It was always going to come to that Flannel.It was only a matter of time.
It’s a cognitively biased and policed atheistic forum.
A pointless cognitively biased religious forum when it comes to explaining reality as I keep saying.How will you hear about truth if you ban me?
I have mentioned knowledge in my previous post which is related to epistemology.
You have to move into the metaphysical now because it’s the only rational route left.
I’m already there….and my science is sound.
Jupiter123 you seem to suffer from monomania which refers to an extreme or obsessive focus on a single subject, idea, or concept . Historically, it was considered a type of partial insanity where someone had a fixed idea or delusion on one topic but was otherwise rational. Today, while not a formal psychiatric diagnosis itself, the American Psychological Association (APA) describes monomania as “extreme enthusiasm or zeal for a single subject or idea, often manifested as a rigid, irrational idea”. It can also be seen as a symptom of other conditions like Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) or delusional disorder.
In your case the single subject is a religious preoccupation with you ± metaphysical system and how it relates to everything and everyone. In my opinion, it’s not an obsession you can voluntarily control. So we are suffering it with you my friend.
Sort your psychosis out Felix..before you start preaching on mental health!!!
You are no authority on the subject.
I’ll keep embarrassing you if you want.I don’t want to but I will continue to until Flannel bans me because he can’t bear hearing truth any longer.
I see a lot of monomaniacs in this place, so many that maybe they are the norm here, not the exception.
Sort your psychosis out Maxx.You are nothing more than a hypocrite who has met more than his match because you are not up to debating with me.
The difference between me and you is that I know what I’m talking about.
You don’t!
People like you need totally humbling.
You may even thank me for it one day.
No doubt. The test is whether we can engage civilly and rationally in an exchange of ideas with others on topics of mutual interest. If one can’t do that without hijacking a thread to their pet obsession, then dialogue breaks down.
Ok….felix….I believe my post are relevant to the top of discussion.
I’m not interested in past philosophers who clearly didn’t have the answers to the big question in life.
Move on.
Embrace the metaphysical or you are wasting your time like they did.
What’s the point of continually going back to the same old vomit?
Even an illusion is immaterial after all and yet you are not an illusion at all, you are a misinformed dead soul (spirit) that has an opinion.
Anyway… last time we were on track, we were talking about the relationship between epistemology and contextualising your philosophy within a social, anthropological, historical, and biological context. I explained that I kinda just wanna do conceptual analysis without having to worry about all that stuff yet, Sculptor said I ought to worry about it, and recommended I go read Archaeology of Knowledge by Michel Foucault.
I thanked him for the recommendation, I won’t necessarily read the book but I can definitely watch a lecture about it.
Anyone else wanting to contribute, you’re more than welcome.
One more time in this thread, after literally every person in it including the op made it clear it’s both off topic and unwelcome, and I’ll suspend you for a little while.
Aggressive willful derailing is unpleasant for everyone.
To me the pivotal epistemology to understand is Kant’s. He posits that knowledge is a synthesis of both sensory experience and the mind’s inherent structures. He argued that the mind doesn’t passively receive information but actively shapes and organizes it based on innate, a priori concepts (like space, time, and causality). This means we don’t directly experience reality as it is (the “thing-in-itself”), but rather a filtered version shaped by our cognitive structures. I think an understanding of Kant is an important for understanding the modern epistemological developments that came after him. That said, I didn’t “get” Kant until I read Schopenhauer. And I don’t think one can understand Nietzsche until one reads Schopenhauer or the Postmodernists like Foucault until one reads Nietzsche.
That’s where you’re wrong, buddy. There are no dead souls here. There are no dead souls anywhere. But, start a thread cuz you’re off topic again.
Nietzsche went mad Felix!!!
How is following a mad man’s ideas going to help Josh?
He went mad because he was a psychotic delusionist.
Is there anyone on this forum that can think reasonably?
Am I being unreasonable in asking that question?
Nietzsche’s epistemology, particularly his concepts of perspectivism and the will to power, of genealogy and archaeology as methods for analyzing knowledge and power influenced Foucault. Foucault adopted Nietzsche’s idea that knowledge is not a neutral reflection of reality but rather a product of specific historical and social contexts, shaped by power relations. But, one isn’t compelled to adopt these views by understanding them.
Of what use were they to Nietzsche in his madness Felix?
Tell us?
I’m trying to be rational here because nobody else is.
I’m trying to reason sense here.
Forget philosophical ideas that only result in madness.
Of what use are they?
Ok, Flannel Jesus, he’s practically begging to be suspended.
You would absolutely go mad if you knew what Fritz knew. Surprised he made it as far as he did. I’m going mad now, too. Surprised it’s taken this long.
We’re pretty tough, though. Can take a lot of nonsense before we crack.
What are you talking about Maxx?
Nietzsche went mad for goodness sake.
Felix made reference to Nietzsche as a good philosopher.
How is a man that went mad a good philosopher? A good example to follow?
Can you explain your reasonings before Flannel bans me.
I am not being unreasonable or off topic in highlighting this.
We can only speculate why Nietzsche succumbed to psychosis. It may have been due to organic brain disease as a result of syphilis or something else. He was chronically ill his entire adult life.
I’m currently in the process of “getting” Kant; his importance is undeniable. I understand that according to Kant, Cartesian skepticism is irrelevant. If I have it right, he sidesteps the problem by just saying look, we can know just by analyzing the mind and the fact that it’s organizing and structuring to make experience possible, that it must be interacting with something real. Even though we don’t know what that is.
I think I’m going to have to give the Critique of Pure Reason some attention shortly and try to grok it. He’s not easy to keep up with. A singular person.
But according to your chain, Schopenhauer is the one to go to first.
He was a self confessed atheist who claimed that he didn’t exist for goodness sake.
How could he not have suffered from psychosis?