Metaphysician Undercover

An object cannot have the property of "two-ness", because that requires two objects. Therefore "two-ness" is a relation between objects. I know that p...

Mathematical fields are mathematics, no different in principle to "2+2=4". If you think that this refers to something real then you believe in platoni...

That's right, you don't have to commit to mathematical realism (Platonism), just because the math of quantum field theory makes good predictions. Howe...

Do you recognize the difference between exists (present), and existed (past)? To take presently existing evidence, and make claims about what existed ...

I think the issue here is that we must admit to, or assume, that space is real, in order to justify our measurements of length, distance, etc.. How we...

I don't really agree with you on this. "Objective", as employed in science, refers to method, standards, conventions, norms. So this sense of "objecti...

Well of course. If you have defined objectivity as independent from thinking then objectivity is clearly not what is achieved by thinking. That's self...

You are using an unrealistic definition of "objective". You define "objective" as what is impossible for anyone to disagree with. But there is no such...

This is your problem right here Khaled. First, a conclusion is not ontologically the same as a premise, because the conclusion follows from, and is th...

This is why we need to differentiate between mind and soul. Mind refers to the thing which is responsible for thinking and controlling the activities ...

The problem is that it's not a logical difference though, it's an ontological division. That's because "the logical" is in the one category, and the o...

The question is, are they "the same". If they are two different objects, then they are not the same, by one account of "the same". If you call two dif...

I think that you misinterpret physics, to state that it makes ontological claims rather than epistemological, according to your definitions. Physics t...

OK then, being old and experienced as you are, I won't worry about you ... unless you start to tell me that your gaydar can work over the internet. Is...

Yes, I think that type of conflict is a requirement for thought.

When the gaydar fails it could turn into a gay bashing? That precariousness scares me.

In my OED there's a definition of conflict in psychology as "the opposition of incompatible needs or wishes within a person". So yes, I think this is ...

Have you never heard of association? What triggers "the idea" is association, not encountering the very same object again. The encounter of the mailbo...

There is also conflict within, the inability to decide. This inspires thought. Without this conflict, would there be no thinking?

How would you describe "effective philosophy"?

So here's perhaps a better answer to your question. The logical identity of a thing is based in essential properties, this is qualitative identity. Ho...

Sorry Df, I somehow missed this part of your reply. I am not talking about a third meaning of identity here, and this is the key point. To identify by...

Right, qualitative identity allows us to say that things with the same properties are the same thing. That's the way logicians use "identity". Regardl...

Are you familiar with the two forms of identity? You'll find them on SEP referred to as qualitative and numerical. Qualitative, what logicians use, im...

If you describe dianoia as working with intelligible objects, as application of them, and noesis as understanding intelligible objects, which requires...

The problem with this perspective is that "chair" refers to the phenomenon, so there really cannot be a "noumenal chair". All of our concepts of what ...

What would you mean by "emergent", and is this an appropriate adjective for "mind"? I think this is very well expressed, and it is an issue which Dfpo...

7. would only follow from 6. if Presentism and Eternalism were the only two possibilities.

Sorry, but I'm not accustomed to your use of "instantiated". Could you explain?

Quit playing games. Read the passage and change your opinion of what Aristotle wrote to reflect what he really wrote. It very clearly states: "number ...

I don't see the issue you're trying to point out, perhaps you could elaborate. Of course there must be some sort of "self", we're talking about intent...

This is a good example. Wave/particle duality is contradictory. Energy can move from one place to another in the form of a wave, or it can move as a m...

Now you're catching on. It is not a case of "we cannot say it", but a case of "we can say it wrongly". Forget about that claim that logic dictates wha...

If you speak of a conscious being as an observer, then the specified act which the being is involved in, observing, is an act of representation. That ...

Don't forget though, Aristotle also said that in another sense, time is that which is measured. So we really have to understand "time" in these two wa...

Here's the problem with the assumption that there is such a thing as what cannot be said. You can assume such a thing, just like I can assume a square...

I don't see the distinction you are trying to set up. If something is wrong, you ought not do it, and if you ought not do something, it is because it ...

I can't accept that, that we all know exactly what they know. Every person's knowledge is unique and specific to that individual. .

Right, doesn't the passage of time (nature) create these differences?

Thanks, I'll reassess my beliefs about what nature does in relation to differences. Perhaps nature doesn't create differences, maybe it limits them, a...

It seems I'm in the rabbit hole right now. So. referring to those inconsistencies, would you think that they are honest mistakes, or a tactic which Pl...

I am working with your premise, which already implies that nature creates differences, but your claim is that nature only produces differences which m...

I apprehend some inconsistency in your reply. How is it that theologians interpret the Bible as "not literally true", yet they also believe it? If you...

These differences do exist, or are you denying their existence? If they exist, then they must have been either been created by nature, or artificially...

It was you who said: Nature creates differences which do not make a difference to us. So, the onus is on you to demonstrate why nature would create di...

All right, so you don't think that theologians are intentionally trying to deceive us, and they are the experts on this subject, so what do you think ...

So, wouldn't it be the specialists who are best qualified at determining whether the seam of gold exists or not? And if the specialists claim that it ...

I think that the problem is in how one defines "true beliefs". If we define truth along the lines of "what logic provides us with, then we are just be...

Isn't the question of whether a specified thing exists or not a question concerning the nature of that thing?

If "nature' was as you say, so that it didn't care about such differences, then why does nature make each individual unique? I see that you have thing...