I'm certainly aware of things that other people think are crappy/ugly/etc. I just don't agree that they're crappy/ugly (for a lot of things, at least)...
I wouldn't personal use the phrase "most fundamental," but it's definitely one of my core views. Ideas, and all mental phenomena, are specific brain s...
The problem is that this is stated like a descriptive fact, and the fact in question is an empirical fact--what makes it true or false is what people ...
Sorry--I read your response to me yesterday but I overlooked replying to you. (I couldn't reply right when I read it, then forgot later.) Anyway, the ...
Some people use "cause" as a synonym for "reason"--a la "what's the reason" for something, where they're looking for an explanation or simply for some...
Yeah, I can see that--I meant more with respect to the discipline as a whole. I wouldn't say that it's not important to come to conclusions personally...
In the context of your specific comments about this, there are at least two significant things going on here, and they have some degree of interrelati...
In my view the point of philosophy isn't to come to conclusions so much as it's the process of looking at things philosophically, or "doing philosophy...
What's p in that contradiction? It seems obvious to me that something existed "before the use of its meaning" (setting aside that "before the use of i...
No, I don't agree with that at all. For one, you're committing a category error by trying to read it temporally--you're talking about cause in a tempo...
Well, that was the first problem I was bringing up, yeah--the idea of essences (where essential properties are contrasted with accidental properties a...
That's a good question, especially as I'm not completely sure of my answer, but I would guess yes, that all relations I'd accept would be analyzable i...
I didn't personally find any of it confusing, etc. What I was rather thinking of was someone who says, "Wait--what's the difference between an analogy...
On my view space is simply the extension of matter and the extensional relation between matter, and time is simply the changing/in-motion relations of...
It's anti-realism, but it doesn't have anything to do with nomalism (it's not about either universals or the idea of abstract existents . . . well, un...
Yeah, definitely I didn't just assume that I should insert sentences from other posts there. I'm not sure which sentence(s) you were wanting me to ins...
Who are you creating the analogy video for, by the way? It seems way too complicated, confusing and not very explanatory for someone who might be conf...
Re grading, sometimes it's just that a prof can be a hardass/be kind of stingy with grades, and sometimes it's because they have a strict bell curve a...
I talked about possibility a bit on a couple other threads recently (although really, I can't remember now if it wasn't on another forum, possibly the...
I think it's important (for your grades), if your prof believes that Aristotle is a substance dualist, to respond on your exam first with a rephrasing...
On another note, rereading Naming and Necessity from the start, so far it seems like Kripke's basic idea might have simply been this formula of modal ...
You want me to support someone else's thesis that I don't agree with by imagining possible arguments for it? (I could do that, but it just seems like ...
All I really get from that are that: (1) The idea of rigid designation is hinging on some notion of essentialism after all, (2) Soames is saying that ...
Properties and qualities are synonyms in my view. I don't believe that there is any "red itself" apart from any instantiation of it. Remember that I'm...
Kripke was important in the development of modal logic. He didn't invent it. And he's one person. Again, one person doesn't make standard usage. Many ...
Re essential properties, he does say, for example, "I want to mention at this point that other considerations about de re modality, about an object ha...
Re Aristotle, I wouldn't say that he was a substance dualist in the conventional, contemporary sense of that term. (And actually, I wouldn't say that ...
Standard sense=a way a term is normally, conventionally used, at least in a particular milieu (so in this case, philosophy, and we could specifically ...
I need to reread Naming and Necessity . . . I'm going to see if I can find it--that is, basically "dig it out," today. A problem I have with the SEP e...
No problem there (aside from I don't care for "properly called," but I can just ignore that part). Right. A big "Huh???" there. That seems like quite ...
Duh. There's no standard sense of "necessity" in light of which it's necessarily true that something is called by a particular name simply by virtue o...
The idea is rather that it's not clear in the slightest what necessity would refer to in any sense (logical, metaphysical, whatever) if necessity fits...
~(A=A) would be conventionally read as negating identity in general. Rather you'd be saying something like (?w) (~A) & (A-->(A=A)) . . . Although that...
I don't at all recall the answer to this, but what did Kripke say about indexicals with respect to rigid designation? I'd be surprised if he considere...
Yeah, that doesn't help. You might as well go "Here you go" and link to the "philosophy" entry or link to the philosophy department of Princeton. I've...
That's a good question that I can't really answer, because I basically have the opposite problem. I've never had much of an internal critic. I typical...
Comments