This is another example of Hegel's misrepresentation of Aristotelian principles. A thing, for Aristotle consists of both matter and form. A thing's id...
Let's say that the law of identity is an ideal. As such, it is proposed as a limitation, or rule for abstraction. As a proposal, or proposition, it mi...
This passage demonstrates how this so-called distortion of essence is a feature of Hegel's misunderstanding of the Aristotelian concept, "essence" and...
There is a problem with assigning pragmaticism as the guiding principle of science, and that is that any human activity (the means) is produced and di...
I would consider two basic categories, which may be named as immaterialist and materialist, or something like that. The immaterialist perspective assu...
Plato demonstrated that this type of opposition does not apply to emotions. Pleasure is not the opposite of pain, nor is happiness the opposite of sad...
No that's not what I meant, because I meant to show a category difference between particular instances of hot or cold, and the general category of tem...
OK, so talking this analogy, upward and downward are opposing directions. In the case of "something", it would refer just to "direction", not any part...
This is not really true, because we can consider all sorts of things without considering the possibility of nothing. This is why the concept of zero c...
As evident from the participation in this thread, there doesn't seem to be any logical principles to support one thing being the property of another t...
This doesn't avoid teleology, because to say that something uses something toward a good, implies teleology. So to say that the blackbird uses its win...
Huh? How is Greek relevant? I was speaking about what English speaking philosophers refer to as "final cause". Don't change the subject, address the i...
Aristotle examined this question of why there is something rather than nothing, in his Metaphysics, and determined that it was unanswerable, and there...
That's called equivocation. It's a logical fallacy resulting from the misuse of words. It would be very helpful for you in discussion on this forum, t...
I already told you. A person gets angry at you, sees a brick, and gets the idea to hit you with the brick, picks up the brick and hits you on the side...
You can give "reality" whatever definition you want, and proceed to talk in very strange ways, claiming not to contradict yourself, but then your defi...
You haven't made it clear. Saying that there are real things which are not part of reality is contradiction, rather than making things clear. And you ...
Obviously I'm not ignoring your distinction, that's why I'm in this discussion. I just think it's not consistent with reality, and therefore it's wron...
What the hell are you talking about? You distinguish between reality and not reality, on the basis of materiality, because that makes it easy for you?...
I don't think most folks would agree with you. I think that most folks believe that what other people are thinking, their intentions and such, are par...
All that is "each in itself"? What the heck does that mean? OK, so "real things" names a bigger category than "things in reality". If therefore, there...
The point is that human intelligence is deficient. You are trying to give "being" a meaning which is not consistent with the meaning that it has in it...
Two things are two things, and therefore two distinct forms, it makes no difference how cohesive the things are. This is why Aristotle placed identity...
Wait a minute. How could an avenue be infinite. It is one path, one way, out of many possible ways. There might be an infinite number of possible aven...
So what did you think of the argument I presented as to why pure potentiality as the prime first reality of our universe is impossible? Did you follow...
We are talking about "identity" as defined by the law of identity, not some peculiar non-philosophical, idiosyncratic notion of identity which you hap...
The problem I see here is that the way, avenue, or falling, is a path which must be chosen, that is why Plato's "good" becomes a first principle. Pote...
I am not talking about making a distinction, I am talking about a difference which exists whether or not any one distinguishes it. That's why I said t...
Let me state a simplified form of the argument, and you tell me where you believe the fault lies. The potential for a thing precedes its actual existe...
You're very good at misjudging people. You've demonstrated this masterfully. Why do you feel the need to make such judgements? "I know for a fact that...
OK, so instead of actually discussing the philosophical issues, because that would be too "intellectual" for you, you'd prefer to just hurl insults. G...
Hegel simply has a different solution to the apparent incompatibility between being and becoming demonstrated by the ancients, from the one proposed b...
Is that supposed to be a joke? Ha ha, make my day, tell me another funny one. Try telling that to the professor of my post-graduate course on Hegel's ...
Actually there is significant ambiguity in Plotinus concerning this issue. Aristotle through his cosmological argument had already demonstrated that a...
I kind of got bored of the subject, so I moved on. This is a fine example of the boredom. If someone cannot see that 2+2 is something different from 4...
The point was that making such a distinction is necessary in order to distinguish between what is possible and what is impossible. Otherwise you'll be...
No they are not the same, by the very fact that they are described with three very distinct descriptions. If you cannot see the difference between the...
No, what I said is that time is a necessary condition for moving an object. A person cannot move an object unless time passes. Because of this fact, t...
No, the brain in the vat premise implies that this is not possible. For us to be brains in vats, it is implied that someone created this situation. It...
The premise of your proposal is wrong. The brain in a vat scenario implies necessarily a 'person' who constructed the brain in a vat. This 'person' wo...
This might be the cornerstone of Descartes argument, but not Leibniz' principle. The identity of indiscernibles is a logical principle, not dependent ...
How are "some things I can change" and "some things I cannot change" mutually exclusive? They would only be mutually exclusive if I had said that the ...
I don't really believe that one can choose one's own morality. Your morality is a product of your genetics and upbringing, as is your "self". If you a...
There are quite a few examples of cases where people knowingly do what they believe to be bad for themselves, such as addictions, habits, and even sim...
This is not relevant. Leibniz does not qualify "indiscernible" with "to us", or with reference to any other type of being with specific capacities for...
Comments