Artemis

Ecology without Nature, Timothy Morton Everything that exists is natural.

This Quora user is mistaken. Descartes was not assuming a unified self. He was asserting that thought requires/implies a thinker. It's almost a truism...

Yes exactly. Truth claims can either be falsehoods or true statements.

Yes.

:up:

In other words: Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind. "The earth circles around the sun." And "...

Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. They dispute the Western concept of a whole self, but not that something exists which is thinkin...

You're kind of all over the place here and I'm not sure it's worthwhile to deconstruct it all. Let me just say: the only reductionism going on here is...

You're just looking at it backwards: the story contains the words. The capacity for love is constructed of proteins.

The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point. They're both true. But one is a definitiona...

Okay, so I see you do accept that Ethics uses facts in later posts on this thread, so I'll stick to responding to this: Let's just go back to absolute...

That's kinda like retorting that books don't contain stories, they just contain letters from the alphabet.

Yes. No. No. Both.

Evolutionary theorists have long complicated the individualistic/selfish view of human evolution. Homo sapiens evolved to be a social animal. Homo sap...

:up:

I'm not sure what you're referring to as irrelevant, but commonly people add the adjectives "pink, invisible" to unicorn to emphasize it's non-existen...

Unicorns don't exist either.

What a good thread! Definitely helps to try and clarify these things. I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic...

Just read some excerpts of his ideas about low- versus high-IQ women having children ... and I don't think anyone in their right mind reads that and t...

Is this a philosophy question?

:rofl:

Is THAT true or a fact??

I can't help myself: that's not an example of a tautology. It's an example of begging the question.

Is that true or a fact? :chin: Hey, that's cool! Looking forward to your thoughts as they evolve and a new thread if you make one!

First of all: yes, even physicists and other scientists argue about terminology. Second of all: Why? because ideas are expressed through terms and mos...

First of all, philosophers spend a great deal of time trying to get their vocabulary right. I don't even understand how you (as someone who seems to h...

Well, by being clear and precise we get closer to actual truth and actual knowledge, for starters. Why do we define anything? So that we can put toget...

In short: it's the literal difference between something just being a belief and knowledge. This is literally WHY the definition includes a) justified ...

Their beliefs about the world back then may have been reasonable enough for the time, but since they weren't true, they weren't knowledge. A person ca...

Also, I find it interesting that you seem to be doing a 180 here from your statements in another thread: So which is it? Do you agree or disagree that...

Because it isn't true. The earth is not actually the center of the universe and nothing they believe would make it so. Not even Gettier challenged the...

Well, then I don't have much reason to believe your statement and neither do you. Why in the world would that be JTB? It's not true and it's not justi...

To phrase it another way: Gettier wasn't really showing that the formula doesn't work per se. He did the typical philosopher thing: "But what does it ...

Gettier came up with an interesting challenge to naive interpretations of JTB, but the literal title of his paper still doesn't actually dismantle JTB...

1. It is knowledge that you know what your favorite color is. 2. It is knowledge that you know your arm itches. 3. I'm not sure what you mean by alche...

I'm familiar with Gettier's work. But as far as I understand it, it really challenges more the concept of justification and notions of absolute and ab...

Mostly the latter, though.

Both.

Why in the world not?

To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur p...

I don't see how that's different from philosophy.

I don't really have the time (nor do I think it would probably be very useful or productive) to address all of your concerns in your post. So to sum i...

:lol: Alrighty then.

Precision in thought is only possible with precision in language.

In other words: no, dressing a wound does not make you an intellectual. And yes, maybe part of being an evil propagandist does entail being an intelle...

You're imbuing the word with a valuation it doesn't contain. Intellectualism doesn't entail anything about good or bad deeds.

No, but it helps.

I partially appreciate where you're coming from, but still find that your valuation of engineering and the expertise that comes with it is at odds wit...

It's like saying we're all scientists because we can boil a pot of water to make tea. Stretching the term beyond it's intended use isn't very helpful.

An intellectual is a person who "engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection to advance discussions of academic subjects." So, you are in p...