plaque flag

We don't need some perfectly determinate and final set of inferential and semantic norms to do science. Science is fundamentally social and cooperativ...

But do you see how that's self-cancelling relativism ? If you argue for it, then that's just 'your' logic, no ?

The problem of hallucination, right ? I can decide that what 'seemed like' an X was 'really' a Y. But I can changed 'my mind' yet again. One 'appearan...

Just to clarify, you mean @"Wayfarer" ? I don't know if he embraces the term. But, for the record, we can do without the subject before we can do with...

I can't speak for all correlationists, but I take speculative realism to be an empty promise, grounded in nostalgia. The investigation of being (ontol...

:) I appreciate you checking it out. I'd be happy to clarify my weird prose, of course.

I'll let their ghosts debate that issue with you, since neither system is my own. Wittgenstein basically states my own current position in the TLP and...

That sounds like an analytic proposition, with metaphysical propositions thereby implicitly defined. Which is fine, if endlessly debatable. I like the...

To me it's not math itself but theories in that syntax that are predictive. Math allows for precise measurement and precise prediction. It also allows...

Sure. And they also exist culturally, viscerally, just as the rest of our mentality does. As a student of math, I'd be lost with pencil and paper (I'v...

Given the Kantian background, I'm slower to commit, because metaphysical types can come up with some strange phrases (I don't mean you, but just the c...

Sure, but I thought it was obvious that I wasn't just adopting Leibniz's entire theory. I've been trying to follow the evolution of perspectivism in W...

Questions I might ask: Is color real (are there really colorful things) ? Is sound real ? Are feelings of love real ? That we humans got good a measur...

That gets us into metaphysical details. Is there a difference in the first place ? I will of course grant that humans always have more to learn, that ...

Such a theory is so obviously false that it only make sense if understood as ironic or metaphorical. It's like 'all is vanity.' Or there's a line in K...

To me 'being' is just empty enough to work. But it is indeed just a word. The nondual stuff doesn't even need a name. We might also agree with James t...

How so, if you don't mind my asking ?

I think you are agreeing with John Stuart Mill, that objects are permanent possibilities of sensation.

:up: My approach to this is to stubbornly demand some actual meaning from physical theories. The 'silence of algorithm' (often math that just has no d...

Let me know if my paraphrase is acceptable ? The object itself (better phrase for my money than the object-in-itself) and not some representation of i...

It'd be great to get your thoughts on this aging OP, but no pressure.

It may be hard to see because radical indirect realism is so sexy. I watched a Donald Hoffman Ted talk, and it was gripping. I knew it was fallacious ...

I can't say what Magee meant, of course, but I embraced this quote from my own weird ] 'perspectival phenomenalist' position. What I can mean by 'broo...

Thanks. Once this criticism occurred to me (I was inspired by Nietzsche*), the absurdity of Kant's system (as a whole, but not in all its details) bec...

You mean this : Objects 'are' possible and actual experiences ? For me the point is to examine with real seriousness what we mean by 'physical object....

Thanks ! And sorry about leaving out the sources. Here they are: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ https://www.gutenberg.org/file...

:up: This is exactly what I'm also saying. The empirical subject is in the world. The transcendental 'subject' is so pure-transparent-diaphanous ( a m...

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Perspectivism

Just so you know, that's not an innovation on his part. It's standard axiomatic set theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_specificatio...

This source places Heidegger's primary breakthrough at the lecture KNS 1919: THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHY AND THE PROBLEM OF WORLDVIEWS. In fact, it was in ...

:up: All is ?????l . NASB Translation : breath (5), delusion (2), emptily (1), emptiness (2), fleeting (2), fraud (1), futile (1), futility (13), idol...

I agree that we don't have to be a great thinker in the sense of obtaining a great breakthrough that'll get us in the canon. But we do have to underst...

That's just it. I simply take experience as experience, as 'real.' It's you (in my view) who are simply deciding to ignore this or that aspect of expe...

It tries to give meaning to a metaphor --- or to a tendency to treat some experience as somehow 'unreal.'

As I see it, we all see the same world, but we do see from different positions. You see the world and understand metaphysical questions are undecidabl...

Recall that I don't acknowledge authority in this context. I'll consider claims. But vanity and delusion are always with us. As humans we easily get d...

This is difficult to parse. Perhaps you mean that consciousness is always consciousness-of ? How does this sound to you ? I think Sartre intends the s...

For me the issue is semantic. I think of 'physical' objects as enduring possibilities of perception. I lean toward verificationism when it comes to sc...

I think this is close to what Leibniz was getting at. Each of us is a kind of copy of the world. But the world has no original. It only exists perspec...

Sure. Thinking is intrinsically social, and we always use a shared language to intend objects in our shared world. We also discuss all of reality in t...

:up: I think this is the same idea. Consciousness in the radical sense (first person sense) is just nondual being.

The view I've been arguing for is this: there is no 'deep' subject in the first place but only the-world-from-a-perspective. There are of course empir...

This first part seems close to Husserl especially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy...

So we all have our own take, but you are suggesting that a movement that takes nondual as its name is really just dualist in the usual way. But that l...

Not at all. There is no subject. There is no consciousness. Not 'really.' Just world-from-perspectives, and not world-from-no-perspective. That's the ...

Of course your view is the popular and dominant view, and ancestral objects deserve serious discussion, but I think it's ontology's job to interpret t...

But being can stand apart from all consciousness ?

I agree that distinctions depend on consciousness, but I understand consciousness as being itself. Of course this only makes sense, so far as I can te...

If you don't mind, what do you mean by consciousness is not separate from being ?

I'm looking into nondualism in other traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta To me this all reads exactly like what I'm calling nond...