Don't let Jay's goofy antics or his vaporwave meme aesthetics fool you. Jay Dyer's mind is sharp as a blade. Many atheist, Roman Catholic, Muslim, and gnostic opponents have made the mistake of underestimating him. Jay is an intellectual titan and a philosophical master.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t. simpstan
2 years ago
Anonymous
True to a lesser degree. Anyway, if you can't beat him then just wait a couple of years. He'll eventually pick a new denomination/position and refute his old one for you.
all those were like after me no one is allowed to do philosophy and if they do theyre dumb, only i am allowed to be a philosopher anymore, see >nietzsche >wittgenstein >ayer
etc.
This dude is too arrogant for me. It's like theology is just a stand in for the man's ego.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Imagination exists therefore intellect is immaterial BTW I am smart. WOW.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you are not going to actually listen to what he has to say then don't bother posting.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I am right i watched it and that is his syllogistic argument??
The Syllogistic Arguments:
1. AEE, Figure 2
A All physical things are particulars
E No universals are particulars
E No universals are physical things
2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals
3. EIO, Figure 2
E No physical things are universals
I Some concepts are universals
O Some concepts are not physical things
4. OAO, Figure 3
O Some concepts are not physical things
A All concepts are in the mind
O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things
5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical
6. OAO, Figure 3
O Some things in the mind are not physical things
A All things in the mind are part of the mind
O Some part of the mind is not physical
7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)
8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial
9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)
10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.
Q.E.D.
counter-argument:
This proof assumes that a conception is infact not a particular but a universal, and assumes these are separate ontological categories, whereas the universality of the most universal is its particular nature, and the particular nature of it is its universality, by extension the most particular of the particular is the most universal of the universal,
therefore the universal most is not immaterial, because according to the syllogistic argument, a particular is a physical thing, therefore some part of the concept its universal most nature, is infact physical and non-physical, this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material they infact both concepts in one immaterial mind.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material
by being universal and particular respectively, whereas the most universal is infact the most particular, and by transposition the least universal is the least particular.
Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable. Must miss the times when you could just point at lightning in the sky and say "Zeus did it"
2 years ago
Anonymous
You sure seem clever for a three dimensional being, we totally can fully grasp the nature of physical reality and should trust our perception… NOT!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes. Very much in the real of physical reality.
Ok then you can't use logic to even make an argument so your whole post is meaningless.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable.
It's funny how you are talking about "unjustifiable" when that is literally your whole worldview.
None of you people have even gotten past Hume.
Meme words get thrown around too often around but in this case this is actually a textbook example of FILTERED!!!
Goedel proved that within a "formal system", i.e. a mathematicla system with axioms, some statements are true but cannot be proven. This is a paradox. It means the system can never be proven to be consistent, so anything the system "proves" is not a proof. The only way the system can be true but not proven, is if it is revealed to be true.
Of course his argument can be tweaked for orthodox rather than neoplatonism since neoplatonism would not solve the dilemna on a more fundamental level.
Specifically, the Eleatics. Absolute boss-tier monsters who were famous for demolishing everyone else and humiliating them with hilarious reductio ad absurdum arguments and observations.
it’s plotinus. once you comprehend plotinus you can be done with western philosophy
maybe nagarjuna if you’re a Buddhist or Shankara if you’re an advaitain. this is also precisely why nobody makes any attempt to “advance the system” of any thinker that I mentioned, and why all of the fools that mentioned nietzsche, hegel are wrong. Marx and stirner tried to advance Hegel while the ink was still fresh on the page. dialectic of systems is baked into his philosophy. and neetch was a navel gazing moron that leads everyone to their own brand of satanism
Why doesn't Dyer challenge a big YouTube Atheist like Thundef00t or Amazing Atheist to a debate? All of his atheism debates are with literal whos from 10 years ago.
St. Paul
FPBP, especially when you understand theosis
In what way? How do I learn more about St. Paul?
No he isn't, moron.
homosexual
you can't exit philosophy OP. that's not how it works
Who?
Christopher Langan
>Aristotle but it’s STEM
My now ex gf who destroyed my mind
Rene Guenon because he retroactively refuted Jay Dyer
>he retroactively refuted Jay Dyer
Explain
he refuted the superiority of theology over metaphysics and religious exclusivism
that's not an explanation, just an affirmation
Geunon was refuted by Tomberg
Nietzsche
larp
everything in life is a larp
nietzsch is only being honest
Who is he?
Jay Dyer
>comedian
Fricking dropped.
Don't let Jay's goofy antics or his vaporwave meme aesthetics fool you. Jay Dyer's mind is sharp as a blade. Many atheist, Roman Catholic, Muslim, and gnostic opponents have made the mistake of underestimating him. Jay is an intellectual titan and a philosophical master.
