Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review. I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical. These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study! That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me.

In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic! Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?

For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter. I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either. I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.

In any case, if this be the beginning of your philosophical journey, then I implore you to at least entertain other ideas and continue to examine your own; if this be the end, then I hope there is peace in your resolute thoughts.

> I don’t recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, “value” is not real…

I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments - better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement.

> The concept of a horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from the concept.

Prove this.

> Concepts exist outside of our minds as abstract things.

Another assumption.

> Morality exists outside your mind.

Another assumption.

It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism, which is a fine place to avoid setting up camp; I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours. This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object. More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be.

> So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me.

Where did I say I was smarter than you, and how is that even relevant? The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas. The ideas should have merit on their own, and “stand trial” as you say. Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect. The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid.

You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”

You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms), seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list.

You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction. But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,” yet a Pegasus is a concept. In what sense is it a “myth” then? That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind? Do other concepts? Do horses?

Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact, and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged.