Angelo Cannata

We can imagine different levels of dreaming. What is important is not that you don’t agree, but that nobody in this world can find any evidence that t...

This message as well can be criticized from both perspectives. In science: you can give evidence that they are there, but science doesn’t care if tomo...

What you said can be criticized two ways, depending if you are talking from a scientific or a metaphisical perspective. From the scientific perspectiv...

This is exactly what metaphysics, in my opinion, tries to do: a stable system, able to embrace everything, including change. This, I think, is exposed...

It depends on what you mean by "being". Basically, we can identify two meanings, according to Parmenides and Heidegger. Being in Parmenides is absolut...

That's why I think it is wrong considering change as being.

You are talking about perspectives on objects that are actually the same over time. I am talking about things that change, really change and are not a...

Postmodern philosophy, Nietzsche, Heidegger, the sophists, Gianni Vattimo.

My description of metaphysics is not history of philosophy: since there are so many concepts about metaphysics, I already hinted that the title of thi...

This is your opinion, your philosophy, other philosophers don't think so.

We assign names because we see that, together with elements that change, there are elements that don't. If all elements of an object change, we cannot...

I didn't say that we just call it differently. That would not be a real change. I said "is": if what we today call "sky" tomorrow stops being sky, but...

If you consider “being” as "something”, but not permanent, how are you able to give it a name, which is, the word “being”? It seems to me that we can ...

I think it is obvious that metaphysics has different meanings in different times and different authors. As a consequence, the question in the title of...

If you consider change as a kind of being, I think this is not really consistent, because, if you really want to be consistent with a perspective base...

Anything can be not good for anyone. Can you say any source that is good for you and shows that what I said is wrong?

You can have a look here, as an example.

I am interested in seeing how it is not true, according to what philosophers.

I think it is good to clarify the following things. The aim of metaphysics is to go beyond physics, beyond science, to get some stable, unassailable t...

Since the very beginning they could have used better self-criticism. Think about Aristotle, for example: why didn’t he ask himself “Why should things ...

In other words, it seems to me that metaphysics just lack self-criticism.

I think that metaphysics, whatever meaning you give to it, has the defect of being bound to being: in certain contexts it is almost a synonim of ontol...

I agree. Essentially, I think this is Heidegger and unfortunately it iseems to me that analytical philosophy has been prevailing more and more, changi...

This is exactly the problem: if you try to forget your own consciousness, what you are trying to understand is not consciousness anymore, it is imposs...

The problem is in the ambiguity of the concept of consciousness. For example, a computer is able to react to the presence of a person or even to the e...

This is exactly the problem. Philosophy of consciousness seems stupid to me because, even if we can easily understand where the basic problem is, like...

Then?

I think that metaphysics is the most important issue in philosophy. The problem is that, since it is closely connected with ontology, it can be interp...

I am interested in your question because I am doing some research on spirituality in my website spi.st and time is an essential part in the process of...

I would say, about the monastic therapy of love, the same I said about person: it doesn't work, there are too many objections that make it unreliable:...

I essentially agree, but then we need to clarify what kind of change we should make in our hearts. Peace, hating violence, is not enough, because they...

I would say anti-subjectivity, which is almost the same, but guides towards a clearer direction. About civilization, it doesn't work because it is jus...

Isn't this what Heidegger exactly meant by saying that we are beings towards death?

There is no shift, it is not a jump, a next level. Rather, you can always try to be better, to think better, to behave better, assuming, while nobody ...

Making depression as a tool is one the best ability of humanity. I think you have just practiced one of the best capabilities you have: transforming a...

I think that the experience of suffering confirms what I said: Emotions, choices, answers and so on are not always joyful things. Even love includes e...

I have deep perplexity on the value of John Paul II as a philosopher or theologian. Before him, the fact that only men where admitted to priesthood wa...

I don’t get what you wrote: what does it mean “how brain chemistry is a percept, not merely correlated with it”? Besides, you cannot give for granted ...

We already know that our brain works by cells, neurons, electromagnetic interactions and so on. So, we already know a lot about how all brain activiti...

I agree. I would even say: the objective in philosophers’ mind was not “to discover how to live the good life”, but “to live the good life”. I mean, t...

If you think that perception does not produce just knowledge, but also emotions, choices, answers, art, action, life, communication, progress, spiritu...

It seems to me that this assumption of yours is what makes you impossible to understand Wittgestein’s mysticism: why should mysticism be impossible fo...

This is my understanding of Heidegger’s position about it, but I am not 100% sure I am correct. Considering that the alternative is between - logic de...

If I understood correctly your thoughts, it seems that you mean "we come from fishes and that's it", in the sense that reality is limited to what we c...

I think you are expressing your hypothesis about Wittgenstein's mysticism in a way that is not helpful to make things clear. Wittgenstein was not a me...

Why should life have a meaning?

I think that the basic problem is in what I said at the end of my preceding message: This is a general radical problem of philosophy, that causes unpr...

Where did I say this?

It is an opinion based on research, studies, archaelogy, criticism, done by scholars all over the world.. As such, it helps for further research. What...

Here, for example: https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/21944/ You can just put on Google something like "from politheism to monotheism...