I think the tension is between the idea of the "absolute" and being a living human. One cannot escape being culturally or environmentally mediated. It...
I'm tempted to claim it as commentary on food and sugar industries putting the truth of profit above the health of the community, but it would be both...
Our existence, the actions we take, the understanding we hold, which expesses power. Life isn't just an argument, true or otherwise. The world always ...
On the contrary, it is public policy where it matters most. If we consider Islam to be incompatible with our values, in the sense of Islamic identity,...
Ugh, that only sticks to the loop of reductionism. This goes back to the question of "What is an electron?" Like the materialist reductionists, the su...
Supernatural phenomena are really only natural phenomena we don't expect. In any case, the reason for rejecting a (super) natural phenomena is because...
To say theism is "useful" is more the argument of an atheist-- where theistic belief is registered as a balm for the world (e.g. giving hope to those ...
That doesn't wash because atheists have plenty of hopes and fears too.Yet, they are not compelled to be theists. The possiblity of death and fear of l...
I don't think that question has much to do with it. The world is human shaped (humans are part of it) and not human shaped (other parts of it are not ...
It's about loss, possibility and how that interacts with our own self-image. Arguments about the fear of death, for example, don't get to the heart of...
You should get on with Hawking swimmingly-- that statement is failed naturalism, in the similar way to the "God" did it argument. Instead of dealing w...
The ground is not beneath thought, it is the thought itself. It's "beneath" other actions-- e.g. the rejection of people, punitive measures taken, whe...
One Foucault's major points is that an argument (or discourse) is itself an expression of power. When we argue a case we do violence to other ideas, c...
That's why I say your opposition is political. You literally don't know what's being argued. You haven't read it. You don't engage with the concepts b...
This is nonsense though, for author's like Foucault are hardly that obscure. Reading Foucault, it's not hard to understand, for example, that he's not...
I'd argue he didn't. We can't perceive the "thing" of causation because it is not a seperate state or actor in the world. If I drop a rock, for exampl...
Or maybe, you know, I'm drawing out the notion of radical contingency Hume uses against the notion of a continuing causal force. No doubt Hume begins ...
It's not bullshit though, for Hume didn't say the sun wouldn't rise. He said it might not. Such a possibility is perfectly coherent with a world in wh...
I was addressing the following and its relationship to the defence of Kant: My point being this defence of Kant only works if you are already bringing...
I think the very notion of tension or conflict is the silliness. In the face of radical contingency and the patterns of causality, the automatic assum...
Not exactly. I do think Hume externalises it inappropriately. Like Kant, he sort doesn't recognise that (our use of) concept and pure logic is a knowl...
You are missing this key definition. Spinoza is talking about the infinite intellect here, not finite states of the world (i.e. "efficient causality" ...
Spinoza is sort of both. He's dual aspect becasue he holds the attributes of thought and extension. His philosophy is also a a sort of neutral monism ...
I'd say that's why he's silly. The British Empiricists already explained (or described) agreement-- people experience, share an idea, observe the same...
...that's just deism. It is direct conflict with Spinoza philosophy. Substance isn't a casual state. God does not exist and act to create states of th...
Wittgenstein sort of culminates an analytical approach which removes the world. Everything is turned into a (language) game, where no philosophical pr...
All instances of knowledge rely on a tautology of self-defintion. I'll reverse the question to show you what I mean. How do you know, for example, tha...
Um... it's the infinite. We know the knowledge is perfect because, if it were anything else, it would be a contradiction. To suggest the infinite migh...
You're missing the point. The problem is Kant suggesting there is something about the infinite which cannot be known. There is no "insofar" to speak o...
Can't you see how this is the problem? Actuality is not actual. It never exists. Being infinite, it is a logical expression rather than a state of the...
But that's the problem with his approach. To the reach of a viewpoint, possibility is irrelevant. My viewpoint is what I do conceive, not what I might...
If we are talking about the reach of our viewpoint, what exactly are we talking about? Kant treats it like we are asking about how knowledge is possib...
More like he pointed out "argument" or "reason" was actually a functioning of rhetoric and power all along. In many contexts, we told ourselves we dea...
I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say possibility is justified because it is not a truth which means anything in ethics. Anything is always p...
That's a strawman. My point was the presences of the experiences are undoubtable. One may still doubt the content of experience is true. Here the poin...
The problem isn't applicable just to physicalism. Dead is dead. It's true of minds, of identity, of logic. The identity of life isn't just a "physical...
The point is there is no reduction, no (supposedly) irreducible primary to which everything is reduced. Truths are beyond a singular primary. Its obje...
That's more or less why you would struggle with postmodernism. It's point is (a) truth is not the sum of its parts at all, but a unique entity, which ...
Not true. Physicalism has no problem with "past life" memories. Under it, they are particular emergent experiences. Entirely possible. The real issue ...
That's your job. Your claim is attempting to use evidence to show what has happened in the world is more consistent with reincarnation than clairvoyan...
This is the confirmation bias John is talking about. You aren't critically checking your own hypothesis. When the evidence also its perfectly well wit...
The thing about the cogito is that it is really a doubting and rejecting of experiences themselves. We have more experiences than just the cogito. Red...
That's the problem though, for the nature of evidence is is to suggest, not prove. If we take the accounts at face value, they no more suggest reincar...
The point is it not evidence of karma. In such a case, there is no specification or relationship of earlier life compared to later life. Here the only...
The problem is it doesn't show any casual relationship with respect to the past and future experience. If we accept those instances are as they are cl...
People use the free will define as an explanation of how God is good and must remain hidden, but there is literally no difference in terms of causalit...
It's about hierarchy, not loyalty per se. Conservatives care about maintain a particular hierarchy, which is why purity and loyalty (to that hierarchy...
What is there to regret if it was not love? The foolishness of youth is loss younger self couldn't anticipate, a path someone turns away from because ...
Our notion of what amounts to the material world, yes. Dennett is sort of caught between his own rhetoric, which still sounds like eliminativism on ma...
That's why "purpose" is a red herring and the subject of much wasted energy amongst philosophers and critics. It's nothing more than a reduction or ar...
Comments