That's sad. Any person who refuses to believe in existence cannot objectively reason. Every single rational explanation demands the idea that existence exists; if you say otherwise, there is no reason to be had because nothing exists. And then you can just watch the Matrix and think about how amazingly deep it is.
Look, if you've watched the matrix then you know that reality as a whole can never fully be proven. This fact goes way back to Plato's 'Allagory of the Cave' and culminates in the Matrix. As what we percieve as reality is really just electrical signels transmitting to the brain, it is very possible to manipulate reality. There's also the concept that this world may just be one huge dream. This is what Morpheous say's when talking to Neo.
There is no way to irrafutably prove that we are not living in the Matrix right now and what I'm writing may not be what you are actually seeing.
Thus reality is not real, only probably so.
I've got mad philosophy skills. 😉 😉
You just opened up a whole can o' worms. If there's one thing I debate more fiercely than SW, it's philosophy.
Look, if you've watched the matrix then you know that reality as a whole can never fully be proven.
I don't need the Matrix to teach me something which has been the subject of philosophy since before any of us were born. Nothing can ever be fully proven, because all knowledge is limited by the human sense and how our brain perceives them. Since we cannot "know" anything outside of our own senses, we can only infer on the way the world really is because we do not have absolute knowledge or God's eye view of things. This is a given. Even David Hume correctly pointed out that you cannot "know" causation because you cannot sense the very thing which necessitates the reaction. You can see the before and after, nothing more. So yeah, the Matrix is centuries behind any coherent and better thought out philosophy standard. I absolutely hate the effect that movie has had on the modern world.
This fact goes way back to Plato's 'Allagory of the Cave' and culminates in the Matrix
What are you talking about? Plato himself noted that the Allergory of the Cave was in reference to people being ignorant and the shadows on the wall are the things which they take for granted, living the "unexamined life" as Socrates was wont to say.
As what we percieve as reality is really just electrical signels transmitting to the brain, it is very possible to manipulate reality.
It's also entirely possible to interfere with a tv broadcast. This doesn't mean the broadcast itself never happened, or that all broadcasts should be ignored. Simply because reality is not conclusively proven doesn't mean it's "not there at all". For a philosopher to claim "nothing exists" they would have to own up to this and either off themselves to prove a point or do nothing, learn nothing, like nothing, believe in nothing, since nothing exists. But each person cognitively realizes that something exists. It's the basic axioms.
Perception itself is the gateway to reason and knowledge as we know it. First, we are born and we see things. By seeing an object, we establish three core things about it and by extention everything else:
1. Something exists.
2. That thing has a nature.
3. That thing has a nature different from other things.
We've learned that we can see things. Since we have already perceived them, we must conclude that there was something to perceive in the first place or else we could not have noticed them. Again, existence exists. For you to claim otherwise, you would forsake all other arguments. To admit something does not exist is to say as well you do not exist, your opinion does not exist, the knowledge you used to deduce this does not exist, and therefore the argument is ended before it has begun. It is self-defeating and illogical to assume that the core of knowledge (That something exists) is faulty. After all, even if you are blind, deaf, and dumb, you can realize that YOU exist via introspection. Therefore, something exists. Reality must be upheld, even if we cannot conclusively prove it using God's own journal.
There's also the concept that this world may just be one huge dream. This is what Morpheous say's when talking to Neo.
Yes, theoretically we could be a dream of an ant on a planet millions of lightyears away. but Occam's Razor forbids us from making wild assertions which cannot be proven. His maxim is the most straightforward explanation which has the least assumptions yet is sufficient enough to explain the topic. So this theory is itself just nonsense.
There is no way to irrafutably prove that we are not living in the Matrix right now and what I'm writing may not be what you are actually seeing.
Just as there's no way you can conclusively, absolutely prove to me that you're right, because obviously we don't have the knowledge or capability to make those claims. See above arguments. Your own arguments are bunk. You should go in half on your buddy with that swamp land.
I've got mad philosophy skills.
Nice try, but no. If that's "bringing it" philosophically, you'd be maimed in any decent college debating circle.
Nothing can ever be fully proven, because all knowledge is limited by the human sense and how our brain perceives them. Since we cannot "know" anything outside of our own senses, we can only infer on the way the world really is
That's kind of my point.
