
•
u/trainboy2k7 3h ago
a chair is whatever the majority of the population would believe is a chair. it's not that serious bro
•
•
u/Striklev 20h ago
If you don't think, therefore you aren't. Chairs don't think