Hello Mww, How can a self “think transcendentally” but not be a transcendental self? Those sound like the same thing to me. True. Included in what act...
Hello Philosophim, I think you are understanding where my problem with your methodology lies (and what it is); and I think you are conceding that it d...
Hello Mww, If you would like to not give a proof, then that is perfectly fine. But, to clarify, I am saying I would like to hear your proof (or argume...
Hello Janus, All I was asking Mww in the quote you made of me was to expound briefly the argument for the twelve categories that he hold and not that ...
Hello Philosophim, Let try to clarify what I am understanding you to be saying and then explicate the problem I am bringing up; because I think I am a...
Hello Mww, Absolutely no worries! We can stop at anytime that you deem fit. I didn’t see a proof in that quote of the 12 categories of the understandi...
Hello Philosophim, I see what you are saying, but the problem is that there is not means of determining the cogency when comparing: According to the e...
Hello Philosophim, I understand better what you are arguing, but, in light of it, I think, by my lights, that is a concession that the hierarchy does ...
Hello Philosophim, I understand what you are conveying, but this just segues into my questions because if you are saying that the inductive hierarchy ...
Absolutely no problem! I will answer your questions, but my questions aren't related directly to yours; so if you could answer them as well that would...
And I should clarify for question #3 that by "question" I am referring to the same asked one within the context. Of course, I could ask question X in ...
Hello Philosophim, I apologize if I am misunderstanding you! To better understand what you are saying, let me ask you these: 1. In the scenario I gave...
Hello Philosophim, I think we have finally pinned down the disagreement: so I am going to focus on that. Which can be summarized on your post as: You ...
Hello Philosophim, It sounds like you are in agreement with me that the best choice in the scenario is to use the pattern, but you disagree that it is...
Hello Philosophim, To you as well! I don’t have a problem with this: you seem to just be noting that I wouldn’t have made that exact inductive inferen...
Hello Mww, I see. Would you say that your mind does not exist in the things-in-themselves? If so, then what other possible options (to you) are their ...
Hello Philosophim, It seems now that you are referring to two things by “essential properties”: what is essential to what one induces something is and...
I think what you are trying to say is that if one is using something as a consideration of what something is (i.e., its identity), then it should be a...
Hello Philosophim, No they do not. It is a 51% chance that it is a BWOA, and that is calculated solely of it’s essential properties, which is that it ...
Hello Mww, Are you a substance dualist? It sounds like you are saying there are minds which are of a mental substance and there are things-in-themselv...
Hello Philosophim, To clarify, I am saying that the odds of any box being without are is 51% and the only thing that matters to the identity of the bo...
Hello Philosophim, Correct. The box is, at random, picked from the group and presented to you. The probability is 51% that it does not have air. This ...
Hello Philosophim, They are accidental because they have been defined as non-essential: distinctive knowledge is definitional. That’s all the proof th...
Hello Philosophim, Why would resemblance and inductive association to the accidental properties in relation to the essential thing not be a considerat...
Hello Mww, Why would it be reasonable if you cannot know anything about the things-in-themselves, which would include other minds? Wouldn’t it be most...
Hello Philosophim, Good response! Fair point. I think it may be easier for us if we stick to one specific sub-scenario of the thought experiment to re...
Hello Philosophim, Absolutely no worries on time! (: Firstly, I want to disclaim that, although I read your discussion board posts herein, I may be mi...
Hello Philosophim, First of all, as I have stated before, I think that this methodological approach is severely underrated and underappreciated (espec...
Hello Mww, This is fair. Oh I see. Are you agreeing with me then that: For example, under transcendental idealism I don’t think you can claim: there a...
Hello Janus, I think it does, because the only way a thing a representation can be invariant is if either (1) the mind of which it is produced simply ...
Hello Mww, But the image I draw won’t necessarily be accurate and thusly will not prove it in itself. For example, take a circle: the circumference is...
Hello Janus, Fair enough. Since we began this discussion as a conversation about Kantianism, I am going to assume you mean to be explaining it in term...
Hello Mww, I thought the origin of the proofs themselves, being in the understanding, would be a priori, would they not? Or are you claiming that the ...
Hello Janus, Firstly, Janus, I don’t know why you are getting so hostile. I am trying to have a good faith conversation with you about your perspectiv...
Hello Janus, But it is a metaphysical claim that you cannot make if you are claiming that we are barred from understanding the world in-itself beyond ...
Hello Mww, That’s fair, but arguably there is a limit to what can be empirically proven in this manner—all I have to do is sufficiently raise the numb...
Hello Philosophim, Oh I see: the issue I would have here is that a “sense” can be purely quantitative (unless perhaps you also define it as having to ...
Hello Mww, I could equally claim that it is ‘necessary’ that your mind is a thing-in-itself. In both cases, it isn’t logically nor actually necessary ...
Hello Mww, I didn’t follow this part: could you elaborate? Agreed. As of yet, I think this is an assumption you are making if you aren’t extrapolating...
Hello Janus, Yes I did: I didn’t change the subject: it was an analogy. I wasn’t saying those two scenarios are equivalent. My point was that you are ...
Hello Janus, Just because we see the world from our human perspective does not mean we cannot formulate accurate metaphysical claims. If that were the...
Hello Wayfarer, I must have misunderstood your post, because it seemed like you were advocating for ideas from eastern philosophy (e.g., that the thin...
Hello Janus, Correct. So why say they aren’t qualitatively experiencing? This just proves my point. Correct. But that doesn’t mean that it is continge...
Hello Mww, I meant ‘difference’ in the post-modern sense: the acquisition of knowledge purely from the phenomena, of which says nothing of the things-...
Hello Wayfarer, I appreciate you sharing that information! I have also heard that eastern philosophy coincides with schopenhauerian and Kantian metaph...
Hello Janus, All of this is dependent on us granting that the phenomena are a valid method of inferring what metaphysically is there—e.g., you observe...
Hello Philosophim, It seems as though you are using the term “experience” to refer strictly to “qualitative experience”, which is fine, and if so, the...
Hello Wonderer1, The analogy that I gave was perfectly fine within the context that it was given. I understand and agree that different systems have d...
Comments