Would you be able to tell me how your version of objective reality is being discovered, scientifically talked about, etc if not by the labor of theorization and refinements of concepts?
-
-
Nature does not reduce to human psychology. Gnon shrugs.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
What is humanly psychological about the nature of logic or scientific concepts?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
“talked about ... by the labor of theorization and refinements”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You really not good at this or understanding science, are you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Addiction to games of immediacy (in philosophy of logic & science) can be cured by understanding “Husserl and the Search for Certitude”, Kolakowski’s critique of phenomenology:https://books.google.com/books?id=VKEHAAAACAAJ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What are you talking about, truly?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your stupid game of reducing objects to intellectual conditions of the person thinking about them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If you actually knew what objectivity means, we could be the best pals. But no you are not because you really don't understand the basics. GTFOH!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The difference of objects from your objectivity is not constituted by your objectivity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
What are you saying? Are you that desperate?
-
-
Are there limits to the comedy and tragedy possible with idealist epistemology? I doubt it.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm sure you are smart person, but this comment is rather dumb and inarticulate. Don't you think so?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.