Hello @"RolandTyme", I may not be able to solve the dilemma in its entirety for you, but, as this was an issue I used to have constantly as well, perh...
Hello @"Philosophim", I appreciate that, and same to you! Most of my conversations on this board, apart from ours, hasn't been very fruitful. It seems...
A moral interpretation of a phenomena implies a distinction between "phenomena" and "the interpretation". An interpretation is not a phenomena and is ...
I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't t...
Hello @"Philosophim", I likewise find it exciting and intriguing. If one isn't out of their comfort zone, then they aren't learning. I suspected this ...
Hello @"Philosophim", You have brought up some very thought-provoking points and, thusly, it has taken me some time to really give it its due. I reali...
Hello @"Philosophim", Well I have clearly missed the mark yet again ): It seems as though we are not semantically disagreeing but, rather, fundamental...
I apologize: I did not see that you wrote "at least", which is indeed an important distinction. However, I still think your deduction is incorrect. At...
Firstly, I think your deduction is incorrect: you cannot deduce that 9 out of 10 are wrong. You could hypothetically stipulate that for all intents an...
What I am disputing is that a necessary tenant of "knowledge" is "transferability". If I am correct, holistically in what I said (not just merely the ...
Even if there is not potential for transference, I would still argue an individual could know things. It depends on what you mean by "potential" thoug...
Personally, I don't hold the contemporary epistemic views. As you kind of alluded to, it is an incredibly ambiguous definition and, subsequently is fu...
I am glad I am understanding you correctly (: I am not sure how contradicting descriptions of god proves that, on an individual level, that one doesn'...
Hello @"Philosophim", In light of your post and upon further reflection, I think that your "applicable" vs "distinctive" knowledge distinction is beco...
What you described isn't quite what I was thinking by "inner state" versus "position". If the former is "talking about how something is" and the latte...
I think I am slowly starting to understand what you mean (and the meaningful distinction therein). I am not sure though how it would be special pleadi...
That is fair. I was under the impression that Agnosticism and agnosticism were supposed to serve the purpose of being a terminology system (what you o...
I don't think that your terminology quite accurately depicts all the positions available with respect to the topic at hand. Firstly, I think that "Col...
Hello Moses! First I would like to welcome you to the forum! Firstly, I would like to clarify that I was not making an argument from my own opinion on...
@"Philosophim", Wonderful post! With respect to the first sentence, it depends on what you mean by "conclusion" whether I would agree. Again, by "conc...
@"Philosophim", I am not particularly sold on this quite yet. The hierarchy of inductions analyzes the "paths" in relation to its epistemic groundings...
Although I could be misinterpreting you, I think that your OP is primarily associated with the ontological aspect of this and not metaphysical: you ar...
@"Philosophim", I hate to double post, but just to explicate more clearly my dilemma with "applicable" vs "distinctive" knowledge, let me explain a bi...
The definition of "atheism" varies depending on what one is trying to convey. Some use a labeling system wherein "atheism" is the affirmative denial o...
I think that it depends entirely on what you are referring to by "consciousness". I do not hold that exploring, empirically, consciousness is a self-d...
@"Philosophim", I apologize, the week has been quite busy for me. Firstly, I think we need to revisit the "distinctive" vs "applicable" knowledge dist...
@"Philosophim", I want to disclaim that this post is going to be quite complicated, as you brought up an incredibly valid, and thought-provoking, dile...
I'm interpreting this as an agreement, but refurbishment, of what I said. However, I do not hold that "all concepts exist beyond time". I don't want t...
Depends on what you mean. If you are referring to "being" as "existence" (as I depicted it), then you are again asking "do you think "existence" has a...
I apologize if my responses were confusing, let me try to explain it more proficiently. So, as you previously pointed out, I am making two claims: (1)...
I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would...
In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3...
I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that ...
Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction: it is asking for what existed...
@"Philosophim", I decided to give it a couple days to mow it over in my head, as I didn't feel like I am completely understanding you, and now I think...
@"Kuro", To briefly answer your original question, I think that most people nowadays default to materialism (physicalism). But since this discussion f...
Hello @"Philosophim", I really appreciate your elaboration, as I think I am starting to grasp the "distinctive" vs "applicable" distinction you are ma...
@"Philosophim", I am glad that my responses are thought-provoking (and I assure you that I find yours equally so)! I would hate for our conversation t...
@"Kuro", To be completely honest, I am not sure if I agree or disagree. By "time never beginning", I am interpreting him to be positing an actual infi...
Although I don't find anything necessarily wrong with this, I want to clarify that epistemology does not solely pertain to what exists or does not exi...
@"Gregory A", This is a critique of theism, not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. If you think that God/gods have never been shown t...
A square circle is a logical contradiction epistemically and metaphysically: metaphysics is simply the extrapolation of the overlying instantiation of...
You are correct here: I should have said "possibility" not "exists". However, this doesn't negate my point whatsoever: I can refurbish my statement as...
@"Agent Smith", I don't think your definition of "free will" is accurate. First of all, I am presuming that you are referring to libertarian free will...
Hello @"tryhard", I think that your OP is a notorious dilemma that many have and many will argue about. Unfortunately, it seems as though (for the mos...
Hello @"Philosophim", I am glad you dived into "applicable" vs "distinctive" knowledge, because I think I was fundamentally misunderstanding your epis...
Hello @"Edward235", I am seeing reply posts that are generally inspired towards what I wanted to say, but I would like to provide further explication....
Hello @"Philosophim", I think we are still misunderstanding eachother a tad bit, so let's see if I can resolve some of it by focusing on directly resp...
Hello @"Philosophim", First of all, an apology is due: I misunderstood (slash completely forgot) that you are claiming that abstract reasoning is know...
Hello @"Philosophim", So I think I have identified our fundamental difference: you seem to be only allowing what is empirically known to be what can b...
Comments