Yep, none of this has anything to do with metaphysics in the slightest. That said it's worth reflecting on the specificity of the 'transcendental', wh...
Hah, I really like this. It's a slick way to refer to what I'm come to know as 'becoming-other', a term here elaborated by Elizabeth Grosz (An Aussie ...
Turing, incidentally, happens to be Zizek's own example of an idiot - an exemplary idiot, even - although he approaches the whole question with a diff...
Yes, but perhaps a tad bit more radical. I don't see it as a two-step process - first, a premise, then failure to make connections, etc, etc. It's mor...
A good suggestion of fdrake's part - Deleuze isn't as ah, striaghtfoward as Dewey. That said, I have to admit an upsetting ignorence of Dewey's work o...
Yes. Agreement with you is not the point of dealing with a problem. The problem is. Or put otherwise: "What is true or false is what human beings say;...
As I've said elsewhere, to the extent that propositions are simply bearers of truth, and to the extent that truth is precisely what is not at issue - ...
Just to circle back to this because I think it's important to address - as I said to @"Akanthinos", there is no disjunction between truth and signific...
This of course is the false choice I was speaking of. And to frame it as a matter of 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' - as if it wasn't the case that lite...
The problem is simply that Psuedonuym has an incredibly blinkered view of not just philosophy, but - as it turns out - of basic argument in general, w...
Let's just say - because I have no desire to talk about brains in vats - that the idea for this thread did not develop in a vaccum. :eyes: Yeah, I thi...
You really can't though, not if you understand it, and if you're honest about it. You ask how we can tell if a machine is working properly: well, mach...
Hah, yeah, as much as it would be nice to think this is a stupidity endowed with philosophical significance, this is a nice example of a speech-act di...
Yeah - the idea takes inspiration directly from Kant, for whom the antinomies were direct products of reason themselves, and not merely some external ...
I wish this rose to the level of transcendental stupidity - at least that would be a good excuse. Unfortunately this really is a case of just the fact...
Yeah, if I have to explain something as simple as that to someone who gets confused by basic logical terms that happen to begin with the same letter, ...
A deduction is a species of inference and an inference is the most basic move of any rational procedure. This is primitive and the fact that you can m...
But this is nothing but a tautology: all it says is that every evolutionary success is a success, and every evolutionary failure is a failure - right ...
But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionary 'fitness' is only ever context-bound (to an environment), and the evolutionary re...
Yeah, I often imagine thought as a kind of gear or series of cog-wheels, ones with spokes and teeth, and thought - proper thought - being a case of en...
One of the reasons - perhaps the main reason - why we are so evolutionarily successful is that evolution has enabled us to relax the constraints that ...
Because rationality deals with arguments on the basis of the inferences that are soundly and validly developed in the course of those arguments. Specu...
Speculations do not need to be disproven and logic recommends nothing of speculation because the latter offers nothing to it. This entire line of ques...
Right, so the idea of the BIV is not a thesis nor any kind of 'explanation', but a limit-concept - in truth, nothing more than an updated and technolo...
That's your question; if you think there's anything to the idea, that's for you to answer. Better, at least, than the trivial idiocy of 'why don't you...
Because it's entirely arbitrary. If you don't get that, then go ahead and speculate all you like; even dredging the toilet bowl can be fun if you squi...
It is as necessary as the the very idea of BIVs: arbitrary and irrelevant. It's a response equal to the status of the question. I'm not saying don't d...
Yes, and you can make up a million other bullshit scenarios and call it philosophy too; but they'll all be bullshit and they'll all be made-up, and of...
What kind of disjunction is this? What motivates it? Nothing. It might as well read: "if I am in my apartment than I am not a cloud; so this has every...
I'm sure you do. Of course, this has nothing to do with being or not being a BIV and everything to do with having a proper grasp of the English langua...
Well this can be answered quite straightforwardly: none. Maybe you're in your apartment, maybe you're in a library, maybe you don't even live in an ap...
I said the question can be dismissed at the level of its form: the fact that it asks for reasons why something isn't the case. Your reply, which quibb...
How strange. A kind of epistemic occasionalism, or occasionalist anamnesis. In any case, the so-called 'higher consciousness' is simply a god-of-the-g...
As a general rule any unmotivated question of the form 'is there any reason to think that such-and-such is not the case' can be readily dismissed out ...
Agamben's actually piqued my interest a little in Buddhism, insofar as he's been referencing - although sparingly - a couple of Brahmic texts in some ...
Yes, but I think exactly what this means would need to be carefully specified. It's not that the star luminesces more or less brightly, but that the s...
I know you said not to attack P2, but there's a way to do it which I think might be really interesting, which is to question whether or not S can real...
Comments