Welcome to Gaia! ::


Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
Rumblestiltskin
This is not a rock.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe de roche.


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
Rumblestiltskin
This is not a rock.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe de roche.


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.

Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
Rumblestiltskin
This is not a rock.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe de roche.


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
Rumblestiltskin
This is not a rock.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe de roche.


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception. (Or at least it's perceived as an image within the image of our perception.) Hopefully that's not too confusing. xd

Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
Rumblestiltskin
This is not a rock.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe de roche.


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception.


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception.


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?

Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


Nice appeal to surrealism, which by definition is not realism.

It is the image of a pipe, but the pope itself is still a pipe, whether or not we see an image of it.

I'm fighting the strong temptation to make a joke about your typo. I already did that to someone else today (well yesterday, technically); didn't go quite as planned.

What pipe itself is still a pipe? I only recall seeing an image, not the thing in itself.


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception.


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception.


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.

Toki Bird's Wife

Swashbuckling Wife

13,975 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Streaker 200
  • Generous 100
XxTheVeganVampirexX
IronySandwich




See, I don't know much about Dawkins, but (unlike you apparantly) I have actually listened to a few of his speeches. He is polite to a fault, and has stated numerous times that he has no desire to see religion destroyed, but rather become something more of a passtime or quirk rather than a political force.


arrow I used to listen to his speeches and his debates almost religiously.
arrow He is not polite towards the religious or towards religion in general. He's downright patronising and treats them like chikdren. He taunts them and just belittles them at every turn.
arrow He is particularly biased against Islam.
arrow A quirk or a pastime? Like tennis? Easy for an European white male to say.

Quote:
What's funny is that you aren't complaining about an actual Richard Dawkins, but rather an imaginary Richard Dawkins born of your own hatred towards atheists.


arrow I dislike his particular brand of atheism. It's corrosive. The man should stick to biology.

Quote:
Examples: "Why do militant atheists..." becomes "Why do greedy Jews ..." or "Why do lazy black people..."


arrow Atheists should stop comparing themselves to racial/ethnic minorities.


I like these rebuttals.

Sparkling Man-Lover

12,250 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Sausage Fest 200
  • Tooth Fairy 100
Poppy Lemonade

I like these rebuttals.


Thank you.

Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


I can't stop laughing. It sounds like a bad joke: When is the pope not the pope? When a typo makes him a pipe.

A thing is what it is and is not what it is not. If the pipe exists, it is a pipe and not a rubbish bin. We do not need to be there to see it for that to be so.

Well, I agree with that (assuming the laws of logic, as we all do when we use language). But this doesn't have anything to do with realism. It's pure logic. A realist claims that our perception corresponds to reality. I don't accept that. We don't know that the image of a pipe I posted actually represents a real pipe. And if we saw the pipe "directly," we wouldn't know that it was really a pipe either, only that we perceived that it was. Seeing it "directly" is practically the same as looking at an image; the only difference is that the image on the screen is an image within the image of our perception.


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.


Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:

User Image

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.


Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:

User Image

Rest assured, my life does not depend on your continuing this conversation. I just wish more people would consider the possibility that epistemic certainty is impossible. People don't understand what true skepticism is.

Eloquent Inquisitor

18,500 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Partygoer 500
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.


Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:

User Image

Rest assured, my life does not depend on your continuing this conversation. I just wish more people would consider the possibility that epistemic certainty is impossible. People don't understand what true skepticism is.


I was likening the comic strip character to the surrealist pipe, not you, goofy.

Enduring Seeker

6,475 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Marathon 300
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.


Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:

User Image

Rest assured, my life does not depend on your continuing this conversation. I just wish more people would consider the possibility that epistemic certainty is impossible. People don't understand what true skepticism is.


I was likening the comic strip character to the surrealist pipe, not you, goofy.

User Image

Oh, good. sweatdrop I assumed "this" was the reply you quoted. That makes sense.

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest
Nerdologist
The Legendary Guest


Of course our perceptions can be wrong, ever seen a "magic show"? That's why skeptics ask for outside verification and peer reviews and all that good stuff.

If the pipe exists, it is a pipe regardless of our perceptions. If you don't want to get into a discussion about surrealism, it might make more sense not to reference a surrealist artist, silly. wink

Only weak skeptics ask for verification. Strong skeptics like me do not accept verification. I recommend reading this article to familiarize yourself with epistemological skepticism. I'm somewhere inbetween Pyrrhonian skepticism and Academic skepticism.

Like I said, I agree that an existent pipe is a pipe. That's just an analytic truth. It's basically the law of identity. I honestly don't think surrealism promotes an anti-realist philosophy. Where did you get that impression?


I'm not under that impression? I was merely commenting on the reference and wasn't going anywhere with it. I am now of the opinion that I should not have posted at all.

Oh, okay. You made it sound like surrealism was a philosophy that rejected realism. Don't give up on the discussion yet; it was just getting interesting (to me at least). I really want you to take a look at that article. Not enough people know or care about epistemological skepticism. And you might want to start at section #1 (even though the link takes you straight to the second one), because it is relevant to what we were talking about.


Saw this and it reminded me of this exchange:

User Image


Wish it had ended like this:

User Image

Nerdologist


As for the discussion, I don't think I'd be able to offer much. The only study I did on surrealism was theatrical surrealism, and I don't remember any of it because I hated it so much as a theatrical art form (among others in terms of modern art styles).

However, the answer to whether the pipe goes into the "a rock" category or a "not a rock" category, in realistic terms, would be like this: An item is not identified by the components that comprise it. We don't identify a house as "brick." Sure, it may be a brick house, but brick just describes an aspect of the item...not the entirety of the item. So what it comes down to is function. While it is made of a rock (and glass...let's not forget the glass), it's function is a pipe, which is why it would go in the "not a rock" category. And I realize I went on a pretty long rant for what is, essentially, a joke...but, for those who take it seriously, there's my rebuttal.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum