You said that you believe that you have good reasons to believe that the Absolute exists, but not that you have good reasons to believe in the sense t...
This is a contradiction; and makes no sense at all. You can't say you believe in X sans a Hegelian interpretation (and that you have good reasons for ...
I haven't read your guys' entire exchange, but based off of my horrible interactions with @"Arcane" in this thread I can guess how it went down. Eithe...
Sorry @"Leontiskos", somehow my response didn't get recognized by this forum as an actual response to your comment (and thusly not notifying you). Her...
Ah, I think this is the confusion between us: I just want to know what you are meaning by the Absolute and not Hegel. I want to know what this "Absolu...
I would challenge this: maybe I am off here, but I don't think most people have thirty people they regular are with that share in their deep interests...
I don't accept that rationality comes in degrees; but I understand what you are saying. So let's go back to your original point: My point was that you...
I apologize: I forgot to respond. I would say that they were justified in believing that Swans were all white until they had sufficient counter-eviden...
Good question. I don’t think Hume’s problem of induction holds any weight: I think he gave an interesting, radical, and skepticistic perspective—but a...
Thanks for letting me know! Although I know you think I have not found the appropriate mean between niceness and meanness, the silver-lining to honest...
So, ethics, under your view, is a personal habit? It doesn't hold absolute binding force when propositionalized? (e.g., "I should not be obese" is jus...
That's fair; but I don't think most people would agree with you, and, beyond that, even if they did, one should hold only justified beliefs (I would s...
Most Theists would not say that they lack good reasons to believe. What you are describing here is something that is irrational: you are saying that o...
In accord with your response, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on from this thread: this discussion is wholly unproductive (for the bo...
I see what you are saying now, but it seems merely semantical. Isn't this "interpersonal conduct" that you are referring to underpin the "community po...
Philosophy is not science. Sure, but science requires the scientific method; which, in turn, requires a positive verification of the hypothesis throug...
I agree mereology is important; and I would say it is a branch of philosophy—specifically metaphysics. This is how philosophy works, lol. I want to kn...
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Why would facticity have an essence but a cat wouldn’t? Also, it seems like an equivocation is going on here; as the...
Substance theory doesn’t deny that: it is claiming that each ‘entity’ has a substrate for its existence whereof its properties are bore by it. E.g., t...
How am I supposed to discuss it with you, if you can't give a basic description of what the word refers to? You want me to step through the door, when...
Answer me this (in all honesty): how have you published multiple books on their works and yet cannot give me a simple explanation of what factiality i...
That’s ok: most of us on here aren’t the best philosophers. I mean it in the Analytic Philosophy sense of a substrate which bears the properties of th...
**sigh** Nothing about your reconstruction was formal. Here’s a crude formal version: P1: If A only pertains B, then everything about A pertains to B....
Are you conveying here that you accept a version of non-dualism? Viz., the idea that there is some substance which unites both the mental and physical...
Ok, so this sounds like “factiality” has nothing to do with facticity; since this definition tells us that the former is a principle about the modalit...
The guidelines you linked is essentially what I am advocating here for. I am going to kill you with kindness :kiss: ; and, since you have mentioned th...
I want to know what "The Absolute" means to you, in whatever sense you mean it. You keep saying the ultimate truth is the Hegelian concept of the Abso...
I mean “explain” in the basic, common use of the term. If you can’t describe it, then that’s a huge issue which begs why you even believe it in the fi...
That’s fair, but those individuals would be sanctioned by the government—if not public servants themselves. My dilemma here is not about public servan...
So this is good: we are getting somewhere. A good OP, I would say, about this would say exactly this; viz., an investigation into “factiality” as unde...
Fair enough. I was thinking that maybe you would agree that any cognitive system would be incapable of absolute knowledge because every cognitive syst...
I do best not to assume people’s genders on here (: …. albeit not in the liberal sense. Again, which is what exactly? Can you explain it? We certainly...
No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized. Let me try to hel...
Ah, I see what you are going for; but I don't think that's what Arcane is asking about. They seem to be asking how one can know what reality is as it ...
Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to...
Every OP has an agenda, just like a meeting does, or else it is just a tangent. Lol, you are the one that told me to chill out being so kind. So this ...
What are you exploring? It isn't very clear what exactly is going on in the OP (to me). If I am being honest, it reads to me like you don't really kno...
This is what a good OP looks like: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15131/the-breadth-of-the-moral-sphere/p1 . A good OP doesn't require that...
I already said this twice now: the subject belongs in philosophy. That doesn't mean that your OP is a valid philosophy OP formally. I am not saying it...
I get what you are going for here; but that’s not what the terms traditionally mean. Unsoundness is when the logic is invalid. What you are talking ab...
Then your argument doesn’t make any sense: the PSR would only be universally applicable if reality were an infinite set of things. Which means what, e...
Philosophy is outside the purview of science; and so it is “unscientific” only in that sense. Your OP is unphilosophical, as I said before, in the sen...
This isn’t science: there are no tests; there are no proofs in philosophy. What we do in philosophy, is determine the plausibility and probability of ...
Thanks for the summary. I am assuming by “ultimate truth” that you are referring to absolute truth. Prima facie, as @"Mww" would tell you, the only wa...
Comments