If you can't start from this as a premise, you can't really argue for or against anything.
This is what I thought "objectivist" meant the first time I heard the term; turns out "objectivist" just means "the mean-spirited sort of selfish person that socialists accuse libertarians of being in an attempt to paint their own policies as somehow more empathetic"
This is both true AND false. TECHNICALLY, all you have to establish ANYTHING as truth is your own sense data. Either that you take in directly, or by reading results of measurements. Lovecraft was really into that sort of thing. "There are billions of ethereal hell jellyfish around us at all times, we simply cannot PERCIEVE them! Our reality is true only from OUR perspective!"
This is both true AND false. TECHNICALLY, all you have to establish ANYTHING as truth is your own se
If there were thousands of invisible, intangible Hell Jellyfish around us at all times, they'd be there and objectively real whether we perceived them or not. They'd be there if we believed in them and they'd be there if we didn't, because truth is simply true; if a tree falls in the woods its impact makes vibrations whether or not there are ears in the area to pick up the sound or microphones to record it.
If there were thousands of invisible, intangible Hell Jellyfish around us at all times, they'd be t
Yes, but to any definition of reality you can provide, they are NOT real. That is why you cannot explain cellular biology to a cave man. They do not and CANNOT know what a cell is, much less how it functions. Though, in honesty, I'm mostly just shit posting and having fun over-thinking.
Yes, but to any definition of reality you can provide, they are NOT real. That is why you cannot exp
