Perhaps... but that's because you keep missing the logical point Spinoza is talking about. Every time someone tries to point out what Spinoza is doing...
The point of intuition is you know something. It's not based on anything other than itself. To say such knowledge is based on "what feels right" is to...
For Spinoza, the spirit is an expression of the world. This is a critical difference because it eliminates the world's logical dependence on spirit. F...
In a sense, yes. Not the one most people think of though, which is why Spinoza is so frequently misread as a pantheist (rather than recognised as acos...
The distinction really doesn't make sense though, for every rational of "outer" thought makes use of the intuitive. All our observations and reasoning...
It's not a generalisation, but description. The denial of generalities does not take away similarities, types, categorisation and so on. It merely mea...
That's sort of the point. There are no general arguments. Each "general argument" actually picks out some specific truth. To have a group of people an...
To be coherent, the latter must be reversed. Space is a condition of our knowledge. Our instance of knowledge is inseparable from the logic of space. ...
That's why I say my argument goes against their intention. The ideal can be saved, but only by turning into its own thing, where is is no longer a gro...
For sure, but that alludes to the deeper problem with their approach. "Cannot perceive" is an incoherence. Perception is always an actual state, the p...
You sound like John trying to talk about the thing-in-itself. A priori space is... a priori space: the logical expression of space itself. It doesn't ...
I think that passage has the genesis for "saving" Schopenhauer's approach in a way, though it may more of a clarification of term that sort of breaks ...
Sigh... the point is that's mistaken. The thing-in-itself is not merely an absence of emprical form, but rather its own thing, understood and concieve...
We know it. It is conceivable. Rather than an absence of knowledge (i.e. a thing we don't know, as we don't have access to its empirical forms), it is...
The point is asking "for the nature of it" (in the sense you mean) is incoherent becasue it is defined by not having one at all. It's a "mystery" in e...
Just the opposite-- he saying we can know the thing-in-itself. It just doesn't have an empirical form, so any attempt to describe in such terms fails ...
The monism itself is the answer. In being timeless and undifferentiated,all of the many changes in the world have no impact on how it is expressed. If...
I'd go one further. Sometimes we do perceive it outright. We draw examples of it all the time. It's even possible someone could see it out in the worl...
This is what I was referring to when I said Kant derives the a priori of space and time from empirical observation. For Kant, the logically necessary ...
That approach is the very one I'm talking about. For Kant, the thing-in-itself is a "mystery" because it doesn't have an empirical appearance. We don'...
I think it goes deeper than that. Kant more or less derives the a priori nature of space and time from empirical observations-- he more or less says s...
I would say this context of discussion relies on dismissing Kant's understanding of noumena. To conceive S's transcendental idealism, one has to accep...
I think I do: Schopenhauer doesn't treat the thing-in-itself like an empirical state. He steps towards recognising as logical, rather than a thing we ...
That's sorts of true, but it has nothing to do with judging the chance of ravens being non-black. An instance of a green apple means the probability o...
No, you are ignoring the knowledge required to define a probability. You see a green apple and say it must mean non-black ravens are unlikely, as if i...
Yes, but that doesn't help you. That only gives you n. You still don't know x. The green apple doesn't tell you non-black ravens are impossible, which...
But that's the whole point. In an instance of a non-black raven, the probability of a non-black thing that is not a raven is 0. So unless you can disc...
The problem is when x=0, not when it equals 1. In the instance of non-black raven, x=0, as the probability of the non-black thing not being a raven is...
x is the problem. If there are non-black ravens, x=0 and the probability is incohrent. Currently, you have no definition of x, so you can't say what's...
Not if n=0... which you have no way of discounting or naming a probability for. You do need to know the actual probably or we can't tell what applies ...
It shows your point is meaningless. You say that seeing a green apple allows you knowledge of the probability a raven is black, yet you do not name an...
You don't know the number of black or non-black ravens. In seeing one green apple, you can't tell if the probability of a black raven is 99.9999999999...
We know the relevant set to do so. By seeing one green apple, you niether know the number of green apples, number of ravens, their relationship to eac...
The problem is green apples have zero chance of being a raven (and black). Noticing a green apple simply doesn't say anything about ravens. Ravens don...
I'd be careful here. Life is frequently a concept. It's a meaning we refer to and reason about all the time. Even living itself is a concept in this s...
We are living. Take us away, there is no-one experiencing well-being. People may experience lived well-being when reducing it to a conception-- that h...
I don't think there is a "how." Truth is found in oneself because they are always the person who knows. Eliminating oneself is always an illusion. One...
That's why it's naive. It can't see beyond authoritarian reaction, thought to be a direct imposition of the leaders will. All it amounts to is an apol...
That's pure bullshit. Though, I will say it is consistent with you aversion to recognising loss. I'll use an example you might understand: abortion. J...
Absurd posturing. You have no less to lose in political conflict than a progressive or a liberal. If you lose, you are stuck with a society with value...
To argue there is no such freedom amount to arguing for predetermination-- that are actions can somehow be defined without actions themselves-- which ...
For sure. That's a possibility. Due to the freedom of our world (since no state logically necessitated), anyone can be a little snitch. In concreto, t...
Not just marriage, but also status more generally. To be (and be recognised) as an independent being, who has their own thoughts and can pursue their ...
It can be being pieces of shit to each other, yes (but then so is the application of authority without reference to people as free agents). Not surpri...
Authority is the issue for Agustino here. Patriarchy is (in part) the identification of when women lack authority over their lives and status. As an a...
Oh indeed, but the thing about imaginary death is that it's not death. It's only pretend. In some cases, I don't doubt the mind has associated imagina...
Death is not part of the fantasy. The consumption is only imaginary. There is, in fact, no death at all. In the world, they are engaged in a fulfillin...
It would... but then one is no longer their to enjoy the lack of disturbance, so it sort of misses the point. That it's fantasy is sort of the point. ...
Comments