How can SOME women be attracted by this ?

[limo8]

chemistry and biology can explain material aspect of attraction but not formal cause, neither teleological or efficient. (everything has 4 causes, science explains only material cause).
on god, you can prove his existence through reasoning. ofc empirically you can't do this but empiricism is wrong and rationalism is superior to it.
metaphysics is only theory yeah but theory is important

easy english please

 

[theRetard]

easy english please

read metaphysics book by aristotle. but firstly you need plato, and to understand plato you need parmenides and heraclitus

 

[limo8]

read metaphysics book by aristotle. but firstly you need plato, and to understand plato you need parmenides and heraclitus

i need it for my college i think so maybe i will

 

[SASALELE]

chemistry and biology can explain material aspect of attraction but not formal cause, neither teleological or efficient. (everything has 4 causes, science explains only material cause).

To claim that attraction requires teleological causes to be understood is overstating. You dont need an Aristotelian “formal blueprint”. Science is what explains attraction. Metaphysics can only help with what counts as attraction or its general pattern, but it doesnt add causal explanation for real word attraction beyond biology and chemistry.

on god, you can prove his existence through reasoning. ofc empirically you can't do this but empiricism is wrong and rationalism is superior to it.
metaphysics is only theory yeah but theory is i

ontological and cosmological arguments are attempts at logical proof. Its widely recognised among philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Church Fathers, etc, that they only show logical possibility or coherence, not proof of existence. Metaphysics can help explore concepts but it doesnt constitute proof of actual existence.

Empiricism and rationalism are complementary to each other. I am Christian myself, but you cannot definitely prove Gods existence in any way, and especially not with rationalism alone.

 

[theRetard]

To claim that attraction requires teleological causes to be understood is overstating. You dont need an Aristotelian “formal blueprint”. Science is what explains attraction. Metaphysics can only help with what counts as attraction or its general pattern, but it doesnt add causal explanation for real word attraction beyond biology and chemistry.

it does add causal explanation for everything beyond chemistry and biology, unless you are into some scientism but science can't prove the existence of causes lol

ontological and cosmological arguments are attempts at logical proof. Its widely recognised among philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Church Fathers, etc, that they only show logical possibility or coherence, not proof of existence. Metaphysics can help explore concepts but it doesnt constitute proof of actual existence.

what do you count as actual existence? if only material existence, then yeah those proofs aren't proofs
i don't agree with that material existence is the only existence. material things exist but in the most inferior way

Empiricism and rationalism are complementary to each other. I am Christian myself, but you cannot definitely prove Gods existence in any way, and especially not with rationalism alone.

you can prove it if you use reason instead of senses only

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

you can prove it if you use reason instead of senses only

you cannot prove shit even though I'm not atheist

reincarnation is the only belief system with anything close to proof and its pretty good proof, but you cannot prove it using reason, you can only understand it for yourself.

if you debate an intellegent athiest you will lose, as would I, because we CANT prove it.

 

[theRetard]

you cannot prove shit even though I'm not atheist

reincarnation is the only belief system with anything close to proof and its pretty good proof, but you cannot prove it using reason, you can only understand it for yourself.

if you debate an intellegent athiest you will lose, as would I, because we CANT prove it.

can you prove me that it's impossible to prove god?

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

can you prove me that it's impossible to prove god?

you're the one who proposed its true, its your conclusion which i am questioning the onus is on you, as someone who uses these kinds of philosophical phrases and engages in these debates, im sure youre aware of this.

it is on you to prove it, given you didnt even try to pose a single argument id infer you know im right

 

[theRetard]

you're the one who proposed its true, its your conclusion which i am questioning the onus is on you, as someone who uses these kinds of philosophical phrases and engages in these debates, im sure youre aware of this.

it is on you to prove it, given you didnt even try to pose a single argument id infer you know im right

you said that it's impossible to prove it
the burden of prove is on you

 

[theRetard]

you're the one who proposed its true, its your conclusion which i am questioning the onus is on you, as someone who uses these kinds of philosophical phrases and engages in these debates, im sure youre aware of this.

it is on you to prove it, given you didnt even try to pose a single argument id infer you know im right

the burden of prove is on you but i can but for further dialogue i will make concessions, my dear
so that's my argument: god is the most superior creature. Existence in reality is more superior than existence in thought, so god exists in reality

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

you said that it's impossible to prove it
the burden of prove is on you

no. you said its possible, i disagreed.

you can prove it if you use reason instead of senses only

your claim. your burden

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

the burden of prove is on you but i can but for further dialogue i will make concessions, my dear
so that's my argument: god is the most superior creature. Existence in reality is more superior than existence in thought, so god exists in reality

what an awful argument

1. doesnt prove shit, isnt actually an argument.

this is closer to a "live love laugh" sign than it is a coherent worldview

2. why would existence be superior in reality, rather than being unburderened in its perfect form (imagination)? even that doesnt make sense.

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

the burden of prove is on you but i can but for further dialogue i will make concessions, my dear
so that's my argument: god is the most superior creature. Existence in reality is more superior than existence in thought, so god exists in reality

are you a woman?

ive never seen a person be relatively knowledgable IN PHILOSOPHY of all things and still completely lack any logical value

 

[theRetard]

what an awful argument

1. doesnt prove shit, isnt actually an argument.

this is closer to a "live love laugh" sign than it is a coherent worldview

"it's shit because it's shit saar"

2. why would existence be superior in reality, rather than being unburderened in its perfect form (imagination)? even that doesnt make sense.

because non-existence in reality is non-existence at all, existence is superior to non-existence, so god exists

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

"it's shit because it's shit saar"

i explained it.

because non-existence in reality is non-existence at all.

doesnt even mean anything

existence is superior to non-existence, so god exists

there isnt even an argument here. you didnt make a point.

still just fun poetic phrases and no arguments.

