Leontiskos

Okay, so we have the outlandish thesis of the OP, <Every time p is thought, I think p is thought> (). This thesis is attributed to Kant, but no source...

Thinking p requires thinking p. No one disputes this. The question of the OP is whether thinking p requires self-consciously thinking p; whether it re...

- Not every thread is about perception. For example, this thread is not about perception.

- Yeah, you rolled in your schtick. Model/norm != perception.

But no one in this thread has any real idea why one would hold that thought is necessarily self-conscious, including yourself. :grimace: It's like if ...

Looks like you need to try reading that post again.

Not sure what you're getting at. When one talks about a magnifying glass and looks at a magnifying glass while under the impression that the magnifyin...

I think the problem is that there is no truth-telling occurring. You are allergic to the word: Are you capable of using the word 'true'? Do you think ...

Pat is correct. Sometimes people make self-conscious judgments and sometimes they make un-self-conscious judgments. If you want to call that a proof, ...

When we get down to it, it seems like you want to say something like, "Yeah, my approach is contradictory. But it will work itself out in the end." Or...

"And our norms of truth-telling understand that." This is tantamount to Banno's refusal to go beyond <"Snow is white" is true iff snow is white>. It i...

I think this is quite right, and I think it feeds into the points @"Count Timothy von Icarus" is making against @"fdrake". (And no, you can't model sw...

Yes, well John 6 is a different case. That is clearly going against the letter of the law.

These are very good arguments against @"fdrake", and I do not see them begging the question. So what are the norms of correct assertibility? These sor...

Thanks for that. I am short on time and I actually don't know that much about assemblage theory, so let's look at your example: This strikes me as an ...

- Intellection isn't fast thinking. I thought we already addressed this in the past?

I went back and read this section in its entirety. It is an excellent summary of the difference between intellection and ratiocination, as well as the...

:up: Okay. :up: Sure, I think so. How do you understand the relationship between the individual and the community? I would say that if the community i...

Right, and a key premise here is that the intellect/nous has the formal capacity to know everything, and that which knows all things is not itself one...

Okay, thanks for the clarifications. "Interrelated" and "type" are doing heavy lifting here, to put it mildly. You can try to shift the ground to "arb...

Isn't it commonly agreed that a social entity is not governed in this way, namely that it isn't a substance?

Right, and Aristotle is clearly happy to study the intellect in De Anima. It would also be within the province of metaphysics. But I hesitate to say w...

- This strikes me as somewhat standard, depending on what precisely you are asking about. Aristotle is basically saying that the study of animals requ...

Huh!? Flat ontologies are squeaky-clean. Diversity is what creates tangles. If there is only one thing "all the way down" then there are no tangles at...

Depending on what fdrake means by “assemblage,” there are those who have explored this in great depth and in a programmatic way, namely the dialectica...

(I wrote this last night, and although it pushes things a bit far, I am going to post it. That is, it may be more appropriate for later in the thread,...

- Farewell and good luck!

I think we live in legitimately strange times. I doubt anyone in history has seen more change than someone who was born in the West in the 1930's and ...

I have been following Aristotle (or Aquinas, who follows Aristotle) from the very beginning of this discussion. The problem then as now is that your c...

This is a consequence of taking the philosophy of language as first philosophy, as pointed out. If philosophy of language is first philosophy, then th...

- Yep, good connection. - Yep, and I think the entry point into one of the deeper issues at play here is the modern concept of "sortals" that mentione...

You seem to be saying that the deflationist and the functionalist (or "behaviorist") occupy the same position, but the former occupies it dogmatically...

Also nothing more than a quick intervention... Supposing we want to play the game of finding the "next of kin" to the OP, I would look to metaphysical...

- That's fair, I guess I didn't realize how much pressure the media was bringing to bear. But I remember that even amidst all the hubbub, the average ...

Yes, it is clearly wrong. It's remarkable that there are people who find such nonsense "brilliant." Eating a poison mushroom instead of a healthy mush...

I would say that individualism is related to liberalism and nihilism, and is also not merely about the relation between states and citizens. In fact t...

Yep, there is a feedback loop between individualism and isolation. I think you are right that gender is at the core of it, but things like class and r...

Okay, so Nozick vs. Rawls (and probably capitalism vs. communism in MacIntyre's thought - property rights vs. redistribution of wealth). MacIntyre's p...

This doesn't strike me as accurate. Just look at his approval ratings. They were generally high, and never higher than during the impeachment. In the ...

I appreciate this because I've never been able to figure out what the elusive term "populism" is supposed to mean. Usually it is functioning as little...

Well, what is the standard "model duck"? A duck decoy. And a decoy does not model behavior, it models form. The form then mediates expected behaviors,...

<This one>, for those who are interested. Supposing Aristotle is a primary source of being/essence considerations, we should ask why he disagrees with...

Here you go: Then give an example of univocal predication that is not analogical predication. Yes. I don't think so. The word/statement/utterance is n...

A rule of thumb for you: don't argue for things you don't believe are true.

Here is your claim: The word "table" presumably describes the object in your living room, given the fact that you used the predication. Most of the de...

I could keep quoting the dictionary for you. You keep asking me to. But better that you learn to fish. Use the dictionary yourself. Before writing a p...

I don't see much merit in either of these conceptions. Are you pulling them out of thin air? Or is there some thinker or tradition that you are gettin...

"Indescribable" does not mean "unable to be described forever." If that's what it meant then, by your own criteria, everything would be indescribable,...

Sure it does. That's why you used the word "table" to represent the object in your living room. If you had said "chair" we would have known that we ar...

"Table" is a common noun, so when you talk about your table you have already given a description. When you talk about your table we all know what sort...