Mww

All I’m saying is some “unambiguous immaterial substances” seem to be quite justified. Unambiguous and immaterial being uncontested, substance being n...

Just as it is not given from our intellectual system that there can be no other kind, so too is it not given that the Aristotelian logic our understan...

But your criteria says spacetime, being affected by material objects, is under the purview of the material world, and, if inertial frames are only con...

Reference, or inertial, frames? They are immaterial, but they make perfect sense, and without them, SR is mighty hard to explain.

What era does your realidealism come from? What would be your primary referential text? To what end does your realidealism point? I need something to ...

Never a bad idea, given enough interest. I’d listen, if you come up with something.

C’mon, man. Possibility/impossibility is absolutely meaningless without relation to the agency to which they apply. Which means that which is possible...

Not from where I sit. A law, to distinguish itself from a rule or a directive, adheres to the principle of necessity and universality. In that case, l...

You can, but the question remains....what informed you as to what to draw? ————- What he means is, objects are not the source of our mental imagery. W...

(Anticipating @tim wood...hope he doesn’t mind) Depends on your definitions. Historical precedent for those definitions will certainly falsify your as...

Maybe not so much an argument as a given condition in keeping with a particular epistemological theory. Mental imagery has been in the game from at le...

In principle, it would seem. Everything happens in the brain, the brain is matter, ergo....... I’m holding out for the discovery that no matter how ha...

Why did you crash the car can only be answered empirically when posed as, “why did the car crash?”. But these are different questions, each with its o...

Nahhh....let’s just tie ‘em together, be fun to watch over a coupla beers. ———— Sure; non-domain specific general language for, say, is the glass half...

We both messed up; the original from wayfarer was “specialization”, which you transposed into “speculation”, and from which my C & P took its cue. Spe...

If more and more scientific theory is predicated on mathematical proofs, but fails in the empirical proofs that justify the mathematics.......isn’t th...

There is a metaphysical tenet that says images are the schemata of our representations, the real as things given to us, or merely thought, as things m...

In the same way one can see a thing, without ever being conscious of all the information in that system. In the same way your feet are always on the g...

“...Aristotle and Kant are the heros of this book...”. (Rodl, 2012) What’s not to like, huh?? Thanks.

Nope, not buyin’ that. Reason is the ground of everything mental in a rational agent with respect to what is or may be, including the exposition and s...

Correct. Enter the Aristotelian Three Logical Laws of Thought, from which all principles follow. ————— Still not sure what a principle of reason is; A...

Yikes. I don’t know how to respond to that. Just let me say that the proposition is true, if taken from the current empirical state of affairs, insofa...

Absolutely. Understood. Although I would say reason has been defined in a general sense. A cursory search of “reason is” in CPR B alone, gives 99 retu...

Isn’t that exactly part of the overall problem? The materialists will...must...insist reason, tacitly granting there is such a thing, is an abstractio...

Not quite; we can have reasons to believe whatever we like, and apparently, some even believe noumena to be actual, which presupposes they have reason...

“...On the other hand, the representation in intuition of a body contains nothing which could belong to an object considered as a thing in itself, but...

It might help to assert what reason is, or failing that, what reason is supposed to do, before declaring impossibilities or absurdities to it. And whi...

Reference?

Ok. Under that condition, I shall remain satisfied with what I know, rather than anticipate something I might learn.

How do you figure that?

Absolutely. My fault for starting but not finishing: it stands to reason he knew of parabolics, but didn’t connect it to the possibility of relative s...

Kant said every effect must have a cause. I don’t imagine he said reality had a cause. In Kantian epistemology, reality, in and of itself, without mod...

What he means by it is given in a few short sections of the introduction and is relatively easy to understand. The problem since, isn’t the understand...

OK. I’m more interested in whether or not I supposed the correct question, its answer being what it may.

By this, I suppose you to ask why do we do metaphysics? (Hoping you’re not asking something so mundane as to why we incessantly argue our personal inc...

Again, from mere personal preference, I favor sapience as the capacity for wisdom much more than sapience as the capacity for reason, in as much as th...

I wrote something up, saw yours......dumped mine. What defines thinking, is itself.

Evolutionary terms: nomenclature related to the theory of evolution; Meaningful notion of thought: a theory or relevant consideration of the human cog...

First, as a matter of mere personal preference, I find myself rejecting your re-arrangement of sapience from wisdom to reflexivity, because by doing s...

I think not. Without that to which north relates, north of is empty.

Oh. In that case, I must say you do philosophy very well, but you’re terrible at mischievous.

So I am judging my judgements. Understand my understandings. Cognize my cognitions? Know my knowledge? I see no profit in allowing myself to do that w...

The only rational response is none at all, to not consider the truth of your statement. Maybe you see colors in a perfectly dark enclosure, which is c...

That humans attribute more to themselves than we deserve? If not that, what point did you get?

There’s a blatantly obvious reason for that.

Oh, I’m a big fan of the notion of different modes of being, but I don’t see any reason to grant more than two of them, re: the a posteriori and the a...

Historically interesting (thanks), metaphysically cumbersome (no thanks).

Must be a scientific domain then; there’s no such thing as economic philosophy.

Damn. Seems only some of us have neglected the fact. Color me.....educated. Thanks.

Yeah, William was more into parsimony than reductionism, per se. What isn’t? Reductionism? True enough, although reasoning logically from the general ...