Corvus

I recall reading in the esoteric forums sometime ago, that they believe everything under the sun is connected to each other even to all the celestial ...

I know, hence the suggestion :nerd:

This seems to be tangent from the OP anyway. We are not interested in which subject is founded by which. That sounds like a perspective which is assoc...

From some perspectives, everything is connected or related to everything. But from some other perspectives, they are all separate entities especially ...

Non-existence is possible in a possible world where nothing exists. Non-existence is impossible metaphysically. Please bear in mind they are different...

The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics. Therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :)

The moment that you uttered the statement "X is impossible metaphysically", you were doing metaphysics. If metaphysics didn't exist at all, what does ...

hmmm was not thinking about Platonism as such. But logically, how can do you Metaphysics, if Metaphysics didn't exist? How could you even say or think...

Yes

A world where nothing exists (not even Metaphysics) is impossible metaphysically, because without Metaphysics, Metaphysics is impossible.

In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T metaphysically. (X must no...

It depends on what "destroying" means. In physical perspective, it is possible to destroy any physical entities. But non-physical entities cannot be d...

It would still say "Well prove how spirits could be destroyed in a spiritual way." or "By its nature, spirits have no capability or property for destr...

Well, Metaphysical enquiry would say, sorry mate, you cannot destroy non-physical existence in physical way. They are all intact. They are still there...

It would be possible in the conceptual perspective of the destruction and changes of existences.

Your point sound confused in the methodology. Hypothesises are the methods for the scientific enquiries. Metaphysics and Logic do not adopt hypothesis...

Modal Logic is a branch of Logic, not Metaphysics. But logically speaking, if there was nothing existing at all, then Metaphysics wouldn't exist eithe...

For example, Chinese words are based on the pictorials of the worldly objects, but they still have meanings, and it is the meanings they communicate o...

It is possible that nothing physical to exist metaphysically such as mind, spirit, concepts ...etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxt_uMkdrhc

In Modal Logic it is possible to have a possible world that nothing exists. Obviously you must be a modal realist to accept the points. If you are an ...

Because Metaphysics is all about existence. If there were no existence, Metaphysics wouldn't exist, and wouldn't have existed at all. That would be im...

Without the basic semantic rigour, all science and philosophy would lose their footings for debates, even metaphysics. If someone comes along with a c...

Yeah that is the exact part where the contradiction arises, which voids the metaphysical ground of "a world with nothingness".

Should you not have put down "meanings" rather than "symbols'? Symbols? - sounds like pictorial entity. Words are made of the alphabets, and has meani...

It would be the sense of metaphysical metaphors rather than the traditional metaphysics as a subject.

But because of the concept "a world" implying the ontological entity, "a world of nothingness" would be contradiction in metaphysics.

:cool: :ok:

A world with no existence is metaphysically impossible because metaphysics deals with existence. A world with no existence is logically possible becau...

If something was independent of experience, then it would be A priori. But if something was independent of intelligence, then would it be also A prior...

Not quite sure what this means. Could you please elaborate?

It sounds absurd that you can reason on something which is independent of whatever your intellect received.

No.

Are irrelevant until (such time of) the manifestation. The proposition was emphasising the time factor. Of course not, but it was to make the point th...

Possible existence and phenomenon are not the actuality until they manifested, so should they not be irrelevant? Here we are talking about Existence a...

Doesn't it indicate that concepts has nothing to do with existence or phenomenon of objects?

What about the concept of God? Which came first? The phenomenon or the concept?

That was a metaphor.

It would only make sense to those folks believing in evolution. More than half the world population folks don't care about evolution. I mean if evolut...

Sure. If you had strong enough evidences supporting your claims, then you might get somewhere. I am not sure if your justification using innate-ism we...

If you were wise enough to use proper language instead of the derogatory word in you post, you would have not lowered your level in public as you have...

If everyone was at your level, then they would still believe in flat earth. Experts worshipping syndrome does not prove anything.

Sure, but it is totally different thing asking about them to find out what Kant had meant by them, and asking about them to conclude their origin is i...

Kant was saying that pure intuitions and concepts are the the properties of our minds which work with pure reason in CPR. He is not interested in wher...

When you say "Innatism", it denotes psychological or biological nature rather than epistemic, conceptual nature, and it has nothing to do what Kant wa...

Sure. Good point. :up: to denote in any possible way that you feel relevant i.e. logically, epistemically, intuitively, phenomenologically .... If you...

If you read all my posts, you would realise that I welcome genuine philosophical arguments, criticisms and refutations based on logic and reasonings, ...

Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer are my favourite philosophers. But I see Kant as the most important philosopher of all time. Any ...

Thank you for your understanding. It wasn't my feedback for you at all. It was just a sincere and honest message to you and @Janus that we seem to hav...

Yes, but my question was how do you know it is real or illusion? How can you be sure? What is the obvious difference between our perception and realit...