plaque flag

This is where you pretty directly write as a pragmatist. Later I try to show the issue with that position. You call it a strawman, but I don't see why...

:up: If we agree, as we seem to here, at least, then beliefs as 'pragmatic delusions' (my phrase) don't seem to work. Of course I can get behind mere ...

I think you just misunderstood my explanation --or I misunderstood what you wanted explained. I don't mention ethics for sentimental reasons. Rational...

Sorry if I offended you somehow. I felt quite calm and friendly and when I wrote all that.

I'm just showing some classic problems with attempts to reduce truth to something else.

In case it helps: I suggested that 'P is true' is (roughly) the assertion of P. Then I said that assertion was possibly irreducible.

:up: You are just repeating my point.

FWIW, my thread on the 'worldly foolishness' of philosophy is largely a reaction to the invisibility of its power and validity for those who presuppos...

OK, but being is everywhere in our talk. Heidegger, etc.

Some good stuff from Zahavi's book on Husserl (pdf not hard to find, paperback well worth the price): According to Husserl, reality is not simply a br...

Hopefully these quotes from Zahavi's book on Husserl will help.

What's most offensive in this rationalism is probably the Luciferian humanism. Sartre writes that we are condemned to be free. Does the world lose mag...

You can't argue for the impossibility of communication. Perhaps we should say that certain concepts could use some clarification.

I think you are missing the central normative essence of rationality. You appeal to it without accounting for it. I have some knowledge of neural netw...

This part of the quote is what I have in mind. This is also close to an interpretation of Husserl that I like (Zahavi's). Not 'warranted' and seemingl...

For what it's worth, I embrace the quest for (relatively) atemporal universal truth. I think 'anti-philosophers' usually turn out to be just philosoph...

:up: .

I very much think philosophy is correctly obsessed with subjectivity. But I also (for now) think indirect realism is a bad approach. A sophisticated p...

To some degree, we can't help but model one another as unfree objects determined by their environment. Hence the constant temptation toward psychologi...

OK, it's a bit unfair. But there's something self-eating about instrumentalism. And I've wallowed in the mud of it myself --- it's even intoxicating t...

Our linguistic-conceptuals selves are more like softwhere on the crowd than the lardwhere they run on.

I understand why you want to say that, but I think you are reifying the subject. Are we gremlins in the pineal gland ? Do you sit behind your eyes, lo...

Note please that you are assuming your own framework -- talking of 'representations' of the world -- in the presentation of the 'problem.' For various...

:up: At least some of us do.

You claim there is no right answer. That's the whole truth in essence, no ? The big one that gives you leverage. Think in those terms. What meta-claim...

I'd say maybe beware of such nakedly self-flattering arrogance. The fool says in his heart: I'm not one of the fools. Both of you like me spend plenty...

I agree with you that all actual communities are not ideal. No actual circle is the perfect circle. But the ideal itself seems to me to exist, even if...

A sophisticated direct realism is more parsimonious still. This is exactly because nothing is higher than reason (for philosophers) AND because the ra...

:up: Now that is where we agree.

I invite you to show me the error of ways. No irony intended.

Mind may no longer be conceived as a self-contained field, substantially differentiated from body (dualism), nor as the primary condition of unilatera...

:up:

Just want to say that I'm giving this famous aphorism a slightly different meaning in its new context. Here it's not about history but attitude and be...

For me there's a semantic issue here. What can we mean by 'more real' ? Doesn't experience give our words meaning ?

:up: You nailed it. I'm with Hegel on this issue, in spirit if not to the letter. I'm not saying that I can't or won't be surprised, but to me that's ...

I feel like you are using logic to prove that you should be allowed to use logic ? How do you know that it is good enough for survival purposes ? If t...

I was asking whether you were the real Bob Ross himself or just Bob Ross for Bob Ross.

Another little thing to consider is Popper's idea of basic statements --where the rubber meets the road. He skipped over the metaphysical strangeness ...

Granted that transcendent arguments are tricky, what in mine works or does not in your views ?

My thinking to. Hence one logic.

I guess the tricky part is already lower in the animal kingdom. Are ants a point of view on the world ?Are bacteria ? I feel strongly that cats and do...

Well that's one of the more beautiful myths/hypothesis I've heard in a while. Nice ! I like the idea of all the sentient creatures as different kinds ...

I'm sympathetic in general but I think mental and physical events are palpably in the same inferential nexus. Is explanation the right word ? Is consc...

I should add that it's only flat in the sense that nothing is stacked on anything else. It's given as an entire blanket. Entities and categories get t...

Note that I place rationality at the center. One might want to call this 'mind,' but the rational community is embodied and share a world of entities ...

:up: I can relate. And even knowledge is almost a byproduct of joyful exploration, joyful creativity. To play at ontology is to play seriously a scien...

:up: It seems reasonable. But I could only project experience based on a combination of my own living brain and other worldly objects. I've got no exp...

I'd say my view is built from several pieces that work together all at the same time. It's a form of rationalism in that it puts us as reasoners as th...

Ah, but if logic was indeed too fickle, I don't think it would be easy, because whether you avoided the performative contradiction wouldn't be definit...

When I say 'structure of reality,' I mean the whole truth in essence, because there's an infinity of facts. I also emphasize what's atemporal in reali...