Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Gemini]

No because many would think that "subjectivity is objectively existent" would be a contradictory statement. Indeed ontology is the study of being or existence. There is ontological objectivity and there is epistemological objectivity. For that reason "subjectivity is objectively existent" is not a contradiction because I have specified that I am talking about ontological subjectivity which is indeed is objectively existent if only as a totality of subjective objects or 'subjects'.

That seems to be a very common error people make. Noting the distinction between ontological and epistemological subjectivity is a good way to point it out.

[Edwardo Piet]

[Arkilogue]

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I know I was making a joke.

[Arkilogue]

Yeah I know I was making a joke.

Not used to that here yet

[robvalue]

Look, I win and you're all made of cardboard.

Gemini: Well said When "studying" what is real at a philosophical level, we're doing just the same thing science does. We're coming up with pragmatic models. My model is an attempt to remove as many assumptions as possible while retaining functionality.

[Edwardo Piet]

Look, I win and you're all made of cardboard.

Darn. 1-0 to you.






* Edwardo Piet 's perception of time doesn't pass.






Fake Edit To Add: You forgot to ring the pyrotechnics to tell them your alarmist bells are most definitely not ringing.

1-1 love.

5-5 Juice.

10-10 The Jews.

11-11 Juice 'cause I said so.

1-1 Return

5-4 re
fe
fray
4-5 Refrain

0-0 Nork.






...because I'm normal like that.

[Edwardo Piet]

[robvalue]

Yup, you need a careful mix of science and philosophy. Neither are much good on their own. The classic mistake theists often make is to try and use philosophy to extend beyond what science can test. That's just totally flawed.

[Mudhammam]

Yup, you need a careful mix of science and philosophy. Neither are much good on their own. The classic mistake theists often make is to try and use philosophy to extend beyond what science can test. That's just totally flawed.

But isn't that a philosophical claim about the utility of science that cannot itself be subjected to any scientific test?  Don't get me wrong, I agree that empirical data is of utmost importance in verifying a claim.  But do I think that all knowledge depends on experience?  I think that might be difficult to establish, philosophically or scientifically!