It’s a dumb arguement if you think philosophy is dumb, yes, lol.
Does repetition really mean truth? I must have seen the Inglorious Basterds assassinate Hitler half a dozen times, but I wouldn’t claim that he died in Paris as a result of Operation Kino, even though I’ve seen the process repeat several times.
Why then should we think repetition is a indicator of anything being factual?
I don’t think philosophy is dumb but I do think it should be rooted in reality. That movie is a deliberately made up story. Written by a human who physically exists. Acted out by people who physically exist. You can’t interact with those characters because they don’t physically exist.
But by repeatedly watching the movie you prove that the movie itself exists and is factually real.
I said this is dumb because it disregards logic. Real philosophical thinking points don’t completely disregard physical logic.
I’m not sure it was understood what was meant by the movie. It’s not about a movie, it’s about perception of reality.
You’ve made several assertions about the movie, how it was written and shot by people who physically exist. How do you know they exist? Have you interacted with them?
Also, how can we be so certain physical logic is real, compared to a movie? Is it simply that what we call reality engages touch and we don’t know it to be fake, like we do a movie? Just because what we perceive to be reality isn’t so obviously a charade, does that necessarily mean it is truly real?
Can you prove that anything you see around you isn’t just a hyper-realistic simulation?
It’s a dumb arguement if you think philosophy is dumb, yes, lol.
Does repetition really mean truth? I must have seen the Inglorious Basterds assassinate Hitler half a dozen times, but I wouldn’t claim that he died in Paris as a result of Operation Kino, even though I’ve seen the process repeat several times.
Why then should we think repetition is a indicator of anything being factual?
I don’t think philosophy is dumb but I do think it should be rooted in reality. That movie is a deliberately made up story. Written by a human who physically exists. Acted out by people who physically exist. You can’t interact with those characters because they don’t physically exist.
But by repeatedly watching the movie you prove that the movie itself exists and is factually real.
I said this is dumb because it disregards logic. Real philosophical thinking points don’t completely disregard physical logic.
I’m not sure it was understood what was meant by the movie. It’s not about a movie, it’s about perception of reality.
You’ve made several assertions about the movie, how it was written and shot by people who physically exist. How do you know they exist? Have you interacted with them?
Also, how can we be so certain physical logic is real, compared to a movie? Is it simply that what we call reality engages touch and we don’t know it to be fake, like we do a movie? Just because what we perceive to be reality isn’t so obviously a charade, does that necessarily mean it is truly real?
Can you prove that anything you see around you isn’t just a hyper-realistic simulation?