True. Even both in “First Principles....” and “Meditations.....” he uses accurate anatomical terminology. In the 1600’s no less. Good enough for me. A...
True enough. Nowadays we call it reification, in that mind per se isn’t reducible to substance, therefore thinking substance is moot. Kant fixed all t...
Descartes’ cogito was never meant to indicate the source of all certainty. That which is impossible to doubt is therefore certain, and there is but on...
It always has, can’t escape it. The early 20th century OLP knuckleheads were the first to seriously degrade the significance of it, finding it measura...
Your “feelings” related to sensation are not my feelings related to emotional status. ———— Objectivity doesn’t enter morality itself, but only manifes...
I write to express an understanding, not to convince of its truth, so disagreement is to be expected, especially considering the non-scientific nature...
As is your prerogative. Still, under the auspices of “if/then” theoretical constructs, just seems the more instructive to choose that “if” which lends...
If the human intellect is itself a logical system, there’s no reason to ask and invites infinite regress when it is. Rules are grounded by the nature ...
Ok, insofar as these kinds of rules are taped to the wall in high school, assembled in a code of conduct in the office. The reason for stop signs and ...
Oh. Social anthropology. Not interested. Yes. Sort of. Is it the same to say logical rules are useful in support of the attainment of personal goals? ...
Ehhhhh.....I don’t have a problem with it. The notion of adding to the totality of the possible is quite absurd, from which I can deduce the sum of th...
What’s incoherent in the successive accumulation of the real? When the accumulation is the content of the possible, the quantity is irrelevant. It is ...
1.) considering real objects, and 2.) confining the possible to what may be, and 3.) what may not be and belief both being utterly irrelevant..... Ari...
On factive verbs, or, ordinary language use gone irredeemably haywire: “we believe every foot deserves a comfortable pair of shoes” ....says so, right...
Thanks for the gentle correction. Helpful, I suppose. If your P is the bridge is out, and the bridge is out....might be helpful fo me to know that iff...
I use a different definition, but the ends are the same. Possibility is merely one of the ways to think about things; a thing is possible or that thin...
Cool part about watching these discussions is the pleasure of finding finding things out (tip of the pointy hat to Feynman). To wit: I never heard of ...
In knowledge-first terms, I know it is raining because I already know what it is to be raining. A precise reduction to the thread’s original question....
If thoughts are real, then everything thought about must be as real as the thought of it, insofar as an empty thought is a contradiction. But the real...
“.....Methodologically, Williamson (....) defends instead the use of ‘armchair’ methods to answer substantive questions....” (https://www.rep.routledg...
Can you talk about anything at all, that isn’t dependent on the thought of it? How can anything at all be mind independent, when mind is that which de...
Yep, just like that. Oh damn. I never once noticed that, until you just brought it up. What a dumbass. (Note to self: make more effort to distance bra...
Absolutely, and shouldn’t be contentious. Empirical evidence is contingent, therefore any empirical belief legislated by it, is also contingent. But e...
Easy part first....cross-sensory collaboration is a physiological impossibility, and inter-subjective collaboration is impossible within the reference...
This.... .....complements rather well, I must say. While I can’t refute that, as people are certainly entitled to think whatever they wish, but I’m re...
Funny, innit? Dude spends 700-odd pages telling us how there is but one way to traverse the territory toward knowledge, but his one way requires an ab...
I understand this to be the psychological consensus. If such is the case, we are at a loss as to which to blame for our mistakes, our perception becau...
Yes, it is an ontological given, real in the sense of being necessary for our perceptions. But to say it is empirically real is to say we can know som...
That’s fine. We often do assert, or claim to know, what is true....or not true, or undeterminable, but only one of those, mind you.....and our own per...
Hardly; I never even went to college. My view of immaterial space is certainly less exotic than yours. All I need for space to be understood as immate...
The satisfaction of your curiosity resides in my non-scientific satisfaction with The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Ch1, Remark 2, 1786...
This rock exists. To say the same thing is to say this rock exists. This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow,...
Obviously not. To say a thing exists, logically references a given, present, temporal domain. The minutia of immediate past or future time being irrel...
I think I’m going to backtrack, unapologetically I might add. While you did get me to think above and beyond my cognitive prejudices, I found support ...
Yes. The text is rife with affirmations. “....I cannot rest in the mere intuitions, but—if they are to become cognitions—must refer them, as represent...
Absolutely. Ok. I would rather think the ding an sich as merely an ontological necessity; if there is an affect on us by a thing, the thing-in-itself ...
That’s certainly an improvement over metaphysical idea. Ok, so we have...space meets the Kantian requirement of a transcendental idea, because space i...
Ahhhh....now I see how you related classical to nominal. My go-to reference doesn’t use nominal to qualify the definition, so thanks for that. Actuall...
Comments