I said that it seems arbitrary, and of course, that's to me. Something seeming arbitrary to me isn't about whether there's a "process of reasoning tha...
??? You didn't understand what I wrote based on this comment. What's a sophomoric misunderstanding is that "belief" doesn't refer to things for which ...
I've only read bits and pieces of it, but I can see how it might have that effect. Dawkins isn't someone who should dabble in philosophy in my opinion...
I dismiss it by (1) there being no evidence of such a thing with respect to the multitude of vague ways that people have defined it, (2) the idea of n...
Your last paragraph makes no sense in light of your first two paragraphs. What you're calling a "technical" usage of belief is what belief is. What yo...
In my opinion, no generalization like that is going to wind up being accurate. "Good" and "bad" are just indicators of preference, and people have dif...
It's not that I don't know that some people are acting emotionally to referencing 9-11 in a "crudely trivializing" way in commercial or that they're o...
But the question I'm talking about there didn't have anything to do with subjective/objective. It was about the relationship between thoughts and mind...
Once again, meaning is subjective. I'm using them to mean the same thing in this case. Why would feeling that something is "crudely trivialized" in a ...
I'm not using would/should in some technical way here. I'm saying the same thing if we substitute them for each other re why would/why should it. And ...
Oh, I thought you were saying that nothing is purely subjective in the context of how I use the terms. You mean in the context of some alternate way t...
Okay, but at least two times above I gave my account of what "identity" is in that sense. You didn't comment on that. That's what I meant about not ty...
Because you think that everything is some "blurry" combo of mental and not-mental?Okay, so thoughts, desires, etc. aren't "in" or "of" minds in your v...
Meaning is subjective, by the way. At any rate, the issue isn't whether the commercial was referencing 9-11. We agree that it was. The issue is why it...
Re the way I use the terms, subjective simply refers to minds--or we could say, "in" or "of" minds, and objective is the complement--"outside" of mind...
What do you take to be an argument for that? (And I mean an argument in the sense of premises leading to a conclusion, where the conclusion is logical...
So you don't buy that propositional knowledge is justified true belief? That's the standard characterization of knowledge in philosophy--at least in a...
Look, I'm not typing the same stuff over and over to just have you ignore a bunch of stuff I say, which has happened in a few posts. So one thing at a...
That's complete nonsense. The idea that either there's some abstractly existing, numerically identical property that's somehow instantiated in multipl...
In the example you give, for example, % one has a circle to the left of a slanted line as does %, while that's not the case for @ and @. They're not n...
That would only be the case if that person felt that behaving violently, cruelly, etc. was immoral. Likewise, if one did not behave violently, cruelly...
What makes anything more important than anything else is that the individual in question cares about it more. They can care about something more for i...
Yeah, I'd agree that there are such facts--although most of the conventional moral stance-related things that people claim to be such facts I think ar...
Also, I'm an incompatibilist, for example (and an incompatibilist who believes that there is free will). I can never make any sense of compatibilism u...
That could be the case, but it could also be the case that x is both Y and Z, with John simply choosing to focus on Y in his concept and Jane choosing...
My definition of morality, by the way, points out that it's about interpersonal behavior, which can include one's behavior towards oneself. It's not u...
That issue has always struck me as one of those "invent-a-problems." Similarity simply obtains by something being "closer to" x than y in at least som...
The only thing with that is that "societies should flourish" or "it's better for societies to flourish" (or whatever similar formulation) isn't object...
That seems to be the problem to me--that people WANT morality to be objective. But why do they want that? I don't know. Maybe you can help us figure t...
No it isn't. C is a claim about what we (can) think and perceive qua what we think and perceive. A and B are claims about what reality consists of. Th...
Simple logic can not be this hard to grasp. If neither A nor B nor C are the same, then how would giving an opinion on A or B imply something about C?...
What is it? Relevance? Again, relevance? Yeah, but possibly I do, and that's the possibility that seems right to me. I don't know how the other possib...
This is why it's relevant to note what I posted earlier: No one has a view that posits that one accurately knows noumena 100% of the time. So any argu...
Yes, and this again is different: (A) "There is no reality apart from what we perceive and think about what we perceive." (B) "There is no reality apa...
That I'd agree with, of course, since it's a tautology. But it's a different issue than whether that's all there is, and whether all there is is exhau...
Well, it's just getting back to the point I made earlier: "in order to know that something is an illusion in the first place, you'd need to be able to...
Was there an earlier discussion in this thread that I didn't read that was specifically about sight? Just curious, because people keep focusing on tha...
Yes, I'm a realist, but first I just want to clarify this: earlier you'd said, "There is no reality apart from what we perceive and think about what w...
Comments