There is no compromising with an ideology that is inherently uncompromising in nature. It’s the paradox of tolerance. Realists will never make room for experiences that defy their idea of objective reality. If they did, they wouldn’t be realists. That’s why in order to create room for everyone’s experiences and freedom, we must destroy consensus reality. We need to kill objectivism in order to have a subjective multiverse with free exchange of ideas. Realists violate that social contract.
If objective reality doesn’t exist, then your definition of ‘subjective’ is just a consensus-based hallucination you inherited from your own comfort. How do you know your ‘multiverse’ isn’t just a realist’s cage you haven’t recognized yet? Your own argument destroys the premise upon which it rests. Also, what if my subjective experience includes what I would characterize as objective reality? You would be imposing your own definition on to me, again destroying your own premise.
Alright, well I’m happy to engage with that. I know it’s not a realist’s cage because I’m actively maintaining My subjective world and making choices about what to believe on a daily and weekly and yearly basis. I’m being an active agent in a way that realists don’t. They let society tell them what is objectively true. I don’t care about that, I’m asking Myself what is useful to believe.
That’s right, I’m willing to go to war and kill people over subjective differences of opinion. For example, the Nazis thought genocide is good. The allies thought it was bad. I think the allies were right to kill people over that subjective difference of opinion.
There is no compromising with an ideology that is inherently uncompromising in nature. It’s the paradox of tolerance. Realists will never make room for experiences that defy their idea of objective reality. If they did, they wouldn’t be realists. That’s why in order to create room for everyone’s experiences and freedom, we must destroy consensus reality. We need to kill objectivism in order to have a subjective multiverse with free exchange of ideas. Realists violate that social contract.
If objective reality doesn’t exist, then your definition of ‘subjective’ is just a consensus-based hallucination you inherited from your own comfort. How do you know your ‘multiverse’ isn’t just a realist’s cage you haven’t recognized yet? Your own argument destroys the premise upon which it rests. Also, what if my subjective experience includes what I would characterize as objective reality? You would be imposing your own definition on to me, again destroying your own premise.
Do you want to argue so that we can both learn from each other or do you want to argue so you can change My mind?
Neither. I just enjoy picking apart philosophical arguments.
Alright, well I’m happy to engage with that. I know it’s not a realist’s cage because I’m actively maintaining My subjective world and making choices about what to believe on a daily and weekly and yearly basis. I’m being an active agent in a way that realists don’t. They let society tell them what is objectively true. I don’t care about that, I’m asking Myself what is useful to believe.
How do you define what a realist cage is without being informed by objective reality?
Subjectively.
If you define this subjectively, from where comes the wording “we must” and “we need to” in your earlier messages?
Your words: “we must destroy consensus reality” “We need to kill the idea of objective reality”
In your world of free, subjective experience first, are people not allowed to form consensus that disagrees with your subjective ideals?
That’s right, I’m willing to go to war and kill people over subjective differences of opinion. For example, the Nazis thought genocide is good. The allies thought it was bad. I think the allies were right to kill people over that subjective difference of opinion.