/lit/ - Literature

Reply to this post because I am not online all the time >>20700561

>How often do you see your seeing? With your eye that does that seeing.
You don't. This is exactly the point. You know what you see, just as you know what is known. There is nothing outside of what is seen insofar as it is seen, just as there is nothing outside of what is known insofar as it is known.
>Your lack of erudition is not my problem.
Your argument is to assert that I'm wrong and you're right... And throw a few wikipedia articles at me as if that proves anything.
>Does that disprove the evolution then?
If grammar is erroneous then evolution is not proven to begin with. We don't even have a heuristic, because a heuristic relies on a standard in order to even have heuristic value. This applies exactly the same to your next point. Asserting something is a heuristic simply begs the question of what it is that is heuristically true, and how it can be heuristically valid. You either have truth, and thereby heuristic approximations of said truth, or you have nothing at all, not even a heuristic approximation, because something which does not exist cannot even be approximated.
>That you are a zombie, your hand is actually not yours, while the rubber one is?
These things are never known directly, they are mediations and heuristic views. If I see red, that is known in itself as red, if I know and contemplate the Pythagorean proof, that is known as a proof of the relations between the sides of a right angled triangle in itself, nothing more and nothing less, unrelated to any other relationships which might be attached (for example, "the car is red" is mediated knowledge, it is true in so far as it is a perception in itself of a car which is red. It might not actually be a car upon further investigation, but that is irrelevant to basic fact of perception).
>You are not very smart, you realize that?
You seem to be the one who cannot answer simple questions about his worldview without resorting to name calling and intentional obscuration via information barrage of irrelevant factoids which do not pertain to the argument.

>>19794339
this

>>19604040
You're retarded

>>19390605
Plato-chads... I kneel

>>19133544
>>Here's how interpreting Plato will justify invading Iraq
holy based