Fooloso4

The presupposition underlying much of this argument is the same one underlying the thread on Aristotle and time. An early formulation of this presuppo...

The presupposition underlying much of this argument is the same one underlying Rasmussen's paradox. An early formulation of this presupposition is fou...

I think what Aristotle is doing is similar to what Kant does with the antinomies. He is not arguing to a conclusion that will resolve the issue one wa...

The misguided anthropomorphism seems to be your own. "Talking to each other" as it is used here should not be taken to mean that trees are doing what ...

There is a distinction between the intent of or motivation for an act and the evaluation of that act. Not everything we do is good. Being directed tow...

This is like asking what information does in addition to what propositions do. Both are means of conveying information.

And yet you ignore it when the untruth of your own mythology that you seek to impose on reality is pointed out to you. If you really saw it that way y...

Click on the link.

The information is about water, nutrients, and temperature. That information can be transmitted throughout the network and adjustments made.

The author of the essay points to 'humanism' and 'scholasticism' as a "deeply controversial terms". I don't see how adding 'Christian' or 'spiritual' ...

The author of the essay is not arguing against events but against concepts such as "historical periodisation":

It is in the acorn that grows into the tree that is cut down to a stump. It is in the stump that sends forth new shoots. It is in the roots that commu...

"Interesting" but based on what you say, you reject the premise.

The initial argument needs to be amended:

See the distinction between opposite things and the opposites themselves in the Phaedo. (103b-c) A good example! Unfortunately for you it points to th...

Good luck with this one Tom.

You still do not understand what apodictic means: Not just for me or you but:

So, if I say that you are wrong about everything and won't dispute it then it follows that it is beyond dispute that you are wrong about everything. E...

An apodictic proposition is necessarily true and can be demonstrated to be true. Not arguing about it does not make it beyond dispute, it simply means...

I would rather not insult you so I am not going to continue with an exchange that has taken a turn to the absurd.

Good. Now you have to figure out what that means. Hint: it in not enough that one person or group of people to regard it as beyond dispute

Again, you need to look up the definition of apodictic.

You need to look up the definition of apodictic. Holding a moral theory in no way makes it apodictic.

For once I agree. I was about to post the same thing. As to the question itself: We are told that the consequences were unforeseen, but not being told...

There is a common assumption that intelligence has its source in the brain. But this may be looking at the science from the wrong end of evolutionary ...

Where do we find God equated to the "Sun" or the sun in any way that goes further than metaphor? In Genesis 1 God does not create the sun until the fo...

You quote Rommen regarding objective truth. How are we to determine that what you claim to be objectively true is? Simply asserting something is true ...

What is contrary to this is what prevents the fulfillment of the motivation. We seek the good but if we do not know the good then what we do may be co...

You might find this essay interesting: What Renaissance?

You cannot steal from someone what does not belong to them.

The point is that it logically cannot be universalized without contradiction.

The categorical imperative is logically determined. Any maxim that leads to a contradiction must be wrong. For example, if there was a universal law t...

Do you think he was not already aware of this? The maxim is unconditional. It does not depend on consequences.

That is not a mythology that any educated person holds. It is not a mythology that anyone here has supported. Quite the opposite! You have given a lot...

Perhaps this will help. Kant says: What it means for the maxim to be categorical is that it applies universally to all people in all cases without exc...

New imperative? Categoric, as used by Kant, means universal. According to the story: That may be a "new categorical imperative" but it is not Kantian....

Clearly the cops and the city did not understand the categorical imperative. Evidently, you don't either.

Ritualistic sacrifice was a part of Judaism but Judaism was not centered on animal sacrifice. For a general idea of what is involved see: Sacrifices a...

This is an assertion. The truth of that assertion may not be questioned by Rommen, but it has not been objectively established More precisely, the Chu...

In support of this you cite Gruen, but things are not so simple and straightforward. From the publisher: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520235069/he...

Your claims go far beyond that. It is not a matter of language or art. This is what you have been doing your best to avoid. First, either this claim c...

As I see it, there is a crucial difference a religious experience and whatever meaning and significance that might have for the person experiencing it...

It is not positivism. You tend to see things that are opposed to your own view through that lens. The notion of verification is much much older than p...

You claim: and: At one point you admit: And yet: This notion of divine knowledge is quite different than a linguistic influence. In addition, it ignor...

Have you read your own posts? For example: The expression "Athens and Jerusalem" refers to the difference between the authority of reason versus revel...

The decisive issue here is not whether Hellenism influenced Jesus but what Jesus, his disciples, and Paul understood by "son of God". To assert or imp...

The problem is that without a verifiable ground of experience then whatever one might imagine can become a "manifestation" of the "Ultimate". Hicks do...

Perhaps my mixed metaphor confused you. Judaism and Greece are the foundations of the west not Christianity. Christianity is built on those foundation...

If you knowledge of the history of philosophy were less limited you would know that there is no basis for this claim. The roots on which Christianity ...

That might be if it was Jesus's intention to spread a universal message and establish a universal religion, as you assume. It is clear that Paul sough...