 

[theRetard]

are you a woman?

ive never seen a person be relatively knowledgable IN PHILOSOPHY of all things and still completely lack any logical value

>what an awful argument saar

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

>what an awful argument saar

name checks out

youre shortcircuiting

 

[theRetard]

i explained it.

doesnt even mean anything

there isnt even an argument here. you didnt make a point.

still just fun poetic phrases and no arguments.

just say that these are poetic phrases instead of trying to debunk them theory

 

[theRetard]

name checks out

youre shortcircuiting

>doesn't even mean anything saar

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

>doesn't even mean anything saar

just say that these are poetic phrases instead of trying to debunk them theory

you already gave up... why are you still replying?

 

[theRetard]

you already gave up... why are you still replying?

translation
"i didn't give a single argument but just claim his argument a shit phrase because i uncapable to debunk it"

 

[Jordan B. Peterson]

translation
"i didn't give a single argument but just claim his argument a shit phrase because i uncapable to debunk it"

because non-existence in reality is non-existence at all, existence is superior to non-existence, so god exists

if it were that simple we'd teach god in school. this isnt an argument whatsoever

so that's my argument: god is the most superior creature. Existence in reality is more superior than existence in thought, so god exists in reality

existence in reality being superior to existence in thought is INNACCURATE, even if it wasnt, doesnt prove god whatsoever and is another meaningless phrase.

you need to provide evidence and make use of logic to perform a task as massive as proving god, of course these single sentence poetic phrases of no substance are not addequate. yes, you didnt give a single argument.

fully flesh out even ONE of these "arguments" and explain it properly. i dare you.

you lost the logical debate, and so you've abandoned it in favor of "i know you are but what am i" tier retorts.

doesnt it make you ashamed? a woman into philosophy, im sure you feel so special, but a random midwit on .com who hasnt studied it can easily dissasemble your shitty worldview with almost no effort, i can read your mind dumb slut

 

[Garce]

blonde hair and blue eyes worst traits if they dont have green or brown eyes and brunette hair its cooked

I would’ve switched my coloring in a heartbeat for blue eyes and blonde hair

 

[theRetard]

existence in reality being superior to existence in thought is INNACCURATE, even if it wasnt, doesnt prove god whatsoever and is another meaningless phrase.

superiority is just when something is dependent on you, and you are independent. existence in thought makes you dependent on thought, so it's inferior to existence in reality. jfl at you for trying to deny the obvious.

you need to provide evidence and make use of logic to perform a task as massive as proving god, of course these single sentence poetic phrases of no substance are not addequate. yes, you didnt give a single argument.

"you need to provide evidence saar" - thats what i did (unless you count only empirical evidence as evidence)

fully flesh out even ONE of these "arguments" and explain it properly. i dare you.

you lost the logical debate, and so you've abandoned it in favor of "i know you are but what am i" tier retorts.

doesnt it make you ashamed? a woman into philosophy, im sure you feel so special, but a random midwit on .com who hasnt studied it can easily dissasemble your shitty worldview with almost no effort, i can read your mind dumb slut

translation


"i'm a dumb subhuman creature and you lost to me because i said so, saar"

 

[theRetard]

if it were that simple we'd teach god in school. this isnt an argument whatsoever

it's not an argument saar

 

[tjlfmz]

I would’ve switched my coloring in a heartbeat for blue eyes and blonde hair

I wouldn't lol

 

[Garce]

I wouldn't lol

What’s your coloring

 

[tjlfmz]

What’s your coloring

quite dark brown hair and my eyes are green they look blue in the sun tho but they r green trust

 

[Garce]

quite dark brown hair and my eyes are green they look blue in the sun tho but they r green trust

Well that’s a pretty coloring so I get it

 

[tjlfmz]

Well that’s a pretty coloring so I get it

thx wats urs

 

[Starlet]

When a man says “i love latinas” or “i love brunettes” or “i love blonde hair and blue eyes”

Thats like saying “im attracted to everyone with your general traits”

How is that romantic

But often when I see men who say stuff like this, I see women seeking attention, posting themselves like an audition, and claiming theyre part of whatever his preferences are.

I even see relationships start from this.
@subfive4life @Ghoultune

it’s nice because it just generally means they like you or something about you, but yeah I don’t think it’s very romantic nor would I feel very special, rather I’d more so hate to think I was just their type

 

[Garce]

thx wats urs

Brown hair brown eyes very pale skin

 

[rickydickydoodahgrimes]

When a man says “i love latinas” or “i love brunettes” or “i love blonde hair and blue eyes”

Thats like saying “im attracted to everyone with your general traits”

How is that romantic

But often when I see men who say stuff like this, I see women seeking attention, posting themselves like an audition, and claiming theyre part of whatever his preferences are.

I even see relationships start from this.
@subfive4life @Ghoultune

i feel like one of the only people who doesnt actively go for a certain type when in comes to like hair colour etc cos any traits can be attractive
i do have some very specific traits i do find attractive but i wouldnt bring that up to a man im dating

 

[tjlfmz]

Brown hair brown eyes very pale skin

jewed from birth

 

[Garce]

jewed from birth

I don’t look bad at all but coloring is holding me back

 

[tjlfmz]

I don’t look bad at all but coloring is holding me back

no im joking blue eyes are buns darker eyes r better