What are you talking about? Plato himself noted that the Allergory of the Cave was in reference to people being ignorant and the shadows on the wall are the things which they take for granted, living the "unexamined life" as Socrates was wont to say.
No. What the shadow's on the wall represent are people's perceptions of the world and that they take this for granted as being the 'real'. What this means is that what people take as reality may not be true.
To quote,'To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images'- the shadow's of reality.
It's also entirely possible to interfere with a tv broadcast. This doesn't mean the broadcast itself never happened, or that all broadcasts should be ignored. Simply because reality is not conclusively proven doesn't mean it's "not there at all".
I agree, It is 'probably' there but not 'provably' there.
Perception itself is the gateway to reason and knowledge as we know it. First, we are born and we see things.
Are we? Do we? Do you remember your own birth? Can you even prove that you were?
To admit something does not exist is to say as well you do not exist, your opinion does not exist, the knowledge you used to deduce this does not exist, and therefore the argument is ended before it has begun.
You simple moron. This is the oldest argument evr and the answer is always the same: 'I think, therefore I am
Just as there's no way you can conclusively, absolutely prove to me that you're right, because obviously we don't have the knowledge or capability to make those claims. See above arguments.
Just as there is no way for you to prove that you are right, or that you even exist. What I percieve as reality 'might' not exist which is what I meant by saying that the world is only 99.9999999999999999etc% likely to exist.
See you tomorrow.
No. What the shadow's on the wall represent are people's perceptions of the world and that they take this for granted as being the 'real'. What this means is that what people take as reality may not be true.
Yes, but this doesn't negate reality itself. Obviously, there is something creating those shadows as well as someone to perceive it, right?
To quote,'To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images'- the shadow's of reality.
What is this crap?
[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said.
[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
[Glaucon] No question, he replied.
[Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
[Glaucon] That is certain.
Clearly, if you read the above (and the entire text), you can see that Socrates had meant that the shadows each person perceives is a twisted representation of something another person in control wants them to see. The shadows themselves do not represent reality; the things each shadow represents is real, and by extension the shadows themselves are real though they misrepresent things, and the humans chained and bound who can perceive are real too. So really, the Allegory of the Cave does NOT fit your Matrix-osophy.
Are we? Do we? Do you remember your own birth? Can you even prove that you were?
What are you on about now? Obviously, if I can think, and I can recognize myself and the world around me using my mind and my senses, something exists. If not, you would be as Pyrrho, a total skeptic, who would bumble about purposeless and get run down or die because you fail to feed yourself, questioning everything beyond reason.
And since when do I have to remember my own birth to prove anything? I am here. Existence exists. Don't be so damn foolish.
You simple moron. This is the oldest argument evr and the answer is always the same: 'I think, therefore I am
The only simple moron here is you, Exodus. I'm beginning to see why you're the KMC punching bag.
Let me make something absolutely clear to you since you lack any real comprehension skills:
If you accept that you exist, you accept that you exist within something, and that things which are not you exist; therefore, you accept reality, even if you profess to be some pseudo-philosopher who watched the Matrix and thinks he's smarter than someone who's actually taken college courses on the matter and can cite something other than the Wachowski brothers as credible sources, two college drop-outs who made the Matrix while being carpenters.
Just as there is no way for you to prove that you are right, or that you even exist. What I percieve as reality 'might' not exist which is what I meant by saying that the world is only 99.9999999999999999etc% likely to exist.
See you tomorrow.
You don't see to get it, do you? There is no exact percentage range you can define as how things are "likely" to exist, Exodus. No one person or entity known can calculate all the possibilities and account for all the values, and if such a thing did exist, they would likely know the answer and make the math part moot.
So yeah, reality MIGHT not exist. And the Matrix MIGHT be a half-assed movie trilogy based on some sort of stupid philosophy-geek babble. And Exodus MIGHT just be making a serious ass of himself by talking about a subject which he clearly has no mastery in.
Here's to probability:
Yes, but this doesn't negate reality itself. Obviously, there is something creating those shadows as well as someone to perceive it, right?
