Mww

You asked what I found interesting, so I told you. This part of the essay is interesting to me so I give it a thumbs up, that part of the essay is int...

Agreed, if you mean there must be the pure conception of law before there can be instances of it. Disagreed. Law, by which I do not mean a law, or the...

I disagree. That which is given to sensibility is a thing, that which to us becomes phenomena. Causality for things in the world requires both suffici...

You: If statements are about feelings, then what are feelings about? Me: And if they’re not, why would it matter? You: Exactly. If feelings aren't abo...

I would name this sensibility. I would name this understanding. I would name this consciousness. Reification, or misplaced concreteness generally, and...

What....I was supposed to get that, out of this? “....given at 248: 'I have arrived at the rock-bottom of my convictions. And one might almost say tha...

Dunno, which is why I would never say that. I, in fact, reject the notion entirely, under either a priori or a posteriori conditions. As for the rest,...

The subject never even arises until or unless the system thinks about itself, insofar as the subject merely represents the first person nature of the ...

Logical consistency requires that if the first is the case, then it follows that the second should read....the essence of the mind involves the formul...

This is the what a system of thought does, considered in itself. There are no propositions, hence no circular reasoning involved therein, but are deri...

Mentioned. Dismissed as......primitive.

Systems. Antecedent to propositions constructed by it.

And what is to be done with the intrinsic circularity of such a system?

And if they’re not, why would it matter? Depends. Is there prize or penalty for the right answer?

Oh. Ok. Good luck with that.

Start at the beginning: Critique of Pure Reason. Make no mistake......whatever is said today, about what you’re asking, is grounded in one way or anot...

Because every statement ever made is first constructed by a subject, and because a subject has feelings, then any implied empirical statement is reall...

I’m gonna go ahead and assume that right there exemplifies good philosophy, but I’m just too dense to grasp it, and the benefit in expending the hard ...

.....says the guy that doesn’t deny human reason, insists it must in no way depend on non-physical stuff, yet can’t measure it. Can’t show how signals...

Point, but of questionable relevance. Subjective statements are categorical errors, insofar as statements are technically empirical objects in the wor...

Agreed....reason cannot depend on non-physical stuff, in the strictest sense. So you.....and everybody else that “...rises to the level of speculation...

Ok, thanks. Usually the burden on the claimant, at the very least, is to show warrant in the text of the claim. Otherwise, there is naught but mere as...

And what is it that is taken for granted? That a certain kind of philosophy trapped in a picture is experienced as necessary, when it should be experi...

Burden of proof is not on.........what.

The first part of OC1is interesting because I agree with it, with respect to the set of components attributed to Wittgenstein in support of it, “...Th...

I’ve not read where you deny the metaphysical domain of human reason, so I wonder how you can categorically deny the possibility of some kind of non-p...

I dunno, man. Ol’ Samuel might be the darling of folk psychology, but he’s a lousy logician, even granting for the moment the possibility the quote is...

I’m not knowledgeable enough with the particular background sufficient to comment, but nonetheless an interesting read.

Speaking of circling back......hope you don’t mind. Does your statement “indeterminism is no threat to the metaphysical sense” meant to indicate a met...

Ironic, I think, that to measure and experiment on such scale, should tend to disrupt the system being measured. Pretty hard to see how the objective ...

You know the freedom in your Kant quote (“Metaphysics of Ethics”, 1797), relates to jurisprudence, re: “The Science of Right”, not the “free will” rel...

From a general academic point of view, perhaps, yes, but then I think merely as a matter of interest. And this is technically philosophizing, the diss...

Applause for the inclusion of at least the conception of a metaphysical will.

I think this. Will is born fully formed....half a will is quite useless, after all....and armored, but chinked. Even a toddler makes moral choices, al...

Will is instinct? Reason isn’t used for instinct. And instinct isn’t refined or made appropriate. If reason is used for the will, will cannot be insti...

Basically that, yes, insofar as circumstance is a demonstration of us in a casual capacity, as opposed to Mama Nature being the causality. Arising out...

But is that an inference, or a presupposition? I agree as to the latter, but if an inference, it needs its own ground, either empirical or logical.

Yep......many inferences possible. Do you have a personal favorite?

Cool. Now all you gotta do, is show that imagination has the power of apodeictic certainty, which is the fundamental criterion of proof. A compelling ...

Agreed, in principle. Not just here, but practically-minded folks in general, usually consider the objects of their inquiries to be given, re: Peirce’...

YEA!!!!

Indeed it is, one I’m playing right now, in attempting to reconcile the appearance of a contradiction in an otherwise respectable philosopher. From yo...

Agreed, in principle. But the originating assertion is operating under the auspices of transcendental idealism, as stipulated by its author herein. As...

Ya know......when we were growing up, one of the constant admonitions of our teachers was, “CHECK YOUR SPELLING!!”. Nowadays, given all these aids tha...

The contention is “constructs” not “construes”. Agreed on understanding/judgement, but perception is the source of that which is empirically knowable,...

Never mind. Sorry I asked. First, even.

Sometimes see three or four of ‘em, all lined up one after the other, same things being said by the same people, as if repetition makes the case. Mayb...

Sorry, but the burden isn’t on me. The assertion is yours, and I’m interested in how you arrived at it.

Ok. Just wondering from whom this philosophy originated, for it certainly isn’t Kantian, in which perception does not construct anything at all. And y...

What does perception construct?