At the risk of reopening this can of worms, I closed this discussion last time with a bit of a post-mortem thread, including some of the points I find confused about the excerpt.
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Conversation
2
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Nathan you've gone and done it, you've roused the idealists. Poor poor man...
3
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Sure, but I think this point can be taken too far. Just because we are always viewing from first person reality doesn't mean that there is no 'external reality'. I'd say multiple people independently verifying similar phenomenon suggests that such a reality exists.
5
1
1
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
The only winning move in ontology, as far as I can tell, is no move at all.
Also, I can't quite tell if my perspective is, strictly speaking, first person.
At least not without reference to concepts.
That said, all this third person stuff strikes me as even more nebulous.
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Yes, I'm not having trouble with the terminology. I'm rather suggesting that the entire discussion is, necessarily, conceptual.
So for that, I have to give credence to the 3rd person "objectivity" crowd.
What troubles me about *that* view is, it's moving goalposts.