I should say that I do trust what you are saying: I know what you are thinking and arguing, as you have said. My point is in addition to that. What is...
And I can't let you get away with that: it's wrong. And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any ...
Indeed. It's brute fact the majority of people aren't gay. Just as it is brute fact the Earth is the third planet form the sun, the sun rose this morn...
Nope. For sexual identity isn't determined by who one has sex with. A gay person, for example, my choose to have sex with someone to a person of the o...
It's incoherence. The fact that our experiences are not the objects we observe. Ideal theory cannot be true or false because it completely fails to ad...
Nope... I'm merely identifying the Platonic error of Aristotelian philosophy: the mistake of thinking of things as an expression of logic, as opposed ...
No. It's not. For there is no "nature of man." Humans are always individuals. The nature of person cannot be "universalised" to act as a descriptor of...
You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any b...
You are wrong because it is not a "deviation" from human nature. This people are exactly what, as humans, they are. Humans are, in themselves, beings ...
Utter crap. It not just "cultural norms." It is the ethical position that the given group of people ought to be locked-up killed. And you are here sup...
The problem is that is no different for our concern about anything we do. At any moment we are caught-up in the business of trying to life-well, no ma...
I'd say you are misunderstanding the "myth of the given." What Sellars is attacking is not our knowledge or the presence of anything we know. He is at...
In the sense that it is objects which express concepts, rather than objects which are expressed by concepts. Logically, any state of existence, an obj...
Do you have an example? There are, occasionally, instances where people mistake the oppression of the past for the present state of society. Most of t...
But that's shown to be utterly wrong throughout history. We've had regimes, for example, that locked-up, murdered and otherwise ostracised gay people ...
No doubt... They are wrong. Agreement is not an issue here. How someone is valuing and treating others ifs not defined by agreement. It's a matter of ...
In arguing it is right (i.e. moral) for certain society to lock them-up and kill them, just because those in power enforce such a rule. Even in the fa...
We can and should. It is accurate. You are ignoring what oppression means here. It doesn't mean, for example, all conservatives are like Nazis and wan...
The problem is you are disrespecting the worse plumber. You say he ought to be a better plumber, even though that isn't at all necessary as an individ...
But that's not true because you aren't giving respect to the worse plumber as well. You are saying that, by failing to be a good plumber, they are les...
This question is a dead end. Being a point of ethics, there is no "how." There is no absolute point of view. Ethics are, by their nature, of a point o...
Not if you are respecting each individual for their abilities. To say what you are is to give more absolute value to the better plumber. It is to say ...
Nope. Since this plumber is not as good, doing that would be to insist they needed to have more than the abilities they have. It is to give the better...
This is contradiction. When each individual is accepted in terms of their ability, there is no-one to aspire too because that would be to covert what ...
Landru would be pretty much right too. Agustino is worshipping the myth of rights having nothing to do with what people do here, as if systems which a...
I'd say that's exactly why SX right. What exactly do we gain in "Woe is me" suffering? Just more anxiety and pain. We double down on suffering by worr...
Anticipation of future joy or suffering isn't prohibited. We do that all the time. Even those who have mastery of the moment. What matters is for the ...
I think this is still a slave to future expectations. Why must I seek to strive for pleasure at every moment? If I am always seeking to gain pleasure,...
I think the idea universals have to be part of the world is correlationism working its way through a back door. What are we saying if we suggest that ...
What exactly does the "entire universe" mean here? If we are talking bout the observed universe or the measured universe which relates to the observed...
Well... it is anti-scientific for starters. It throws out observation and suggests we can account for the world by merely relying on the ideas we have...
This is disgusting scientism and essentialism, Marchesk. We do not say that gravity must be true for the entire cosmos. What we know is the states we ...
There is no such thing as universalizing. When we "generalise" or "universal," we are at best talking about a similarity found in many unique states a...
That's incoherent. Since particulars are unique, any expression of aspect of them is unique, no matter any similarity. Two clones are most definitely ...
How about our knowledge of the particulars in question? Isn't that the successful comparison? Then there is no problem because we know each particular...
I think this is a terrible misstep. Don't we already know, understanding the presence of to similar states, the expressed meaning? If we see two red c...
X, Y, Z chemicals doing 1, 2, 3 rules isn't interiority. At least no more or less than colliding atoms are two crashing cars. Your description of the ...
It is more than that. Something is good because it is a state of existence which is the moment of pleasure, pleasant feeling, sense of community, sens...
Here it is still assumed the idea or conceptual is the emerging state.The contradiction only appears because you aren't making the distinction between...
I don't have time to give a long response to everything this morning, but I want to reposed to this because misunderstands virtue. Virtue is always a ...
You are too kind there. That's true in every single instance of annoyance or suffering. The question of paying suffering to obtain a fulfilling life i...
I'd say you can't. Both those instances of thinking share the same form: trying to define the world in terms of some imagined logical notion, rather t...
I don't think so. Someone who does not subscribe to a hedonistic philosophy of living hardly needs anyone telling them good is only about feeling plea...
Indeed. But the "experimental coherence" is NOT given by any aspect of the experienced tiger. Seeing its claws, hearing its roar, touching its fur doe...
The problem with that argument is it's still obsessed by "real" and "imagined" in the nonsensical Cartesian sense. Hallucinations are real. Someone wh...
Yes. By definition my concept of an object is not the existence of the object. This is a logical expression. This cannot possibly be wrong because to ...
The assumption objects and concepts are identical is embedded here. If they are different, there is no problem with conceiving an instance of existenc...
You can if the object doesn't exist. If its a future object or a past object, it existence is not indexed to your present. You are ignoring the differ...
For sure, but who is the one trying to do the impossible now? Why would someone ever suggest they could conceive of an unexperienced object (i.e. a ti...
There is no such claim. The experience doesn't exist when the object unexperienced. Let's say I am reading my hidden diary. I think about how it will ...
Comments