Mww

We humans are equipped with only one cognitive system, whatever its description. When we examine that system, it appears we are thinking about our own...

Yes, of course. Space as the condition for the experience of external objects, is a representation of an intuition a priori. But in the manner of dete...

“....Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the propos...

Even if it is, a collective presupposes individuals belonging to it. If morality applies to the collective, what applies to the individual. —————————-...

Philosophy well done. As in all philosophy, subject to critique. Brace yourself.

The topic is dead, so I don’t mind bringing this up now. For the longest time, it escaped me where I had previously found something relating to what y...

Yeah, I guess I would agree my sense of morality has.....er, evolved.....since the 60’s. The “ought” becomes clearer when “fun” becomes “stupid”.

My sole remaining vice. And the only one of all, I’d recommend, it’s only requisites being sufficient funds and proximity to a bathroom.

MORE COFFEE!!!!!!!!

Some groundwork: All understanding, both pure from mere thought with no real object, or empirical from perception which requires real objects, follows...

This is correct, from both a rational and epistemological point of view. It is true a human can never speak of that which is not present in thought, o...

If you’re a descriptive moral relativist, all your moral qualifiers are *is* statements, in the anthropological, re: objective, domain, which presuppo...

Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, the Boy Scout Pledge.....whatever the KKK uses....objective shared set of standards or mores, represented by an object. A...

I’m not sure he said duty was a moral imperative, but rather a principle which justifies the possibility of moral law. No reason for positing a law if...

“....litany of irrelevancies and category errors....” Agreed. Thanks for showing up.

A command of pure practical reason. Without acceptance of the Kantian notion of duty, however, moral law, and by association, the notion of imperative...

Do you also object to the notion of moral law?

“Right” doesn’t have much to do with it; he is going to make a value judgement because it’s a circumstance calling for him to do it, otherwise he coul...

“....This critical science is not opposed to the dogmatic procedure of reason in pure cognition; for pure cognition must always be dogmatic, that is, ...

In a discussion with a moral or subjective relativist, always first determine what exactly is relative to what. I mean...the keyword here is, after al...

Understanding.

Reflecting back to the strictly human perspective. It’s the ground of all we think we know, and it’s impossible to know anything at all except from th...

Just because we cannot even conceive the fallibility of math isn’t warrant for suppositions concerning other things that are merely possible.

I’d say that about covers it. And all from the absolutely strictest human perspective.

Same team, different parts to play. Some light reading for you: http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/consc1/consc1.html

No need. I’d argue differently, but we’d arrive in the same place.

There ya go. Sorta what I was looking for.

Nothing. Drilling down for a sense of how you think, is all. What it means to say “...As if you can even speak of something extra-mental....”

So can we think the extra-mental apart from perceiving?

Agreed. I give the name “burger” to the material presented to my senses, but the label is no more than a certain group of conceptions experience tells...

Maybe, but doesn’t it follow from that that I can speak of extra-mental things? As for what it is like......dangerous ground there. Step truly or the ...

Then how did I come to call it a burger? And to qualify its awfulness?

Then what am I speaking about when I tell you the burger I just ate was maybe the worst excuse for a burger I ever had?

Is that to say there is nothing extra-mental to speak of?

Knowledge of modality; knowledge of modes of truth; knowledge of kinds of truth there are, how to find it, how to recognize it, what to do with it. OK...

My views: I’m familiar with some of the literature and I’m aware such literature makes explicit the theme “modal knowledge” by actually using the term...

True enough. I was going more for the sense of reason as arbiter than anything else.

“I like cauliflower” is not an opinion, it is a persuasion, grounded in feelings, and cannot be false. “Califlower is a healthy vegetable” is not a pe...

Separate out the text of the OP having to do with anthropology and empirical psychology, then the question of the OP can be answered with speculative ...

The idea of the thing, the “I” that I am, is the transcendental object, the only concept without a representation belonging to it. We cannot represent...

The standard(s) of reason are the Aristotelian logical laws of thought, which legislate the form but have nothing whatsoever to do with the content. L...

Slippery slope aside, I think I’ll agree. Empirical methods may demonstrate the validity of arguments having empirical grounds, as in hypothesis valid...

Yes, those. Sorry.

“....transformative familiarity....” I like it!!! Kant intended his practical philosophy to govern morality, for the most part. Easier to comprehend t...

He sorta did, kindasorta, in as much as one may arrive at a “false” knowledge, which he also calls “unjustified true belief”, the rational procedure f...

“....Nay, rather I must earnestly warn against such accounts, especially the more recent ones; and indeed in the years just past I have met with expos...

Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.” What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual ...

Reductionism 101: All you gotta grasp is, any attempt to think up conditions without thinking beings, is doomed to failure. It is impossible to think ...

Probably. Generally however, that’s not the case. Billions of people communicate successfully most of the time.

Ahhhh. So “you’re sooooo stupid!!!”is a successful refutation in your world?