What exactly do you mean when you say “[my] spiel about desire trumping truthfulness”?
I hope you did not misinterpret my words as saying that desire trumps, or that it is better if it trumps, truthfulness.
My point is simply that there is a way of forming descriptions of reality that is based solely on what kind of consequences we desire. That’s what I, and that’s what others, denote by the word subjectivity.
For example, most of us do not want to imagine that there will be a world war in a couple of years. First, because that’s not what we want to happen. And second, because the knowledge of it would rudely motivate us to take some kind of action to prevent it. None of us wants that. But if that’s what evidence (i.e. our personal experience which is just a set of our personal observations) suggests, then that’s the only thing that we can logically conclude. Unless, of course, we settle for a different kind of “logic”, which really is illogic, according to which what’s going to happen is what we want to happen (in our example that would mean no third world war in the future.)
I think this irrational way of thinking is something that is an everyday occurrence that is very easy to observe. Within ourselves as well as within others.
If not, then one can come to know about it through all sorts of sources. Long before they discover you and Satyr. For example, they can hear it from Richard Dawkins. Or they can hear it from their professors. Or Wikipedia. The list goes on.
What exactly am I plagiarising?
First, you have to make a meaningful accusation.
Don’t just come out with a bunch of vague words that can mean pretty much anything.
And then, you have to prove it.
Don’t just declare it.
That’s neither what I said nor something that is true.
I said it just a few moments ago but I’ll say it again.
Some people, it is imaginable, interpret reality in terms of what is of value to them.
Some don’t.
Some people, it is imaginable, think that’s the best way to interpret reality.
Some don’t.
Personally, I don’t interpret reality in terms of what is of value to me.
For example, I do not want to die yet I predict that I will die sometime in the future.
Personally, I think that people who do so, who think that what is true is what is of value to them, are morons because they are confusing thinking with desiring, two entirely separate processes. They have thereby lost the ability to think properly.
Whatever that means.
I am pretty sure it makes you look smart in the eyes of some.
Good job, my friend.
But consciously I think you are severely delusional.
What exactly is there to admire in you?
Show off.
It appears to me that you suffer from the pathological need to be admired (i.e. valued.) Look at yourself. You are convinced that people admire you even when there is no evidence for it.
Less posturing more thinking please.
Gosh, you posture too much.
It’s easy to simply assume you’re right and then work within that premise to find the most logical explanation of why others don’t agree with you. Anyone can do that.
But how many can make an actual effort to prove the premise i.e. that they are right?
How many?
Jakoff certainly not among them.
Right, so Void is Wyld . . .
Makes perfect sense.