Nothing can negate reality. But nothing can ever prove it either. Its an impasse. Yes their is someone to percieve the shadows (me) but there needs not be something creating the Shadows as I will answer later.
What are you on about now? Obviously, if I can think, and I can recognize myself and the world around me using my mind and my senses, something exists.
Yes, only you. Your senses are fallible just like every other piece of matter. But it is folly to trust these senses as being 100% real as it would be easy for things like the robots in the Matrix or even God to manipulate. You can never even prove whether those things potentially manipulating you(like Neo finds in the Matrix) are not themselves illusions of your mind. You could even be manipulating yourself (dreaming) as you are the only provable thing. This was (i believe) Dacartes point.
And since when do I have to remember my own birth to prove anything? I am here. Existence exists.
Yuo are Here. You Exist (from your perspective). Everything else is fallible.
Clearly, if you read the above (and the entire text), you can see that Socrates had meant that the shadows each person perceives is a twisted representation of something another person in control wants them to see.
In both case's what the chained person perceives as the whole of reality is fallible and open to interpretation. This is backed up by Plato's whole concept of body and mind, when he says that the body and the snses and fallible and can't relied upon and that the only reliable thing is your mind.
You don't see to get it, do you? There is no exact percentage range you can define as how things are "likely" to exist, Exodus.
I wasn't making a serious effort to actually calculate the odds.
So yeah, reality MIGHT not exist.
Truth. This was my point and I win.
Nothing can negate reality. But nothing can ever prove it either. Its an impasse. Yes their is someone to percieve the shadows (me) but there needs not be something creating the Shadows as I will answer later.
Let me provide a conditional argument to your response:
IF the shadows are real, and IF the senses are to be trusted even part of the time, THEN it stands to reason that something exists. IF something exists, THEN it stands to reason that things exist.
The idea that the senses are so faulty that NOTHING can exist and its all an illusion violates Occam's Razor worse than Bubba during an inmate's first night in. The most straightforward and sufficient explanation is usually the right one. I perceive; therefore something exists. If something exists that I perceive, then it is reality.
Yes, only you. Your senses are fallible just like every other piece of matter. But it is folly to trust these senses as being 100% real as it would be easy for things like the robots in the Matrix or even God to manipulate. You can never even prove whether those things potentially manipulating you(like Neo finds in the Matrix) are not themselves illusions of your mind. You could even be manipulating yourself (dreaming) as you are the only provable thing. This was (i believe) Dacartes point.
I still don't get your point.
The idea that things could potentially be manipulated, illusionary, or not real is NEVER excluded from the equation. But since no PROOF is forthcoming, those theories are just that- theories. You could argue equally valid that I am controlling your reality right now. After all, how could you ever disprove me? All you have is your own fallible perceptions.
Again, a rational person accepts reality as existing and not a complex illusion because truly believing that all of this is fake does negate any reason to do anything. You would not fear losing this debate if you truly felt reality was somehow incorrect no matter what you thought, did, or believed. You DO admit that you value reality and believe it to exist, or else again- you would be as Pyrrho and sit there until you died, oblivious to the 'lies' around you.
As far as Descartes, the man was a fool. He felt that all things could be rationalized without any empirical data, which is foolish. You cannot sit there and come to truths while ignoring the world around you. Part of the truths we take to be self-evident (Cause and effect, passage of time, etc.) can only be observed, not derived from contemplation.
Yuo are Here. You Exist (from your perspective). Everything else is fallible.
You're babbling. Stop watching the Matrix and reading Descartes. It's not all in your head.
In both case's what the chained person perceives as the whole of reality is fallible and open to interpretation. This is backed up by Plato's whole concept of body and mind, when he says that the body and the snses and fallible and can't relied upon and that the only reliable thing is your mind.
[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
[Glaucon] Far truer.
[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
[Glaucon] True, he now.
[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.
[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
[Glaucon] Certainly.
Again, you're wrong. I've cited you entire passages from the work itself, and it's clear that the allegory is NOT meant to portray reality itself as illusion, but the uneducated, non-illuminated lifestyle as an illusion, and only by freeing yourself from ignorance and facing the harsh reality of what really is can you ever claim to know.
I wasn't making a serious effort to actually calculate the odds.
You weren't making a serious effort to debate either.
