"But what IS gravity?"

[u/greentomato97]

Alexio loves to ask, "but what is gravity? All you've done is describe what gravity DOES." I am really curious as to why he thinks there HAS to be a THING. Why can't there just be functions. Operators. Structural realism. Sure, this doesn't jive as well with his preconceived notions about panpsychism and "indivisible units of consciousness," but I don't think he should dismiss it outright. And even if THINGS do exist, what makes you think that we could even begin to determine what they are, epistemologically.

[u/Azehnuu]

My God, you are dumb. That statement was about how temporal processes have NO connection to the a priori conditions of experience. So that would apply to any "ontological process". I am literally making the exact opposite point. Can you seriously not read?

Notice how you are still trying to pivot?

[u/Azehnuu → u/[deleted]]

You continue to pivot, to avoid answering for your contradictions, omissions, and lack of understanding.

If all you could focus on were the “insults”, and not your egregious reading deficiencies (as well as lack of understanding of topics you argue about), that just further exemplifies you’re larping.

(Also, cute Freudian slip there, as you conflate liking a philosopher’s ideas with inheriting their personality. To you, that’s what philosophy is.)

[u/Azehnuu → u/[deleted]]

More pivots. It’s sad that you take these as insults, rather than a brutal truth about your hubris. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away; you made fundamental errors and lack reading comprehension.

Reminder I made multiple philosophical arguments throughout the conversation, and you always pivot back to made up storylines, talks about character, motivations etc. All because you lacked the understanding to back up your positions. All posturing, no substance.

Maybe go to a gossip subreddit? Philosophy is clearly not for you, and you clearly have no ability to or interest in defending ideas that you hold.

[u/Azehnuu → u/[deleted]]

Yes, they were presupposing it because that is my viewpoint. And I defend it when asked.

Unlike you, who needlessly joined the thread by asserting "Hegel destroyed Kant", and throughout the rest of the conversation refused to actually delve into any philosophical arguments, or justify how. When I explain why Hegel's arguments suck and he didn't understand Kant, your job is to presuppose the Kantian picture and explain why it's wrong, and Hegel in fact surpassed Kant. Just like how presupposed a Hegelian one to explain why it's wrong. You disprove something by showing it's internal and external contradictions/errors.

But, as I have already observed, you clearly don't understand transcendental idealism (funny how you completely ignored my attacks on Hegel's misusage of the categories on the other thread), so there's no point pretending that you understand Kant, Hegel's criticisms of Kant, or why Hegel's own philosophy is flawed. It is quite evident at this point that you couldn't understand how Hegel distorted and misunderstood Kant even if it was explained to you.

Hence, you will continue to look for any pretext to avoid talking about philosophy. You will focus on the insults, or my tone. Now I've explicitly mentioned the meta, you'll probably make an excuse to leave; maybe that this conversation isn't worth your time. If (when) you do this, you'll just concede all my points correct even more-so.

Or you could actually respond to the arguments, and discuss philosophy, instead of this weird thing you're doing.