https://twitter.com/MarioEmblem_2/status/1676009845235896320

  • Aceivan [they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    yeah. And completely impenetrable to scientific explanation, because they'll just go a level deeper. "how do we know we're all seeing the same blue?" "Oh, well blue light has a certain wavelength." "but we could be experiencing that wavelength differently!" "Well it doesn't seem like we are, the same cones in our eyes respond in the same way to that wavelength of light." "Well maybe its a difference in the brain then?" "It doesn't seem like that's true either, certain regions of the brain react in similar ways when shown the same light." "Well maybe our consciousness just feels it differently?"

    Completely useless discussion tbh.

    • quarrk [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Completely useless discussion tbh.

      Questioning what facts are "objective", and how, is far from useless. That is the central question of Marxism, the analysis of "objective" categories which in fact have concealed subjectivity, most notably the historical specificity of certain categories like value.

      • Aceivan [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Questioning what facts are "objective", and how, is far from useless.

        well good thing I didn't say that then. I'm talking about this pop philosophy tier bullshit that's like "what if we all like, see colors different, maaan?"

        Its not inherently a useless category of topics, though I think it gets navelgazey very frequently, just that the pop culture iterations of it that go around, like the OP, aren't interesting or useful

        • quarrk [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, I'm going to pop off this thread and go to bed lol

          • Aceivan [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            understandable. I don't mean to be overly combative, just gets tiring I guess

            Have a good sleep