Worse than that: you misunderstand the divine. You mistake it for a mere "possibility" that might or might not be, like it was some empirical state. T...
That's not what you said earlier (soul rather than the world)-- what you express their is a concern for the world, not a soul that exists above any be...
It's not your virtue that's at stake, but rather the world in which other people live and express their virtue. You'd rather lose them and their virtu...
Every time. The world expresses the soul. Without the world, all one has is a pretence of superiority and success, a fiction blind to the horrors comm...
I don't think that's particularly paradoxical. There is a certain "social conservativism" within the progressive side. Perhaps not one you would respe...
It's that very question which is incoherent. When making a change (or not making a change), the principles that guide us aren't separate form the reas...
For what's worth, your analysis stuck me more as a strawman of Un's point than anything else. What's at stake here is not "victimhood," but a descript...
Landru is more a progressive than a liberal. I suspect he would say "realism" (or rather the obsession with "rational truth" ) is responsible for fail...
Par for the course. The irrationality of your brand of conservatism can't abide description of society and people. It works through mindless worship o...
Which is why it fails. It cannot distinguish either a basic institution nor intolerable practices. All it amounts to is cheering for the present power...
That refers to the necessary, not to the existent. Spinoza does talk about "existing" at some points during the definition of substance, but what can ...
How would he not agree? Would he make the argument the finite could be Real? The trouble with definitions is they are defined in themselves. Someone c...
On the contrary, it is specific: God is not causal actor (state of the world is causality) because that would make God finite and not Real. Your analy...
It's the opposite of foolish. In doing so, he undoes the metaphysical blunder (equivocation between infinite and finite) which characterises most of p...
It's a specific logical rule--rather being defined by other objects (i.e. there being things with identity), it is itself. To say it" "general" is mis...
That's not a "general rule." The specific nature of any object is not some approximation or vague allusion. It's definite. Any object, by definition, ...
Depends what you mean. If you are talking about distinguishing it as a fake apple, we aren't close nought to make that observation. No amount of logic...
That's the correllationist error I've pointing out form the start. Logic doesn't tell us about general forms of experience and understanding. It's the...
I think you misunderstand. One does not seek virtue. They act virtuously. Under these ethics, there is no striving or a conflict of vice because there...
That's why you are equivocating logic with empiricism. Instead of acknowledging that logic is, itself, amounts to knowing something significant, you t...
If you are thinking in terms of the neo-liberalist individualist consumer, sure. People don't have to think this way though. One may think communally ...
It's pointing that difference is incoherent. No doubt there is a difference between the experiences in question, but that difference is worldly. It's ...
Not so much, politics usually works like that to one degree or another. It's more that our politics has become severed from the identity of many peopl...
The point is that "self" is "determinative" or defined. Empirical states don't have a monopoly on the definite and understandable. Rather than elusive...
I would say you get caught trying to save people from "materialism." Your understanding of "help" too often reduces to fighting a spectre of materiali...
In the minds of the people in question, it does. It's so difficult because people expect (and sometimes demand) knowledge empirical. Just as John has ...
The acosmist doesn't confuse self for the empirical. It doesn't need to be empirical to be "determinable." As an infinite, it's is intelligible, rathe...
It's a contradiction in terms. That which is present in the world is, by definition, not transcendent. Unknown processes can't even allow this because...
Well, that's the point about Spinoza's metaphysics: it tells you about metaphysics, rather than the world (for that use physics, observation, etc.,etc...
The absence of anything to observe and test is exactly how we can conclude there is one substance. Since it is not an empirical state, the question of...
The acomist's point is the ontological/ontic (finite) is illusionary. Only the infinite is Real, so any existing state is outside the Real. I'm not eq...
People have pointed out it's philosophical significance several times: self-definition. The unchanging logical expression of self. A predicatless and ...
This question is loaded with correlationist expectations. Substance is thought to be a matter of properties found in the world-- something defined how...
Idealism's point is the world is not an illusion. It claims experiences, states of existence, are the extent of things. Experience is treated as infin...
You reading that like a reductionist scientist. As if being an object in the would amounts to being immanent. If that were so, we wouldn't need anythi...
Spinoza's point is exactly that the self-causing principle is NOT in the world. Immanence is not being in the world, but rather being EXPRESSESED by t...
I don't think you're being specific enough. There are plenty of instances of resentment in "underdog morality," but it is also frequently an expressio...
God is not transcendent. Such a God is a worldy actor. Indeed, any vision can only be wordly because the caused state (the vision) is someone's experi...
The point is about how someone is loved, a distinction between being understood as an object which delivers or a person with significance. It's not a ...
On the contary, the OP is arguing becoming is necessarily a relation. The point is how we think about relation is frequently flawed. Rather than a sec...
Becoming seems more like that which changes, lives or is present, than a movement from here to there. Indeed, becoming is sort absent in reflective di...
I think the primacy of relation is exactly what becoming gets at. Awareness pre-dates sorting into strict discursive catergoies. One senses so much be...
My point is counterparts are incohrent: it makes no sense to speak of them. Modal logic shouldn't entertain them at all. The sign (e.g. Algol) is not ...
It's a question of recognising that "the beyond" is only the world, meaning expressed by the world, which is what makes relevant to us-- our own well-...
In the historical fork, there is only the Algol of one possible world. The Algol which follows after the present in particular causal links (e.g. this...
It always makes a difference. Algol of another possible world is in fact an entirely different dog. In discussion of modal logic, many people fail to ...
Terripin is pretty much right here. The possible world is not an manifestation of constraint, but rather freedom or radical contingency-- the possible...
The problem with the appeal us not really knowing anything is its intent. What are we aiming for in making such an argument? Some sort of perfect know...
Comments