Notice the difference? Cool thing about a 240 yo hole? Nobody’s successfully filled it in. Scoffed at it, ridiculed it, bastardized it, FUBAR’ed it......
Yeah, we would disagree a lot on that. The justification for the disagreement in contained in your own proposition, in that your “I think” is antecede...
Not so much wrong, as insufficient. The brain is responsible for everything, but it is not known how the brain does what seems other than strict adher...
It shouldn’t be all that fuzzy, if it be accepted that which we sense, the empirical, is very far from that which we merely think, which is always and...
In short, a priori knowledge has nothing to do with reality in itself, that being an ontological domain. A priori conceptions, and by continuation, a ...
I guess I shoulda just plain asked what you meant by “rational order of the cosmos”. I took the statement to tacitly affirm an intrinsic quality the c...
That’s how. I’m learning from this discussion, so I won’t taint the classical content of it with Enlightenment speculative metaphysics, but when the i...
And yet....attempts to reduce metaphysical dualism to a non-starter, continues. A way of thinking yes, but not necessarily according to science, but i...
Good analysis/critique. Something else philosophy is all about. Except....there’s always one, seems like.... ....”thing” here relates, albeit euphemis...
Yeah, but that may be just to dig a deeper hole. Being human can be a general objective proposition, a universal form if you’re into the Greek thing, ...
Wouldn’t it be the more consistent to say we have no objective evidence for any part of the human being other than the body? It is true there is no ot...
I knew a guy once, maybe 30-40 years before you were even born, got all pissy over something I said, did an abrupt about-face, yanked the door open wi...
It never was the general notion contained in your thesis to which I took exception. I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, which is te...
These do not relate to each other. This only works if realization does not involve understanding. If you can’t inform me of how simple YOU is, because...
Doesn’t simple logic suggest any “you” represents a “self”? Seems logical that when the topic is about some arbitrary YOU, it can be nothing but a top...
Nope, not bad at all. Actually, conventionally necessary, but oddly enough, at the same time, philosophically impossible. Humans. The only known speci...
Agreed. Metaphysical reductionism taken too far, is always illusory. Hence, psychology aside, the theoretical limits of speculative pure reason. ———- ...
It’s a fine line between your imagine nothing in space, and Kant’s “think space with no objects in it”. If it is true that to think space with nothing...
Model and modeler is a relation. If the model contains the modeler, the modeler becomes a part of the model rather than being in a relation to it. The...
Agreed, because of this: According to a certain speculative metaphysics, the unity of apperception is represented by “I think”, the “I” of which in tu...
That’s pretty near the definitive characterization of a paradigm shift. Has anyone else done that? Even though Descartes shifted from an object only o...
I shall take exception here. Each and every properly recognized philosopher before Kant, from British empiricists to continental rationalists, in addi...
Yep, absolutely. Not because I think he’s right, which can never be proved, but because his theories make sense to me. Hell, we could both be blowin’ ...
By empty space, Kant refers to only that space which would bound the extension of a possible object. “....We never can imagine or make a representatio...
Right, and the only possible way to do that, is by means of pure practical reason. So, yes, I’m admittedly uncharitable, but only with respect to.... ...
What....method for me examining my own expressions, or methods for another to examine my expressions? If the former, such examination carries the impl...
Hmmmm...... Apparently, ethical wisdom begins with knowledge of ourselves, but the method for arriving at such knowledge is not derived from reason, i...
The thread title question, “Is reality only as real as the details our senses give us?”, is having your cake, but the second question contained in the...
By this I’m guessing you’re referring to: If so, then no, I take that to mean freedom of will is required for understandings other than empirical. Pur...
I shall deny, albeit second-handedly. “....This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition..... (A20/B35) “....it will be found that there a...
(Sigh) Ya know, I often frown upon subjectively, and sometimes chastise objectively, those who take some passage and reinvent it. So...here I am, unce...
0. There really isn’t a definition qua certain criterion, for cognition as such. There are fly-by’s, like, “thought is cognition by means of conceptio...
Systemic successions is just me, keeping the theoretically mandated order of the particular influences of the particular elements involved, between th...
Amazing, isn’t it, how human intellect can’t get out of its own way? How would it even be possible to discern, with apodeictic certainty, whether ther...
0. The whole is not the same as its parts. 1. Immediate merely indicates systemic successions. Everything starts somewhere. 2. Because object herein r...
Beautiful sentiments from the light. And essentially ignored, in favor of puerile egos represented by the Mutual Admiration Society cheerleader sectio...
Yeah, well, you know how it goes. In keeping with the complementary nature of human reason, I’m as likely to be found just as full of centuries-old co...
To which I say.....big fat whoop!! To be human is to be a two-aspect biological entity, so even if physicalism proves we don’t really think, that brai...
“....The true nature of things is evident only at the bottom, that is, on the molecular level, and so life can only be understood in those terms, that...
Comments