I have been lost between too many camps of epistemology to be sure what "inherently meaningful" means for me or others. So I think about it in terms o...
I take your point regarding proximity not being a valid determinant of what is objective or subjective. In raising it as "one context" (that you asked...
It is difficult for me to see the original question without starting with the question of whether the psyche has a nature that can be studied at all. ...
One context where making the distinction happens is between events that are disclosed to all who are close enough to perceive it and events that can b...
I see the matter as what Kierkegaard refers to as "earnestness" He wrote: "Therefore nothing can be said about earnestness in general. It is not pure ...
Some people sincerely believe bad things. Not just in the sense that they are wrong (a discussion in itself) but that those beliefs make them whole, i...
People don't always know their own motives. I agree with gloaming (assuming I understand the comment correctly) that it doesn't happen only under a si...
The wager is presented with arguments that there is "nothing to lose." As bets go, that doesn't make much sense. But Pascal does address what will be ...
Pardon me, that was obscure. I meant to say that Socrates of the Republic agrees with Gilson. While different theories are advanced and universals pro...
The Socratic argument would be wondering when the sparse defense against certain propositions suddenly became an attempt to rule over others. Maybe th...
It is interesting to compare this discussion of free will with Spinoza's proof of God who incidentally avoids the problem of free will in the concepti...
I see the matter as many lines in parallel. I know people whose depression is a burden they would have gladly shed already if it wasn't for their sens...
Having read through the whole thread, what you are calling "nihilistic relativism" sounds much like 2/3rds of Kant's Canon of Pure Reason: "All the in...
Comments