Truth. This was my point and I win.
If this was really your entire point, why not give up when I conceded that knowledge is inherently limited to the human sphere? Why continue to spew out all this nonsense about the Matrix and Descartes and other rationalist crap? If you're so hung up on knowledge being "fallible" and the human senses likewise, then you're entire argument is a waste of time. You might be wrong. Totally wrong. 99.999999999 % wrong.
But don't mind me, I'm not trying to be serious or anything.
You may want to learn how to debate at a college level or at least try and compromise before you continue to reply. One-sentence replies to my argument does not "make your point". Likewise, you have not put your entire argument into logical form; you're just rehashing stuff you've heard elsewhere without being able to substantiate it. This means you LOSE at both your point and your ability to debate.
Here's to mad philosophy skillz:
The idea that things could potentially be manipulated, illusionary, or not real is NEVER excluded from the equation. But since no PROOF is forthcoming, those theories are just that- theories. You could argue equally valid that I am controlling your reality right now. After all, how could you ever disprove me? All you have is your own fallible perceptions
Exactly my point.
And since there is no proof forthcoming that absolutely proves reality then that is also simply a theory. However everyone believes it just like 800 yrs ago everyone believed in the bible despite conclusive proof.
My argument is in itself infallible because it can never be proved or disproved.
Again, a rational person accepts reality as existing and not a complex illusion because truly believing that all of this is fake does negate any reason to do anything. You would not fear losing this debate if you truly felt reality was somehow incorrect no matter what you thought, did, or believed. You DO admit that you value reality and believe it to exist,
I do but can never prove it.
Is it really so hard to believe that a rational person can just take a leap of faith?
And I'm never afraid of losing.
Lets just call it a draw and get back to the actual point of the thread.
Revan takes the Force.
I'm not sure about the 'saber.
Anakin but with difficulty.
While revan is good, but he's no chosen one with more midicholrians than yoda.
besides, anakin uses djem so, which didnt exist in revans time so that should give anakin an advantage in sword combat cuz revan wouldnt know what to expect.
force wise, revan wins because he had more training and a greater variety of force techniques, which work very well against powerful force users like malak. so
my verdict is thus
1) Strictly sabers, anakin takes it
2) Strictly force, Anakin gets reduced to a skid mark on revan's combat boot.
3) all out in close quarters anakin but far away revan
Exactly my point.
And since there is no proof forthcoming that absolutely proves reality then that is also simply a theory. However everyone believes it just like 800 yrs ago everyone believed in the bible despite conclusive proof.
My argument is in itself infallible because it can never be proved or disproved.
Apparently you never took a logics and reasoning course.
An argument MUST be either sound, valid, or both in order to be acceptable. If it cannot be rationally justified, it is not a valid argument, it's a baseless assertion. The idea that reality can be nonexistent or just a pretense for some Matrix-style machine violates Occam's Razor and does not hold water when put into strictly logical form.
Ergo, it is not infallible; it's not an argument. Period.
I do but can never prove it.
Is it really so hard to believe that a rational person can just take a leap of faith?
And I'm never afraid of losing.
A rational person who takes leaps of faith realizes that the very leap means they have chosen to spit in the face of that which is itself rational. Sometimes, it's emotionally and 'spiritually' necessary for human beings to hope or make leaps of faith since all knowledge is based on primary assumptions, but in the end a strictly reasonable approach to something is to eliminate the impossible and make truth using the rest.
Lets just call it a draw and get back to the actual point of the thread.Revan takes the Force.
I'm not sure about the 'saber.
Revan owns both ways. He's clearly superior to Anakin in the Force by showings and reputation, and his access to Sith lore makes him much more formidable. Secondly, with a saber, he's reputed to have defeated top-tier warriors: Darth Malak juiced on the Star Forge (Confirmed by Drew K); Darth Bandon who was the top jedi killer behind Malak; the Sith at the Korriban Academy; Yusanis, Mandalore, Bendak Starkiller (Assumed); and Calo Nord- a notorious bounty hunter. Anakin was good, and I would say he could potentially be one of the best swordsmen in SW history had he not taken a dip in lava. But the mindset he lacked, and Obi-Wan, who was an inferior fighter, beat him soundly.