Terrapin Station

I hope you're not assuming that I ever thought you were reasonable.

That would only be the case if you give all of this up and focus on watching TV or something.

You tried to explain. I showed you things wrong with the explanation (that is, philosophically wrong with it), and then you ignore addressing the obje...

I'm still wondering, by the way what the heck "naming what a thing actually is" is supposed to be talking about. As I said, things actually are whatev...

Things are not NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL through time. "Dynamic continuity" is not identity. Look, at this point it seems as if we're not going to agree o...

Yes, they always, necessarily are. So, this is what I mean by Aristotle making a mistake about this. You misunderstood my language, but this was what ...

Just in case we don't get to this, nothing is literally/objectively identical through time.

What is "naming what a thing actually is"? Things actually are whatever they are, and you can name them whatever you want to name them. There's not a ...

At any moment, the matter and the form are identical, and you don't have identical matter or form in another moment, in another instance, etc. The mat...

So then of what relevance is it to a discussion about Aristotle's ontology? "We're disagreeing about Aristotle's ontology . . . I know, I'll bring up ...

From that same SEP article: "Aristotle introduces his notions of matter and form in the first book of his Physics, his work on natural science. Natura...

From SEP's article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/, for example: "Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound...

You're not understanding that comment at all. The material beginning with "the whole remains . . . " is presumably about ontology, right? Meanwhile, i...

:up:

Is Zen necessarily a spiritual system, though?

https://img.discogs.com/zVaG4hqDeDD7QhSKVUK0TP5ILzY=/fit-in/436x432/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-5701695-1...

Sure. I wasn't at all denying that. Hence why I asked the question this way--note the bolded words: The first thing I'd wonder is if that's really the...

You just wrote this: "The point made by Aristotle is that some properties can change, and the whole remains the same kind of thing (fits the same defi...

Which is another way of saying "mentally separable"

Definitions are something we do with language. So you're saying that Aristotle is doing ontology "The whole remains..." by analyzing language. Which i...

I was referring to "mentally, not ontologically separable." Is that not Aristotle's idea? You just said it was.

But not phenomenally or experientially. That was the point. In order to get to "the self is still there" we need to do something theoretical, to think...

There's no sense in which essential versus accidental properties are objective/extramental. The "essential/accidental" distinction is subjective; it's...

Now you're telling me what I'm referring to. I'm referring to being logically separable. The idea of substances sans properties is incoherent. That's ...

Which means they're separable=they're not identical, but this is wrong.

By the way, not that there are any real accidental versus essential properties. That's confusing how someone thinks about things --specifically, with ...

See the post just a few above that explains this to him.

Accidents are properties. If properties are "other things" then substances are not necessarily properties.

I have to look up the parts before and after that as soon as I can get to it, but how is that about substances and whether they're separable from prop...

Where you're going wrong is in having trouble with the longer, less simple, sentence construction. There's no phenomenon of self.

Okay, so if you're really trying to understand what I'm saying, why didn't you bring this up a handful of posts ago, when I first stressed the differe...

Did you understand the phenomenal versus ontological re "what's really going on" distinction?

If only minds exist on your view, then how would you claim that you can ever observe anything, including other people/other minds, aside from your own...

Being patronizing will surely help the discussion. I haven't read much Aristotle in about 30 years. So, since you're an expert on him, could you quote...

So yes, either matter comes to exist spontaneously, or it's always existed (those are the only two options for whatever we're positing ontologically) ...

I was explaining the "not separate" comment, which is why I quoted you referencing that. It seems like you're wanting to argue via creative misunderst...

You're claiming that this is an implication, that it's a fact that it's a implication. I'm asking you what makes it a fact that if you want Y, you oug...

Right, so what makes it the case that you ought to have any of those things? It's a simple question.

For example, he separates substance(s) and properties, which is incoherent. Arguably he also seems to conflate ontology and linguistic analysis.

As an extramental normative? No. There's zero evidence of that. Are you keeping in mind that "normative" doesn't refer to statistical norms per se, bu...

What would make it the case that you ought to have some benefit?

So are you basically endorsing Aristotle's metaphysics? (Because in my view Aristotle's metaphysics is a mess that doesn't really make any sense/isn't...

If the is--"I want to take a walk" implies an ought--"I ought to take a walk," then Joe is wrong because he's missing an implication, no?

So let's say that Joe wants to take a walk, but he thinks, "I ought not take a walk. I ought not do what I want." And let's say this is simply a found...

Repeating the idea doesn't actually answer this question: "You ought to pursue or achieve what you want per what?"

You like worrying, complaining, being neurotic, etc. basically, then?

Which is why I asked why you'd believe something like that. So you think that a mind exists spontaneously (in the history of the universe) and then, w...

Per what? You ought to pursue or achieve what you want per what?

I mean in terms of isolation, so there's no grass, atmosphere, etc.

There's no way to do moral foundations via reason. That's not to say that no one believes there is, but they have incorrect beliefs. Standards are sub...