 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: July 6th, 2002 02:43 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
 Reality from Cybal
|
Solipsism is just a word connected to the fact that everything we do is just a result of our minds and nothing more. I could not believe this any further than I do. This is the reason why bad things happen to those who are pessimists and depressed, and also why the happy people seem to just have perfect lives. The simple fact that this is real negates the reason for me even to write here, but I like to comment on all I have to think about. Some people are physical and some are mental, this depends on how you take everything. I am fully mental, although I am not unphysical. When I am unhappy, everything said unto me becomes an insult, a slap in the face that just makes it worse, and even when they try to cheer me up and say nice things, my mind won't let me accept that and the intentions of good turn to stabs in my heart, I would break down into tears before my mood lifted. Beleive what you want, because you have no other choice than to do so, and know, if you want to, that we are all inclosed in our own prison, we don't do anything more with other people than we allow our selves to think we do, and we never do as much as we want, the most we can do is exchange feelings, pleasure, and sorrow, and even that is limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: August 5th, 2002 10:36 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Question
|
Would you say that your ideas on epistemology and subjectivism reflect the philosophy of the Satanic Bible? I was under the impression that a Satanist would rebuke a spiritual pipe dream rather than claim that all things are true, depending on the person's perspective. Heaven would be an acceptable truth, under this assumption. Didn't Anton LaVey demand that “whatever alleged ‘truth’ is proved by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber and wreckage”(SB, pg 32).
I am under the impression that a Satanist would don a subjectivist attitude only in the ritual chamber, where reality is temporarily suspended. I assumed that a Satanist would believe that in mundane reality, all truths are dependent upon fact, not fancy.
Please help clear this up for me.
Glanecia
cobseattle@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) vexen |
Date: August 6th, 2002 04:19 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Question
|
"Would you say that your ideas on epistemology and subjectivism reflect the philosophy of the Satanic Bible?" The Satanic Bible doesn't mention epistemology much, but what it does mention accords much more with subjectivism than it does with absolutism. For example Anton points out that everyone makes different assumptions about god and therefore everyone creates their own god according to their needs. This is subjectivism because it shows that everyone experiences life differently. Doesn't confuse it with compatabilism, the belief that everyone's opinions on reality is true, instead subjectivism is the belief that none of us know what is real compared to what other people see. It is not the belief that what everyone experiences or thinks is true, but that all our experiences differ. Therefore subjectivism sets up doubt and enquiry to be highly important, if not most important, intellectual values and this certainly agrees with LaVey's question everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 4th, 2003 03:57 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: absurdity
|
No, but a person is insane for believing in atomic orbits or moon landings or anything else that they've merely HEARD of as if it were a part of themselves, an experience they've had. That is brainwashing, and it is too easy. In this absurd world, if a person strips naked, lies on the ground, and hugs the earth in eternal gratitude for their creation, they are generally viewed as a looney. But if they were to kneel and worship some big, invisible superhero like Jesus or Satan, they'd be seen as quite a bit more sane! F*#k ME!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 15th, 2003 03:52 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
This Is A Foolish Ideal
|
This ideal, this philosophy, this hogwash. Reality is there for us to PRECIEVE. Not to make. Reality exist wether we except it or not. You cannot truly know anything becuase of expericance diffrence? I am a man would you therefor tell me that Women don't exist, becuase I have never experianced being one? The computer you are seeing this on was made by someone. Some Rational person that precieved reailty. Not someone who yelped that we can't know reailty. If I came up to anyone on the streets with a knife or a gun, how would they react? They'd be scared shitless. They'd be afraid and if they could they'd run away or some sort of defense. Then I come up to you with a knife what would you subjectivist do? $20 says you won't preach about how we can't know if I am really holding a knife to your head or not. Life is sustained through reason, not wishes or whims or mysticism. You who preach this ideal simply are afraid of reality. If we cannot know anything for sure than how can we know for sure that you really made this website I am posting this on? Becuase it is there. How do you know you are alive. Hell, why do we need to sleep, eat, work, breath, walk, sit, jump, run,THINK!!!!!!! According to your idea we don't. That's what it comes down to anyhow. I'll give you a idea. How about you do nothing, you don't sit, sleep, eat, drink, or talk for 1 year. Just stand up and do nothing. You'd die. Becuase reailty is there and I can tell you one thing for sure IF YOU DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE. But then again how can we know you are really dead?
I don't see how College Level students are falling for Subjectivism.
I can give you 2 absolutes right now.
I am Alive
I am Dead
You are free to avoid reality. You are not free to avoid the effect of your actions. Avoiding reality will bring death as surely as a H-bomb on the top of your head.
Anyone who believes in this. I codem you to the worst possible fate....
I am leaving you to your fate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 17th, 2003 05:50 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal
|
I see where you are coming from, but don't you see that how easily this is shot back at you? I say this...Prove to me that one cannot precieve the same things the same way everyone else does. Give me un-deniable evidance. I will believe it only then.
heh, if we cannot know anything for sure becuase our sense's aren't "accutrate" or "good enough" or what not, than you know somthing lol, how can you know that quantum physics are correct and we are not missing somthing?
