Leontiskos

To simplify what others have said: final causes are not ordered ad unum (to just one thing). For example, a cow will eat vegetation, but it is not "de...

You made a claim about "things," not "forms." In fact the very vagueness of that word "thing" is doing most of the work in your premise. For example, ...

I am going to come back to page 10 again, because it is there that Williamson makes the point that some of us have been trying to make for a long time...

Okay. Why think that? Is the concept of triangularity material? No. Do we interact with it? Yes.

- Yes. :up: - - Thanks. :up:

- Okay, well I think that's probably as far as we will get for now. Thanks for your thoughts. :up:

Either one. Obviously some things require instruments, and are therefore known indirectly. I think Feser is wondering why, as a non-Cartesian, a criti...

Yes, that's a good point. Interesting. Right, and that attitude comes across in a multitude of areas, as you imply. Great points. I definitely agree. ...

Okay. Right, so: If I cannot falsify his reasons (R) then I would say P is not implausible (ceteris paribus). But if I know that P is false (such as i...

Right, and therefore a formal argument written out on a piece of paper is not true (or even valid) in the most primary sense. Truth primarily exists i...

Yes. In that case I would know they are lying. :razz:

Great post. :up: I am just going to comment on one small part: Right. The object which was originally tied to premise/evidence is eventually made into...

This is right, and it should go without saying that I agree with it. Let me bold something in my original quote: The idea here is that there is a diff...

We have an interesting mini-case of this in the thread, directed towards Williamson: 1. "Disciplined" has two interrelated meanings 2. Williamson's ar...

And my point is that it is absurd to claim that ants are engaged in rational norm-following, so this is a massive strawman you are wielding. In the co...

I'd say the only difference between "chit chat" and "work" is the level of assertion involved. The fact that both are necessary is an example of the n...

"Indicator"? Perhaps. It's certainly not a sufficient condition. There is no escaping the question of intention in this matter. One can without a form...

The same ones who decide how much research is necessary before something is to count as philosophy? But no, I was focusing more on the second sentence...

He has the back-up: So the idea is that Russell and Wittgenstein could agree on what follows from a set of constraints, even if they disagree on the c...

I do, yes. I also think his premise is widely accepted, namely <If man can have knowledge of all corporeal things, then man's intellect is incorporeal...

Right, and a kind of light bulb should go off once one realizes that Sokolowski's lack of specificity is intentional, and that it is intended precisel...

So you claim: 1. If an approach is not disciplined by the decades of relevant research, then it isn't philosophy 2. Leontiskos' approach is not discip...

For sure. :up: I've also tried to help his parents in their quest to keep him well-fed by utilizing philosophy. "When you eat food, your stomach trans...

But isn't the claim that "mathematical language is and must be embedded in natural language," actually contrary to the claim that, "classical logic is...

Yes, and also "fruitful" alongside "rigorous."

I want to say that the crux of the paragraph on page 10, along with @"Count Timothy von Icarus" ideas about wisdom being determinate, as well as my th...

@"Count Timothy von Icarus", @"Joshs" There is a tendency in this thread to use "continental philosophy" as a foil to rigorous philosophy, but that do...

Thanks, I appreciate that. My point that a philosophy which places natural language above formal language is more robust than a philosophy which does ...

I'm quite serious. But while we're at it, please stop with your condescending posts where you instruct other people how to behave, what to write, and ...

I would sum this up by saying that natural language is much more powerful than artificial languages, such as formal languages (which in fact depend on...

I think the elephant in the room is that we don't know what we mean by "technical work," or, "professional work." We can agree that philosophy require...

Apparently there is a whole book on the subject, "Thomas Aquinas on the Immateriality of the Human Intellect," by Adam Wood. Here is one of Aquinas' a...

That all seems fine to me, and relates to what I said here: But I don't see why anything you are saying would entail that, "no actual philosophical wo...

Okay. It seems to me that we do not need (D/o) at all, and that this is the point of (P). (P) is the claim that, "Discipline from semantics is by itse...

I agree that one can "falsify" a belief (the whole question is about whether that is the correct word) without falsifying the proposition/belief. Name...

Well we agree that ants protect their queen, do we not? And we agree that ants are not rational, and therefore do not engage in rational norm-followin...

Well I gave the quote where you seem to say that implicitly, and in the context of comments about Analytic philosophy. :up: Those are two well-represe...

The opposing view that I favor can be brought into view by looking at amateurs rather than "professionals." It's not as easy to tell the difference be...

More simply, the idea that beauty and intelligence seek out beauty and intelligence. Thinking well will seek out a high object of thought, and a high ...

For my money, Williamson strikes his best chord in the second paragraph on page 10, beginning, "Discipline from..." That is all spot-on, and it is ver...

No, I don't think so, though I do think he tends to overemphasize the "thinking well" side of the equation. Or perhaps he is focused on a particular k...

Yes. I am not opposed to that thesis, which is a much softer form of Gerson's. Still, I was trying to be more conservative and say <If someone's defin...

How would you answer your own question?

:lol: Yes, well said. :up:

This is basically correct. If Williamson or others refuse questioning and refuse to examine their premises, they are failing to do philosophy. A super...

- Because if you are acting in accordance with a norm then you must have an understanding of that norm at some level. If you have no understanding of ...

I think it is obvious. In philosophy it is called the Square of Opposition, and I have mentioned it often in this thread. To negate the claim "All X a...

(@"Fire Ologist") What is one to say to the claim that philosophy studies language, or is engaged in plumbing, or “leaves things as they were”, or mus...

- Glad you've changed your mind. :up: (The issue strikes me as substantial.)

Deciding to conform to such a thing is a normative judgment, yes. That's not what you said. You said, "that there is such a thing is itself a normativ...