It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you're being a little pedantic here.
Are you replying to someone else? I can't tell what you're trying to say.
Are you autistic?
No.
You OK there?
Just that the "arguments" and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.
I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?
The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy's doing the same so maybe it's just typical conversation on here.
A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.
I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.
You're taking empiricism to absurd lengths. Why?
It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you're being a little pedantic here.
Are you replying to someone else? I can't tell what you're trying to say.
Are you autistic?
No.
You OK there?
Just that the "arguments" and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.
I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?
The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy's doing the same so maybe it's just typical conversation on here.
A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.
I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.