Here's a nice Double Think. " We cannot be sure of anything, I am sure of this"
heh. how can you be sure that we cannot be sure of anything. I relize your arguement, but it is so
1) Sorry to say but, irrelanvent to life. Who gives a shit if yellow is a diffrent shade to me than to you? Really sorry to offend you but what are you going to do about it?
2) I am sure you have read 1984 by George Orwell. In case you havn't here is somthing "Double Think: To have a contrediction in your mind and yet accept both things (IE: George is smart; George is dumb. and accept both to be true even though the first cancels out the 2nd and the 2nd cancels out the 1st.)
That is in a way what some believes of subjectivism are "It is possible that everything that you see, the entirety of what you consider "reality" is complete illusion."
Then you believe that the "Reality" of Quantum Physic's proves that "Reality" might somehow be false. Does everyone see the problem here? If Quantum Physics proves that we might not be able to know reality wouldn't that count for Quantum Physics to? I am having some trouble putting this in to words but think of it this way "Can god make so much food that not even god could eat it." By saying one it makes the whole idea of god false. As such is it with Quantum Physics "Subjectivism". You see how this works. If we can't know reality or at least be sure of reailty how can we know that Quantum Physics is accurate.
heh, I don't mean to offend anyone and consider this matter open to debate by anyone and everyone, I just think if you got AIM or MSN it would be a lot easier to debate this than over a message Board.
Do you see where I am coming from at least.
Oh yes and that quote on subjectivism about how we might not be sure of anything, that is Subjectivism I got it off your site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: October 5th, 2003 01:40 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal
|
Knowing things for sure:
You're getting the right idea. But.. the fact that neither of us can prove something beyond all doubt implies that subjectivism is a universal truth in all but name. There is, behind all knowledge, a fundamental problem of validity, in that none of us can ever see things from "realities point of view", we're stuck permanently viewing things from our own angle.
And as everyone's angle is slightly different, and no two people have their brains or consciousness wired up in the same way, then it holds within logic that no two people ever experience the same reality - but I must add quickly that I firmly do believe there IS an underlying reality behind our experiences, it's just that no-one can ever get around the problems of subjectivism to ever prove any specific bit of what that reality is.
1) Point 1 is valid. In the vast majority of times, none of this really matters. It's only in some metaphysics and theology (and especially in epistemology) that this really matters. Oh and in psychiatry, where it is widely accepted that every person has their own little version of reality, irroncilable with what reality actually is!
2) Subjectivism is a foundation of intellectualism: to admit that we can never know the whole truth is to commit to a lifelong search for truth, never becoming complacent. However, just because there is always doubt behind every fact that pertains to reality, does not mean that we do not have working theories.
For example, the "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory. Not fact. This is because in science, it is taken for granted that theories are never the whole truth, the same as in subjectivism: No one persons' experience is the whole truth. It is an inescapable dillemma that our brains are imperfect, our senses imperfect, yet we have to get on with our lives anyway.
That quote:
Oh right, well when I wrote that particular page I was a solipsist so it doesn't entirely surprise that comments like that got in. Solipsism is if you take subjectivism to the most extreme and stop believing an underlying reality - only in self-created reality.
It's a fundamental truth of science and philosophy that we can never be sure -- because we never know if we're completely insane and have hallucinated our whole lives whilst sat in a psychiatric hospital. Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: sdagodhuman |
Date: April 11th, 2004 07:36 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal
|
Once again, your points are valid under the absolutes that you put forth here. Just a few points left then I'll quit.
1) Yes well I apologize for my former ignorance, however I have studied the subject a bit further and I realize that you are very platonic in your belief. I respect this, however I am very Aristorlian in that I believe that to know the true nature of reality we must in fact trust our senses.
2) Since you say that 'Theories might be inncorrect that is why they are theories.' doesn't this mean that you have to apply subjectivism as a theory? Since we can't really know if that's correct [Subjectivism] so then you could be defeated by your own system? Of course that also leads to other questionable things...
3) I also have the firm beleive that a philosophy is only as good as it's need is in reality. That is I think a philosophy needs to A) Be logically Cohernt (Bad spelling, I mean that it can't be full of contradictions). Which leads to B) It needs to be reasonable, logical, rational, etc... C) It needs to cover most of the needed topics in the world.
Subjectivism fails by veiw of a 'Good philosophy' in a few ways... Definitivly in point C which you yourself have admited it isn't all that important in the real world. Then instead of quabbling over point A and point B, I'm just going to stick with point C...
