Arne

in addition, the "I" is not separable from the "I am". There can be no "I" without an "am." Though I suspect there can be an "I" without the "think." ...

and to what is it reducible since I certainly do more than think. How about you?

Actually, I think the original went too far. "I am" is a self-sufficient and absolute affirmation of being. You could not "think" or do anything else ...

Sorry to have bothered you.

OK

but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything i...

the presence of being-in-the-world. you are being-in-the-world and to be present is to be in the world. if you were not in the world, you would not be...

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written ...

people misunderstand Heidegger and the concept of care. it has little to do with the colloquial English understanding of the word. Instead and for Hei...

Heidegger is arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

Both the History of the Concept of Time (pre-B&T) and Basic Problems of Phenomenology (post-B&T) are excellent companions to Being and Time.

There is no consensus that brains produce consciousness.

all cars is not by definition an infinite set any more than all living monarchs of the United Kingdom

Why is everyone talking about the "premises of life" as if they were listed on the back of a cereal box? I must have been out that day.

and what are the premises of life?

I suspect every sheeple would say the same.

Do you have some reason to believe that this renders you unusual in some significant way?

There is no necessary connection between authority and acceptance of responsibility and the "legitimacy" of the authority does not create one. The wor...

Insisting on being one's own highest authority is not the same as accepting responsibility for all one does. The world is full of the highest authorit...

I agree. Your position is supported by Descartes characterization of the res cogitans and the res extensa as distinct and self sufficient substances. ...

only an existing being can doubt. your doubt proves your existence.

You are mistaken in two fundamental ways. First, Descartes did not take "existence as a starting point." Instead, he took his "existence as a starting...

If only Descartes would have done so.

You are arguing with yourself. 1. What I mean by an idea that is considered true is Both versions are equally tautological. My restatement is concise ...

somewhere between before and later.

and then there is the we are all interdependent and/or in the same boat aspect of things. Don't give up; we need you.

Yes there is. In terms of correspondence theories of truth, your above statement would be restated as below: Propositions are true when they CORRESPON...

From the original post. I added the emphasis.

to discuss art, not to define it. how about you?

Why would existence have to be added to everything in order for it to be a proper predicate? we are not required to say: "John, a man, went to the sto...

not even close. This is the Philosophy Forum. No philosopher worth their salt would consider "what is art" to be the functional equivalent of "how do ...

I already know that. But adding the word "model" does not overcome the problem unless everyone knows that "model" is a synonym for "my" (as opposed to...

I actually said that several posts ago. But at no time was a rejecting any definition of art. Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to d...

art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be. I will start with that.

to discuss art. what about you?

That is just a word game. I am my world. And within my world is the realization that my world is all I know about the world. Nothing is to be gained b...

I think it is constitutive of who we are. We could not survive without an understanding of truth. Nor could most (if any) other mammals. But for us (a...

You may rest assured that whatever it is I may have done is consistent with my assertion that I will determine for myself what I consider to be art, a...

Everybody is different. I am incapable of rejecting the possibility that there are deeper understandings to be had than the ones I have. I have always...

Mine and mine alone. Again, I have no obligation to share the criteria I find useful in determining what I consider to be art. And what is it that you...

I love talking about it. Is there anyone talking with you about it more than I?

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness. I respect that and I am going to adopt that. And trut...

I love art.

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs. What is the basis upon which you determine thingn...

What are you talking about? I have not listed a single criterion for determining what I consider to be art. All I have done is to reserve to myself th...

you are obviously more concerned with the logic than with your premise. But I do disagree with the latter. I have loved unconditionally and have done ...

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities. you seem to make argum...

Yes, let us create a model of the world, declare it to be the real, and treat the world as less real than the model of the world. That is not a winnin...

You are mistaken. If anything, I am a robust realist. I am discussing the already existing process by which we attach "true/not true" to an assertion ...

present in every variation of the "what is art" type thread is the unstated and mistaken premise that others will bound by an agreed upon definition o...