Let's pretend for a moment that the OP is not another diatribe against your bogey of “monism.” Does your OP give any reason to believe that there are ...
Whether or not prime matter is said to exist, it could still function as a theoretical entity representing the conservation of matter (or in our terms...
I think that's good progress. I don't actually read Aristotle or Aquinas as having anything near the focus on "parts" that you have, so I wouldn't att...
There are at least two problems with Bernstein's advice. The first is that there are thousands of philosophers, and if we could not critique and dismi...
If you want to distinguish so strongly between believed logical implications, and other logical implications, then why don't you point me towards a lo...
Yes, Aquinas does depart from Aristotle occasionally. On this occasion he is hyper-aware of his departure. Metaphysically, when it comes to material e...
I agree. And it may be that their thesis of skepticism is so broad that it is hard to produce concrete arguments in its favor, but I nevertheless thin...
A few posts ago I wanted to clean up the conversation because you had created so many different tangents, and now I fear the same thing is happening. ...
The horseshoe effect connects megalomania solipsism and Carl Rogers listening-relativism. In both cases one arrives at a flattened and arid landscape,...
We needn't kid ourselves, but so many do. So many pat themselves on the back, "He is so sure of himself with his truth-claims and propositions. I am u...
You seem to think that there are truth-claims apart from beliefs. If I question P and someone says that P is justified on account of S (or that P is t...
One place where Aristotle defines matter, he says the following: I think you are conflating matter with potency. There is a relation between the two, ...
Reasons given for truth or true belief are logical implications. "There is an apple on the table because I see it" - <See ? exists>. The implication n...
I want to say that Aristotle's view is based on his belief that change occurs. So suppose a seed (along with the soil and moisture) changes into a see...
I think what a lot of people are stuck on is "undecidability," so to speak. You want to say, "Ah, but there are cases where S and P are both undecidab...
I don't follow your disjunctive syllogisms here. You said: "All philosophical existence-claims must be empirical. The alternative is that they would b...
Yes, it does, in precisely the way that is required for the relation I have pointed out. If someone holds proposition P because of S, then S is truth-...
Well you said, "But what if I called something that was not categorical knowledge?" Right: like "water is H2O." Again, Darwin, Lavoisier, and Kripke a...
Sort of, but my point all along has been that if we say that then we must also say that Hume is wrong. If we believe something that contradicts Hume's...
Again, Hume gives a proof via exhaustive disjunction. The retort, "There is a disjunct you missed," is sort of tangential to the whole spirit of the t...
Okay, good. Agreed. True. Good points all around. :up: Good stuff. Also, it would be great if you learned how to add links to your quotes. :razz: You ...
Related, the discussion between Srap and I beginning <here>. If someone were to show that empiricism is the only option and induction is impossible, t...
Except I don't think that's anywhere close to true. Aristotle accurately and charitably characterizes his opponents before answering them. You've not ...
Great points. :up: What you describe as "default" I have previously described as @"Janus"'s exclusive reliance on "burden of proof" claims. His one an...
Good, but what is the premise of your point here? It is that, "No one would ever say that S implies P and yet S is not truth-apt." But we have folks d...
This would have the potential to be a fruitful conversation if you knew what you meant by your terms, but I don't think you know what you mean by eith...
:lol: You may as well just put an exclamation point on the end of your assertion and pretend that you have done something philosophical. Each time I p...
But it has already been pointed out to you in some detail, by multiple persons, that your second sentence here does nothing more than beg the question...
Building on what said, this essentially contravenes your earlier observation, 'I shall use the term "Glunk" to refer to the man that I call "Glunk".' ...
Plato begins with the a priori, empiricists like Aristotle move away from it, and then after Hume objects to empirical induction there is a natural mo...
Well there's your equivocation. Truth and purported truth are two different things. When you say "truth" and mean "purported truth," you are equivocat...
Okay. Right: so we are dealing with the thesis that religious claims are not truth-apt (or in your case, some religious claims are not truth-apt). I t...
Yes, and I think the recovery of reading aloud would be a good thing. Simpson talks about the development of poetry as part of the natural progression...
I think this is why people like @"J" talk to themselves aloud. It creates a quasi-externalization and a quasi-triangulation. Yes, but we see the world...
That's right, and therefore I think the interesting question asks how parasitic or triangulated reference fits into reference in general. There is cer...
Okay, but would Hume himself say that this makes the drawing of the consequence justified? I don't think he would. So suppose we ask, "Are we justifie...
The point here is that if Hume's argument is sound, then it counts against Aristotle (and everyone else, too). So do you think it is sound or not? Ari...
But that's not what you've done in this thread. You haven't claimed that we don't know whether the offspring of two tigers will be a tiger. It does, b...
If someone understands Newtonian mechanics as accurate within a (comparatively large) margin of error, and they wield the theory according to that und...
You can say that, but then you have to accept 1, 2, 3, and 4. You can't do that without accepting 3. Your error is 5. You think the "problem of induct...
An appeal to emotion or habits of thought will not justify the claim that the offspring of two tigers will be a tiger, for Hume. But yes, part of the ...
Hume's argument is a kind of exclusion of induction by exhaustive dichotomy. What is your response here supposed to be? Do you think that Hume would s...
We are talking specifically about Hume's argument from induction in a broad sense, namely the idea that we cannot reason from particulars to universal...
When you misrepresent the conversation my answer is always the same: You claim that you have said something, but you can't quote yourself saying it, b...
Is it concerning that it is hard to tell? You have to either embrace Hume or reject him. You can't keep playing both sides and having it both ways. It...
Comments