Heiko

So you think that riots, war and chaos in themselves are "the problem"? I do not buy this for just one second. There have been to many of those who we...

You have to see the shortcomings of such platitudes. A very raw person might actually prefer a bodily confrontation to endless discussions. The range ...

Are we “free” in a society? It has always been a prime directive of philosophy to show that people are free not just despite any regulations or limita...

There is. Not if you are a solipsist, for example. That also depends on certain assumptions.

But this was not exactly the initial question. Is that also related to "modalities"? It makes sense to ask if it is warm. If you say "it is", where is...

This again is an assumption. It just is warm. Experience? Do you mean the existence of the warmth? I try not to make an assumption here. So you relate...

Of course you can just say it is that way. You say it is your encouters therefor there must be you - but where is the proof? Maybe the warmth just IS ...

Where do you find yourself at all? All there is is the things that are there...

I would not agree to that. It was already pointed out that all content that could be meaningfully be talked about is something that is for sure not th...

May be, may be not. E.g. Kant pointed out that synthetic judgements are an ability, not a necessity.

Really? I wouldn't think of his works as literature for under-aged. But I guess that doesn't matter if it was useful... As for the eastern philosophy ...

I cannot help but associate the "thinking oneself" with Heidegger's Nietzsche Lectures in Nazi-Germany. I'm sorry.

So... you do not arrive where you started? Then it was a step forward!

Oh, that's really Descartes matter, I guess. He lands at "being", not at thinking. He did not state a tautology.

Okay, and... do you make the conclusion?

Okay, you didn't take this from the text, though. In fact, in the example given above, B may apply while A does not.

I am arguing that from 1. A=>B and 2. A B can be concluded.

And I told you how I think that sentence is to be interpreted. "therefor" is a formal conclusion.

You have not said anything about what "being" shall mean in this context either. Descartes concludes "I think => I am" which is called a material impl...

But that is an implication that does not bear any information about the nature of being. Maybe Descartes was only the hallucination of a higher entity...

Must be a different bird then.

Question then would be how to get it back singing on demand.

Or just shooting the tweeting bird. Sounds like an idea!

There is a different quality to thinking than to perceiving. For example, one cannot decide to hear something or not, but can decide to think about so...

What I actually wanted to say is that you cannot easily exchange thought for awareness as it might change the argument. I did not read much of Descart...

"Cogito" is the first person singular form of "cogitare".

But where did the ego get introduced? Where is the step from "There is something." to "I am aware of something." The nature of being could be self-ful...

I do not see the point. At every time you can judge how much your doing actually reflects your will. If not then you simply do not know what you want,...

The question remains if bodily limitations are perceived as such. This may be done in reflection. If you act in accordance with yourself there cannot ...

As far as emotional influences go: no. Not in general. Not if the emotion is not voluntarily admitted to. Free will does not know any measure other th...

Especially logic.

Veeerrrryyy unlikely in general... Natural rights are in some sense suspended by legal rights.

Enjoy them.... .....

Right and Freedom are directly opposed. A right is what limits others freedom. It is purely negative in nature. Modern people confuse it with freedom ...

Must have been your own choice.

If they gave specific plans anyone would be able to actually decide on a factual basis, following ones one interest - or one could not if matters were...

I'd definitely say yes to this question. Being paid for philosophy means bought philosophy.

I guess that be to immoral to start with....

Pure ontology by it's very nature can only arrive at mere possibility.

"Things as they are" aren' t much.

The conclusion of a free, expressive act. I have to admit I read him fragmentary and partially horribly wrong. But nobody would ever think of someone'...

He roughly says the bodily form is exactly what was wanted to express. An act of freedom which only in the reflection of mind in itself becomes a pass...

Sounds like Puddles Pitty Party - Could that be done on purpose? Seems much more plausible. When asking what is necessary for experience to be possibl...

The conclusion fails short. It signifies a level of thought where mind has not yet achieved self-conscousness as the being it is. On the other hand th...

There you have it, right in the first sentence. Read: something else. Not the "system" itself. The phenomenology of solipsism is that this advocate co...

Good post, javra. Even in dreams the world you are in is not the subject of experience. It just does not make sense. It takes "something else", which,...

Ask yourself who that "you" is in the sentence. It talks of "my mind" but my mind and my self - aren't those different things alltogether? So what doe...

As those acts are reflected which makes sense when talking morals. Deducing potential would be false, concluding necessity would be okay.

So you cannot conclude any intent or property from an expression? Interesting...

Well, the "figment of your mind" is just as much you as whiskey is grains. There is something you do not perceive as yourself. So how would it make se...