You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

KantDane21

['Member']Joined: January 13, 2022 at 13:54Last active: August 29, 2023 at 17:0821 discussions26 comments

Discussions (21)

Comments

In: is the following argument valid (but maybe not sound)?  — view comment
got ya, yep! glad to know the way Allison presented is VALID (but unsound, at least for him...because of the vagueness I am still trying to work out i...
August 24, 2023 at 17:59
In: is the following argument valid (but maybe not sound)?  — view comment
Great answer thanks! So if we look at the following; If anything is an appearance it is known mediately, The individual knows that he (or she) acts no...
August 24, 2023 at 17:40
In: Thing-in-itself, Referent, Kant...Schopenhauer  — view comment
the concept of "energy" is an empirical one, a concept derived from the empirical world. this is consistent with Schop's concept empiricism (all conce...
August 14, 2023 at 17:53
In: Thing-in-itself, Referent, Kant...Schopenhauer  — view comment
thanks for the reply! I know what you mean, but it seems Schopenhauer is a bit ambivalent about whether it is an "approximation"...i know the volume 2...
August 14, 2023 at 14:03
In: Argument for establishing the inner nature of appearances/representations  — view comment
Nice, thanks! Here, but, the above is not really an argument for will as being Kant's thing-in-itself....it seems only to establish will as the "inner...
February 06, 2023 at 14:14
In: Argument for establishing the inner nature of appearances/representations  — view comment
Thanks! more context: (although i am still trying to work out the "PSR part" too...) "Suppose then, I (or anyone) am experiencing a field of represent...
February 06, 2023 at 14:03
In: Can anyone help with this argument reconstruction?  — view comment
something like: No experience of appearance results in knowledge of noumenon All awareness of will is knowledge of noumenon thus, No awareness of will...
December 13, 2022 at 12:25
In: Can anyone help with this argument reconstruction?  — view comment
that's great! did you use an app??
December 13, 2022 at 12:05
In: Another logic question!  — view comment
not that I saw, but will look again!
October 30, 2022 at 06:39
In: Another logic question!  — view comment
understood. But, on second thoughts, the original argument... it is not a modus tollens. If it truly was, we would not need to modify the second premi...
October 29, 2022 at 15:19
In: form and name of this argument?  — view comment
Almost certain the quote is in "The Nature of Historical Explanation (1952)"....skimming through now to find!
October 29, 2022 at 14:47
In: form and name of this argument?  — view comment
it is by a English Philosopher called Patrick Gardiner, will try to find exact place where he said...
October 29, 2022 at 04:30
In: form and name of this argument?  — view comment
Many thanks all the replies! very helpful! one thing, in this argument (as such) we are dealing with an exclusive disjunction right?? Thanks again!
October 28, 2022 at 03:35
In: Schopenhauer's Will as blind?  — view comment
October 27, 2022 at 08:29
In: Schopenhauer's Will as blind?  — view comment
but would you say it is a criticism per se? it seems very odd the wording...
October 27, 2022 at 08:28
In: What is "metaphysical contingency"?  — view comment
cheers, this one here: David Baddon-Mitchell, David. 2004. « How do we know it is now now? » Analysis 64 (283): 199–203.... it is one of the key conce...
May 30, 2022 at 17:51
In: Logical difference between (1.) being something and (2.) being linked to something.  — view comment
If they mean the same (and I considered that), I think he is being pretty sloppy with terminology. I would say it is a non-sequitur (if (2) entails (1...
March 03, 2022 at 14:57
In: Logical difference between (1.) being something and (2.) being linked to something.  — view comment
Thanks for your comments. You mean the fallacy of equivocation? I am desperately trying to track down the precise words... It was a book by Henry Alli...
March 03, 2022 at 11:51
In: Logic of Subject and Object in Schopenhauer.  — view comment
this is the problem, and the passage you cited. If thing-in-itself is totally demarcated from human experience (in the way Kant says-- and Schopenhaue...
January 22, 2022 at 11:28
In: Logic of Subject and Object in Schopenhauer.  — view comment
by "individual itself" do you mean the object of perception? How would you distinguish that from the willing subject?
January 22, 2022 at 11:25
In: The 'hard problem of consciousness'.  — view comment
But these are still not fundamentally speculative right? No clear causal relation has been identified?
January 18, 2022 at 09:22
In: What do we call a premise which omits certain information?  — view comment
simply invalid premise, I would say.
January 13, 2022 at 14:49
In: What do we call a premise which omits certain information?  — view comment
well stated. However, how could that then lead to Schopenhauer's thing-in-itself? He obviously uses this term--Ding an sich-- in a Kantian sense. Atwe...
January 13, 2022 at 14:49
In: Big Pharma and their reputation?  — view comment
I think that is fair to the majority of BigPharma, however not to the researchers behind their medicines.Big Pharma CEOs, and all general business maj...
January 13, 2022 at 14:49
In: Subject and object  — view comment
Inseparable concepts.
January 13, 2022 at 14:21
In: The 'hard problem of consciousness'.  — view comment
can you give me an example of how any perception/feeling/thought could be reduced to a particular physical system?
January 13, 2022 at 14:21
⇧