No, an idea/concept is non-spatial--even if they are derived from processes of the brain. We are not analyzing the phenomenology or ontology of concep...
It absolutely does. You are literally saying that "it", whatever that is, cannot be placed within the sphere of "the imagination". You absolutely cann...
That is all fair. I can see concepts which are primitive (in the sense I mean it) being explicable in the sense of being capable of physical or gestur...
That a word is spatially referent, DOES NOT mean that it refers to something in phenomenal or cosmic space. "Beyond" refers to a thing and another thi...
You have to provide an argument yourself instead of lazily linking a long article: I am not going to take the time to debate a Dialetheist's perspecti...
It is not valid to argue that a syllogism is incomplete because each premise needs to be questioned and expounded—that is the nature of all syllogisms...
I appreciate your response! Since we have no common ground, I would like to take things step-by-step. First, I want to address your idea that my argum...
I don’t see any way for our conversation to progress, because we keep dead-ending at the same spots, so I will just respond to the parts where I think...
@"fdrake" I think I just figured out what we are seemingly in disagreement about, and that, upon clarification, we are not really in any disagreement ...
The job of philosophy is no doubt to provide analytical explication of things, but it is not meant to incessantly attempt at explicating things. If so...
I have explained it multiple times, and am unsure what else to say. Concepts are not words. “it is beyond me” refers to something which is spatially s...
Great questions, Philosophim! In light of our conversations, I have been trying to come up with different ways to express it; just to try to convey it...
In terms of the invalidity of ‘in-itself’, I just don’t buy that we can’t understand what things are in-themselves conditionally: ‘phenomena’ as it wa...
The main point of disagreement (between us), then, would be that I don't think that the negatively, intrinsically valuable (such as 'harm' that you re...
Lol, I thought you were both expressing the same thing; but, apparently, I missed something important. I thought you were going to say that (; and the...
A “completely general” logical principle sounds like confused jargon for “absolute” logical principle; or it refers to a principle being general, whic...
What is, according to Aristotle, goodness simpliciter, then? I guess I didn't grasp that when I read it. Unless by this you mean that the property of ...
No, this is not logically necessitous; and therefore is not tautological. This is a proof derived a priori in our intuition. What relation does intuit...
All the reasons I have for doubting that I exist are highly implausible thought experiments (e.g., the evil demon, simulation theory, etc.) and given ...
The problem I have is that concepts are more fundamental than language, and it is a mistake to reduce the former to the latter. For example, we cannot...
Absolute truth would refer, in your terminology, to anything that is considered true with absolute certainty; and 'absolute certainty' would refer to ...
I can certainly make my best attempt, although I do (already) concede that it will be highly improbable that I will be able to explicate recursively a...
But "time dilation" doesn't refer to a condition in the temporal form of our experience: it refers to conditions of how time works independently of ou...
That would just be ungrammatical. I am unsure, then, what contention you are making with the OP: I am not claiming that ungrammatical sentences make s...
It seems like you are taking a scientific anti-realism approach; whereas I think that what we scientifically know, is a rough estimation of what is re...
'beingness' is a property, 'being' is a concept: the former is 'to have "being"'. Properties are attributes a 'thing' can have or possess; a concept i...
You are confusing what it means to exist, with the relationship existent things have with each other: you are expounding an ontology in the sense of t...
Sorry, I missed this response initially. I have no problem with what you are saying, because you are using the term 'certainty' in the sense of ~'that...
I would say the property is less fundamental than the concept it refers to; because it presupposes it. The interesting thing with 'being', is that it ...
I just want to clarify, that I was in no way intending to convey that it is your fault that you don't understand what I mean by an absolutely simple c...
What definition does Plato give that isn't circular? Teaching children primitive concepts are the easiest to convey, ironically, because they strongly...
I think ‘using’ a concept is more generic than ‘presupposing it’: both are ‘using’ it, the former is just what it means to ‘use’ generally, and the la...
Concepts have their own meaning despite how they relate to concepts. The concept of the number 3 is obviously distinct from the number 2, and they don...
??? You just tried to prove 'being' is vague because 'to be or not to be' doesn't refer to Hamlet's existence: why would Hamlet not existing have anyt...
I think physics demonstrates quite sufficiently that space and time are valid 'entities' in our calculations, and not in the sense that they are merel...
I think we know exactly what being is: I just don't think we can properly explicate it. Knowledge isn't just the sphere if explicable information. Yes...
Oh, I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, I am unsure as to what mistake I may be doing—all I do is hit the reply button and it adds a reply link at...
I am sorry you feel that way. From my perspective, I gave you two different ways to think about intrinsic value, you ignored both, and segued immediat...
:lol: :kiss: This is the part I don't see why it is necessary (for knowledge). Are you saying that we must be certain (which, to me, requires absolute...
Comments