I don't think the article begs the question: I was noting your response did. Here’s what the article says: This has the same problem I already exposed...
This is the crux presupposition in your thought: I reject this. When you rewind the clock, you are rewinding the facts which does not itself necessita...
How does it confused the issue? Can’t we subordinate our natural instincts all the time? How is this “very restricted”? Most people don’t have, e.g., ...
That is beyond the scope of my critique: I am merely pointing out to @"flannel jesus" that it is not a valid rejoinder to libertarianism to stipulate ...
In your example we don't, or if we do it is presupposed we will will the same anyways, whereas in mine we do but we could will differently. My point i...
The a priori modes by which one cognizes depends on, as the name suggests, how their cognition is pre-structured and not the natural laws which govern...
Applied ethically, I think educating the people and arming them is the best solution against tyranny and injustice. I am not saying we get rid of the ...
CC @"flannel jesus" If the intent is the exact same, then only the means towards that end could be subject to change (in principle); so it would be im...
To be honest, I am not sure of the exact threshold; but I do lean towards the people over the government. I do believe, to relate to the OP, that peop...
Not quite. I was saying that willing, under some forms of libertarianism, generates new causality that originates from the will and the willing may di...
CC: @"Mww" It is also worth mentioning Kant's transcendental freedom, which does not fit cleanly between compatibilism and incompatibilism; and of whi...
I think this is a conflation between physical and motive causality: I would recommend looking into Schopenhauer's "On the Fourfold Foundation of the P...
Generally my government policy is to starve it: I'd rather give the people too much control over themselves than the government too much control over ...
This is a joke right?: That's the very first sentence of the OP. Time may be real, a concept, and exist a priori all at once. It is on your OP to demo...
They have been demonstrated, but not scientifically. I don't know why one would expect it to be proven scientifically when it is presupposed for scien...
For my point there, any common sense use of the word will do. You cannot claim the time does not exist (or is not real) merely because people can fail...
Eh, scientism doesn't work nor logical positivism. E.g., you can't scientifically determine the nature of truth, logic, mathematics, knowledge, some a...
The idea that one could fail to recognize that time is real does not negate nor suggest that it isn't real. However, under the Kantian interpretation ...
The process of aging is a temporal process--hence in time. One might say, now, that aging is a representation of causality which is atemporal; but the...
That is single-handedly the dumbest bit of sophistry I've ever heard. Growing old is aging in the sense that I obviously meant it; and you just sidest...
For Kant, time and space are modes by which our faculties of cognition cognize sensations. You are claiming that there is a space beyond that a priori...
I guess I don't understand what is entailed by being a mod. Why would you want to step down? Are you just trying to free up your time? Irregardless, I...
Unfortunately, I don't see any way forward either ): I think we are going in circles at this point, so I am going to remove my hat from the ring. The ...
I think it becomes a requirement from believing that there is a simple being and it must have these properties and having to reconcile that contradict...
I apologize: I was not alerted to your original response because there were no references to me in there (technically). This seems to be a straw man. ...
Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying then. You seem to keep flip-flopping. First you mentioned that everything exists necessarily such that t...
I don’t think time can be described through space, but I am open to hearing why you think this. This is good. Here’s a couple things to note: 1. This ...
Your view is a form of necessitarianism, as exemplified by your example from “A Case for Necessitarianism”. The ideas you quoted are only compatible w...
That’s nonsense. That’s never what contingency has been about in the sense I described; and will never exclusively refer to what you mean here. All yo...
Extension and temporality are pure intuitions. We get them from our experience of the world; or more accurately they are the forms of our experience. ...
It is important to note the difference between a necessary being in the sense of being incapable of failing to exist vs. in the sense of being uncause...
What part of space and time being extension and temporality is hard for you to understand? If there's specific concepts of space and time that would b...
I am trying to give you the tools to provide clarity on your position. You still keep conflating them and talking about unclear sets. If you have your...
The idea of it being magical just begs the question; but it is worth noting that your view depends on physical processes for beings to apprehend the f...
I already explained why blue cannot be properly defined. Remember Mary’s room thought experiment? Are you just ignoring that? Have you not heard of Mo...
No you don’t have a burden of proof: you have to contend with a premise. That’s not the same thing as having a burden of proof. If you don’t contend w...
So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C? But this isn’t true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C ...
Again, that is just a more complicated way of saying they are propositional! All I am doing is providing an argument for why God exists from the idea ...
The problem is that you are not explaining which set you are quantifying over; and I suspect you are switching back and forth between C and A. Sometim...
Comments