people exist, plumbers exist, people named mario exist, is there a plumber that can grow twice his size, shot fireballs using a flower, can jump four times his height unassisted, or fights a giant sentient reptile that breaths fire? no.
you can argue jesus was a man, but he is not the jesus of the bible.
plumbers exist, so do people named starting with M or J. so do people who walk around and yap about end of the world and/or resurrection. and even people who listen to them.
however…
plumbers that can jump 5 times their own height? people named with M that grow 2x when they eat a mushroom? people that turn water into wine? that’s a completely different story.
sentence like “Jesus did not exist” always need to be interpreted in context. when someone says it in context of religion or adjacent, and you respond by “but people called Jesus existed” then you’re just being obtuse.
or rather, playing Motte and Bailey: f…ing OF COURSE you can defend the that Bob—different one than in the story, in particular, a tigerless Bob—exists, but that’s not what is being disputed. what’s being disputed is the existence of Bob with the tiger, and the motivation is to challenge the whole story.
Again this is just semantics at this point. We have different idea of what’s necessary to be “historically” a real person. You are allowed your opinions. What is life anyway? It’s all philosophical.
But…. If you are enjoying this conversation like I am we can continue.
Was king tut a really person? Did Pharos exist.
What about Charles I of England
Socrates would love to discuss if he counts as real.
Socrates is one of the most well know ln philosophers of all time and there isn’t any proof he ever lived.
when is the fact about the level of certainty we have about Socrates’s existence relevant, though? it depends.
if someone just mentions some specific idea that is often attributed to Socrates, then it’s probably totally irrelevant and you would be just "well, actually"ing someone. (which will backfire esp. if they actually know that full well and can/will stand for themselves)
if someone is defending a specific idea using an argument from authority of Socrates himself, then it’s probably pretty relevant. at best it’s an invitation to skip a bad argument path and take the focus back to the potential merit of the idea itself. (ofc this is regardless of whether you like that idea or not, learning what the other person perceive as valuable about the idea is usually more interesting than who they think came up with it)
if someone does the same but based on moral authority, then it’s the same principle, but probably much more important
if someone creates religion based on teachings of Socrates, then it’s pretty much important (although often seemingly ineffective, and in some cases, risky)
If someone starts asking questions about Socrates as a historical person (and heck, even questions specifcally about history of Socrates’ state of mind–see title of this whole post), then it’s obviously the most important thing they need to learn before continuing their research or pondering.
The last point bullet point describes what @Phoenixz did here, in the beginning of this sub-thread. (Just for Jesus Christ, not Socrates, of course.)
Aeao@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Mario is based on a plumber. Do plumbers exist?
WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
people exist, plumbers exist, people named mario exist, is there a plumber that can grow twice his size, shot fireballs using a flower, can jump four times his height unassisted, or fights a giant sentient reptile that breaths fire? no.
you can argue jesus was a man, but he is not the jesus of the bible.
netvor@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
LOL, I didn’t read your post and made basically the exact same argument.
at least I’m happy I’m not wasting my time on social media alone 🙃
Aeao@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Right so Jesus existed . Glad we agree.
netvor@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
plumbers exist, so do people named starting with M or J. so do people who walk around and yap about end of the world and/or resurrection. and even people who listen to them.
however…
plumbers that can jump 5 times their own height? people named with M that grow 2x when they eat a mushroom? people that turn water into wine? that’s a completely different story.
sentence like “Jesus did not exist” always need to be interpreted in context. when someone says it in context of religion or adjacent, and you respond by “but people called Jesus existed” then you’re just being obtuse.
or rather, playing Motte and Bailey: f…ing OF COURSE you can defend the that Bob—different one than in the story, in particular, a tigerless Bob—exists, but that’s not what is being disputed. what’s being disputed is the existence of Bob with the tiger, and the motivation is to challenge the whole story.
Aeao@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But Mario the plumber existed.
Again this is just semantics at this point. We have different idea of what’s necessary to be “historically” a real person. You are allowed your opinions. What is life anyway? It’s all philosophical.
But…. If you are enjoying this conversation like I am we can continue.
Was king tut a really person? Did Pharos exist.
What about Charles I of England
Socrates would love to discuss if he counts as real.
netvor@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
when is the fact about the level of certainty we have about Socrates’s existence relevant, though? it depends.
if someone just mentions some specific idea that is often attributed to Socrates, then it’s probably totally irrelevant and you would be just "well, actually"ing someone. (which will backfire esp. if they actually know that full well and can/will stand for themselves)
if someone is defending a specific idea using an argument from authority of Socrates himself, then it’s probably pretty relevant. at best it’s an invitation to skip a bad argument path and take the focus back to the potential merit of the idea itself. (ofc this is regardless of whether you like that idea or not, learning what the other person perceive as valuable about the idea is usually more interesting than who they think came up with it)
if someone does the same but based on moral authority, then it’s the same principle, but probably much more important
if someone creates religion based on teachings of Socrates, then it’s pretty much important (although often seemingly ineffective, and in some cases, risky)
If someone starts asking questions about Socrates as a historical person (and heck, even questions specifcally about history of Socrates’ state of mind–see title of this whole post), then it’s obviously the most important thing they need to learn before continuing their research or pondering.
The last point bullet point describes what
@Phoenixzdid here, in the beginning of this sub-thread. (Just for Jesus Christ, not Socrates, of course.)