We could waste half our lives debating this, both of us sure that we are correct, and either of us may be... I understand what your saying, and I give you credit I have argued this point a quite a few times, however you find a plausable way to explain subjetivism while others can not. Thank you for thinking. Ever have the feeling you don't care whether someone is for your ideas or against your ideas as long as they care about thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: October 6th, 2003 01:46 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hypocrisy
|
Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism" does indeed receive a lot of respect from within the Satanic community - however - LaVey's writings have things in common, true, but are not intrinsically Objectivist. Neither are they un-objectivist, the final line is drawn by the person in question. Would it be any other way, in a religion where you're commanded - well, firmly advised - to think for yourself? Subjectivism and Objectivism, although their names may imply they are opposites, are not really -isms of the same game. Objectivism is epistemology whereas Ayn Rand's philosophy, commonly called Objectivism and drawn from the book "Atlas Shrugged", is primarily a moral philosophy. http://www.dpjs.co.uk/dictionary.html#O links to two excellent reviews of "Objectivism" within Satanism, I highly recommend you read them! (Oh damn, it looks like something terrible has happened to one of the links, I'll leave the link there for a while to see if the two guys who run the domain take control! The other one though is by mighty Nemo, a Magister in the Church of Satan.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: September 11th, 2004 10:32 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Subjectivism
|
It is not self-refuting: As we only have subjective means of learning about the world, all knowledge is subjective. We have no way of knowing Absolute truth, so even if it does exist (I cannot claim to know), it is AS IF there is no absolute truth.
Also, given the scientific advent of the discovery of quantum mechanics, i.e., observer affect, we KNOW that as observers AFFECT results of quantum interactions, all knowledge is affected by the self in the first place, even before direct observations are made.
Objectivism is fine as a theory, but it is a practical impossibility (although it may be true, there is no way of finding out).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 2nd, 2005 04:16 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
-
|
I post here firstly to say i really love your site (supay thoughts). It was really interesting.
I believe myself in subjectivism, in fact, I'd say i am subjectivist... I liked the exemple of the the sun (reality by consensus) because that is a thing I thought of, one day (before I even knew subjectivism existed...)
I noticed lots of people gave exemples such as 'I know for sure the hand doesn't go through the wall'. Well, you do, I do too, the majority of people do. But, there is maybe one guy, somewhere, who could be called 'insane' that thinks he can pass through walls, and that he thinks for sure he did it or is doing it. In short, realities between people can be really similar... but never exactly similar. I like to think as there is one true reality, our senses convert this reality into our minds, but this reality is changed in the process. (a little for 'sane' people and most of the time quite more for 'insane's)
->Wrote that because I just don't really understand why people reject so much the idea of a subjective reality. I'm really sorry if I repeated things that were on your website, but I don't want to have to read another time your essay on subjectivism to be sure I don't repeat anything I didn't read all comments either... (I am lazy :) )
-> Sorry again if there is mistakes in my text, I'm french, so please forgive me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: December 30th, 2005 09:42 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Subjectivism
|
I found your comments on "subjectivism" interesting, but ultimately self refuting. Such is the error of epistemological subjectivism. In your opening definition you state, "Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure." My question for you, Vexen is, are you sure? This is the quintessence of incoherent thinking because anytime we make an assertion (or claim as fact) we are stating something we believe to be true. No one holds a view they believe to be untrue. Your claim is that we cannot know anything for certain and yet if this statement is to be taken seriously, then we cannot even know that we know that we are not certain. Like Socrates, you will forever be chasing your own tail in asserting, "One thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." What should have been said is, "One thing I know, and that is that I know something. This relativistic mindset is diplomatic, but requires us to check our gray matter at the door of the church of observational relativism. This post by Chad [ Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<mythoughtworld.com>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] I found your comments on "subjectivism" interesting, but ultimately self refuting. Such is the error of epistemological subjectivism. In your opening definition you state, "Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure." My question for you, Vexen is, are you sure? This is the quintessence of incoherent thinking because anytime we make an assertion (or claim as fact) we are stating something we believe to be true. No one holds a view they believe to be untrue. Your claim is that we cannot know anything for certain and yet if this statement is to be taken seriously, then we cannot even know that we know that we are not certain. Like Socrates, you will forever be chasing your own tail in asserting, "One thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." What should have been said is, "One thing I know, and that is that I know something. This relativistic mindset is diplomatic, but requires us to check our gray matter at the door of the church of observational relativism.
This post by Chad <mythoughtworld.com> |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: October 9th, 2006 01:22 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: flawed
|
Don't misunderstand the ontology and get muddled-up with the symantics:
1. Even if you did, by some accident, happen to know everything, then, you could still never VERIFY that you know everything. I.e., there would be no way for to KNOW that you KNEW everything; therefore it is always intrinsically true that nothing can ever 'know everything'.
This doesn't contradict subjectivism, it is simply the way things are.
2. Also, we cannot know any intrinsic fact about the physical world; by logic we can make true statements. For example, the theory that 'there is a sun' is factually true: This is because there is much evidence for it, like there is for evolution and gravity. (Supported by the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Gravity). When there is a certain amount of evidence, things become known as 'facts'. However, we can never know for sure if our facts are true.
The statement 'we can never be completely sure' applies to knowledge about things-in-reality (instrinsic knowledge), and that we can't know anything for sure is a philosophical statement about meta-knowledge (epistemology). The two don't contradict; what you are *really* meaning to say, is:
a. In saying you can't 'know anything for sure', you might be wrong.
But, there is no evidence for (a), and there is lots of evidence for (b), that:
b. We can't know anything for sure.
Both are conjecture, but, there is so much evidence for (b) that it is best considered a fact, like gravity. You would really need a lot of evidence or some really strong arguments to refute gravity, or subjectivism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Previous
happy
absurdity
Fool.....