>t. simpstan
True to a lesser degree. Anyway, if you can't beat him then just wait a couple of years. He'll eventually pick a new denomination/position and refute his old one for you.
Muh Crowley butt sex lol
>he
all those were like after me no one is allowed to do philosophy and if they do theyre dumb, only i am allowed to be a philosopher anymore, see
>nietzsche
>wittgenstein
>ayer
etc.
Kantbot and wydna collective are the final boss of philosophy
Kantbot is like a boss who’s been hyped up all game only to die in 1 hit
Nice cope
>Wydna
More like Ywnbaw
Johannes Scotus Erigena
>Numbers are real therefore God.
Complete pseud.
It's funny how even this strawman that you have made is actually STILL a better and more coherent argument than materialism.
This is not a strawman. This is unironically the argument pseuds make to prove existence of the immaterial.
Imagination exists therefore intellect is immaterial BTW I am smart. WOW.
If you are not going to actually listen to what he has to say then don't bother posting.
I am right i watched it and that is his syllogistic argument??
The Syllogistic Arguments:
1. AEE, Figure 2
A All physical things are particulars
E No universals are particulars
E No universals are physical things
2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals
3. EIO, Figure 2
E No physical things are universals
I Some concepts are universals
O Some concepts are not physical things
4. OAO, Figure 3
O Some concepts are not physical things
A All concepts are in the mind
O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things
5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical
6. OAO, Figure 3
O Some things in the mind are not physical things
A All things in the mind are part of the mind
O Some part of the mind is not physical
7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)
8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial
9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)
10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.
Q.E.D.
counter-argument:
This proof assumes that a conception is infact not a particular but a universal, and assumes these are separate ontological categories, whereas the universality of the most universal is its particular nature, and the particular nature of it is its universality, by extension the most particular of the particular is the most universal of the universal,
therefore the universal most is not immaterial, because according to the syllogistic argument, a particular is a physical thing, therefore some part of the concept its universal most nature, is infact physical and non-physical, this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material they infact both concepts in one immaterial mind.
>this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material
by being universal and particular respectively, whereas the most universal is infact the most particular, and by transposition the least universal is the least particular.
Do you deny the existence of the immaterial?
Yes. Very much in the real of physical reality.
Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable. Must miss the times when you could just point at lightning in the sky and say "Zeus did it"
You sure seem clever for a three dimensional being, we totally can fully grasp the nature of physical reality and should trust our perception… NOT!
>Yes. Very much in the real of physical reality.
Ok then you can't use logic to even make an argument so your whole post is meaningless.
>Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable.
It's funny how you are talking about "unjustifiable" when that is literally your whole worldview.
None of you people have even gotten past Hume.
Meme words get thrown around too often around but in this case this is actually a textbook example of FILTERED!!!
That's one argument, and it works.
Goedel proved that within a "formal system", i.e. a mathematicla system with axioms, some statements are true but cannot be proven. This is a paradox. It means the system can never be proven to be consistent, so anything the system "proves" is not a proof. The only way the system can be true but not proven, is if it is revealed to be true.
https://www.rudyrucker.com/infinityandthemind/#calibre_link-304
Of course his argument can be tweaked for orthodox rather than neoplatonism since neoplatonism would not solve the dilemna on a more fundamental level.
>not the slightest hint of a counter argument
>just call him a pseud and move on
Atheist "thinkers"
still waiting for a debate between him and mathoma
This dude is too arrogant for me. It's like theology is just a stand in for the man's ego.
The Pre-Socratics.
Specifically, the Eleatics. Absolute boss-tier monsters who were famous for demolishing everyone else and humiliating them with hilarious reductio ad absurdum arguments and observations.
Guenon SAWS
Hegel without a doubt
Adi Shankara (pbuh) is the boss
Heated argument from yesterday
christcuckery man
Hegel if you want an aneurysm, real homies read the the mystics
it’s plotinus. once you comprehend plotinus you can be done with western philosophy
maybe nagarjuna if you’re a Buddhist or Shankara if you’re an advaitain. this is also precisely why nobody makes any attempt to “advance the system” of any thinker that I mentioned, and why all of the fools that mentioned nietzsche, hegel are wrong. Marx and stirner tried to advance Hegel while the ink was still fresh on the page. dialectic of systems is baked into his philosophy. and neetch was a navel gazing moron that leads everyone to their own brand of satanism
You're right that Plotinus is better than those others you mentioned, but he still isn't the best tbh
power (potentia) , death and other contemplative but readable entities
Hegel, reading him requires so much context and foreknowledge that it feels like an exam
Why doesn't Dyer challenge a big YouTube Atheist like Thundef00t or Amazing Atheist to a debate? All of his atheism debates are with literal whos from 10 years ago.
Atheist arguments are all the same.