|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Bias removal from Sartre section
MY COMMENT IS THAT AFTER READING FOR HOURS NO ONE CAN GIVE A STRAIGHFORWARD DEFINITION ON AN EXISTANTIOLIST.PLEASE DEFINE IT CLEARLY AND BRIEFLY AND THEN ELABORATE TO YOUR HEART'S DESIRE FOR AS LONG AS YOU WISH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaghenag (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your cognitive dissonance is stunning. The very article and viewpoint you are defending against “bias”, states very clearly that, and why, there is no such thing as “unbiased” or “objective” viewpoints or statements. Not only is it a physically and sensory impossibility to do such a thing; no, our brain is literally a bias machine whose whole modus operandi is biasing.
It is only sheer arrogance, egocentricity, and shocking uneducatedness (or even stupidity) that causes you to, out of all Planck events in all of the universe, pick your own as the absolute and universal correct one. Even though you probably wouldn’t have the same viewpoint, were you shifted or rotated one single Planck length or Planck time unit to the side of your space-time position anywhere in your line of existence.
Which makes it glaringly clear, why you are having such trouble with what you expressed in your comment. All I can tell you is, that without leaving that false socially conditioned and unscientific concept of “absolute unbiased truth” behind, you will forever be stuck on your current level of mental development. I know it’s painful… if done wrong… but I’m sure you will find a way that allows you to keep your self-respect. Provided you can still think for yourself too. — 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This article does not mark sources well. There are some citations, but it is not clear what claims they are sources for. There is a quote from Kierkegaard, but the only inline citation to any work by him is not presented in the context of the quote, causing one to wonder where this quote is from. Also, this article has severa statements that seem dubious in the sense, that I find it hard to believe that they can be backed up with any source, but they still claim to be from some source. I checked the only one that was available online, and it did not support any of the claims that the citation marks. Tpylkkö (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)