Oh he’s impossible for me to understand or even approach? Thanks for letting me know about my own brain, I’ve only had it all my life - how long did you borrow it for again?
Perhaps your Spinozan superpowers extend to faultless and complete telepathy merely from reading a few posts by someone - very impressive.
I guess I can continue to expect from you more of what you called “taunting”, and it looks like arguments from authority (appeal to accomplishment) too. The list of fallacies you’re making is off to a great start, keep it up.
Your bet is correct - I’ve never read any Spinoza, so you can now immediately assume absolute superiority based solely on this qualification of yours. Comfy now?
Is this more confirmation for you that I’d never be unable to understand him? That would be a nice fallacy to add to your collection.
I’m assuming from what you say, that you’ve read every single one of his arguments completely, but it doesn’t sound like you know many people in higher education if you don’t think many people have done what you’re implying you have.
From what I read about Spinoza, he sounded very similarly disposed to a lot things as I am, including being against Descartes’ Dualism and Free Will, like I’m arguing in this very thread, and being a Determinist - even upon application to humans - also exactly what I’m arguing… Even my own original argument against the existence of God was compared to Spinoza when I explained it to a PhD friend of mine from university.
But if the guy argues as fallaciously as you - the self-professed master of his philosophy claiming to use logic on par with him - I’m kinda put off…
I guess it’s just beyond simple beings like myself that Spinoza can use the False Dilemma and Argument from authority fallacies without issue - as you’ve been demonstrating so far.
I’m expecting great things from you.
What’s a prized argument you’ve made, Spinozan or otherwise? I need to fall to my knees in admiration asap plz. I want to believe you’re worth what you say you are, rather than what I’ve witnessed so far.
Oh dear…
You say that people have mutually exclusive experiences, there are lots of people, therefore plural tokens of experience.
You imply that I am not an “experience monist” as I claim, when I am using Monist in opposition to Dualist - which is two types of substance, generally mind versus matter.
In order for your argument to make the slightest sense, you’d have to be doubting my Monism (in type) by counter argument that there are Pluralist (tokens of) experiences.
This is a perfect example of or arguing by mixing up types with tokens…
You even go on to continue the same conflation with the following:
Your premise: Two tokens of experience can be incompatible.
Your conclusion: That’s not type-monism (as I’m using it when I say I am a monist).
You. are. conflating. the. two.
I hope you don’t mind if I “Lol” again…
Take your time getting back to Karpel + don’t feel like you need to let any continued discussion between us compromise it.
I can’t stress enough how much I don’t want you do compromise discussion with others to continue ours…
We talked about this before with another zealot who I now ignore. I feel like Ecmandu is not quite as bad, or at least not in the same way.
My problem is I can’t let go of the possibility of helping change the minds of people who believe in things that make the world worse. I’ve long been aware of things like Serendipper used to say about debates being pointless, and “the backfire effect” is my arch-nemesis: it seems like the better I refine my arguments, the more those I engage dig their heels in that their inferior argument is superior. I understand the psychology behind it and everything, but having spent a significant proportion of my lifetime mastering philosophy and argumentation techniques, it’s demoralising to see that they still come to nothing. I’m wondering if it’s only kids and smart people who know how to listen and learn - making my target of the remainder who make everything worse a poor choice on my part.
The defense mechanism you mention actually has a name: “Proof by Assertion” - the logical fallacy of continually restating an argument in spite of contradictions pointed out.
I don’t actually care if I end up conforming to your analogy of becoming a character in someone else’s fantasy - not just because this is kinda true for everyone including yourself - but because dumbasses like me feel a duty to try and enact change in the best way they can regardless of the cost to self shakes my head at myself.