Comment on People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies
SenK@lemmy.ca 17 hours agoWow, that’s… not quite what I meant. The goal isn’t to reject objective reality, it’s to question how we define it and who gets to decide what counts as “real.” Pushing people to explore their own perspectives is one thing, but encouraging pure solipsism just replaces one dogma with another. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 17 hours ago
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.
SenK@lemmy.ca 17 hours ago
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.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 16 hours ago
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?
SenK@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
Neither. I just enjoy picking apart philosophical arguments.