A synopsis and discussion of "ontocubism"

[Chelydra]

@Corvus

Isn’t it a fallacy of over generalisation or naivity imagining that everyone will respond and react exactly same way for the same event?

@Astorre

I would answer your question this way: accepting the definition of “stupidity” I cited above as sufficiently justified, we no longer want to call anyone stupid. After all, it turns out that this someone is stupid only insofar as we have measured it against our own standards.

After some reflection, I’d add that my opinion is still incomplete. It doesn’t take into account cases (for example) where someone asserts A in their first sentence, and then not-A in the next, and is completely oblivious to the contradictions. We also call this behavior “stupid,” but perhaps other suitable terms could be found: lack of education or cognitive errors…

Oh, these endless clarifications =)

@Corvus

Wouldn’t it be the case of having hallucination, if you think numbers are in the world?

@Chelydra

Look at what you’re already doing when you frame the question.

@j_j

Perhaps this is the key to the rest.

The burden of proof runs both ways.