Not in the moment of it being unexperienced, but the was never the claim. I don't need to "find" the object independent of experience, in any instance...
Yeah... now, but that's not when the "unexperienced" claim was referring to. It was talking about what an object was at some other time. Just because ...
But that's utterly wrong. In thinking about unexperienced objects, we have the concept of an object which is not experienced. They are not inconceivab...
I think the underlying issue is that Stoicism represents a partial or maybe even whole abandonment of Will in practice. What strikes me about your com...
Berkeley interesting in that his main argument is, more or less, a direct opposition to Cartesian doubt and other positions which envision the world s...
But that's why it your is misleading. Some of those who hold positions of scientific naturalism, materialism, realists still think the world is for th...
That's doesn't really help. Superman specifies something imaginary. We know we are talking about an object which doesn't exist. But what is an "abstra...
The problem with that is it misrepresents those positions. It suggests they all share the secular humanist notion that the world belongs to humans to ...
I think it actually has more relevance than you suggest. Brassier's move, for the purveyors of transcendental meaning, amounts to abandoning the all i...
This is what I'm talking when I say you have fallen for the very illusion you despise. You think caring is defined in putting someone on a pedestal, b...
The key word being concepts, not existing things. What people are judging as more or less similar is not the object in question, but rather that the m...
My point is though, that is all the doxa of a "male role," not actual interactions between people. In this respect, men are expected to care for women...
Both actions are the same in that they are an existing state of some kind. Each is the presence of you calling someone Bob. Without them, there would ...
This is Platonic argument. It has everything backwards. The existing triangle cannot exemplify universal "triangularity" because it is merely one fini...
I mentioned because it is directly related to this topic. Holding that universals exist is the error you were making in that conversation. Care to com...
The problem is starting with the idea there are any universals exist in the first place. What is generally referred to a "universal" is, in fact, does...
I think you've duped been by the very illusion you despise, TGW. The equivocation you are making between feelings, ethics and resources is rather tell...
You're supposing that Ciceronianus is separate from their actions. As if the existence of Ciceronianus, at all points, was give without the distinctio...
That's a strawman. I've never argued that acts of classification are separate to casualty. Indeed, part of pain is about how much the are embedded in ...
You don't exist talking, eating, drawing or categorising without drawing, eating or categorising. The separation you are drawing between your existenc...
All our actions are states of existence. The state of categorising is just that: the existence of a person who understands another to belong to a cate...
I'm saying that not though. Just the opposite in fact: my point is that classification is a state of existence (i.e. not estranged from reality, an eq...
That's a category error and a strawman. No-one has suggested any form of biological alteration, delusion about the body or that we are anything but ou...
I think it's the opposite. The motivation is really nothing at all. Motivation cannot be separated form doing the action. It doesn't take any from bet...
It isn't about new or old categories. The point is, rather, about what constitutes a category and how people belong to them. What is at stake is not a...
The world always make sense. Sense has never been at stake because classification is a different act to description. Each classification is its own la...
Unless, you know, the world, states of existence (which uses of language are), are finite and arbitrary*.... *(as per QM and radical contingency). You...
That's a strawman. I was referring only to classification not being about "reality" in the sense they aren't descriptions of an object of the world, s...
You are missing that the linguistic and empirical contexts involve states of the world. You are treating the "independent" objects, the things-in-them...
In a sense, yes. And that is the problem with the accusation of ignoring reality. Classification is not any sort of object we are describing. There is...
But its not. We need more. In this case, as the language is about the world (and of the world), we need the worldly context. We need, in the world, th...
That's an ugly strawman of dubious ethical intent. The point was about how we categorise, not what any object was. We may, indeed, think of cinnamon b...
You've outright claimed it here: Here you are saying that, for a chair to be in the next room, all we need is for someone to speak of the relevant emp...
Yeah, and you've been wrong countless times... But crucially, misunderstanding of direct realism aside,with respect to understanding language, you are...
But that's the problem your approach. You fail to understand how language is of the world, that awareness of the truth condition is embedded within la...
The point is not about the creation of category. It is the fact that it is created by us, irrespective of its causal origin. Whether a category origin...
But the understanding of the conditions which amount to a statement being true aren't separate to that. In the you are using it, there is no act of ve...
Is it not merely suggesting that its practise is worthwhile? Seems to me the Stoic is trying to create future states (the practice of Stoicism) which ...
There is more to it than that though. What we are is its own state, with its own particular description, not merely the description of the prior inter...
We never were anything more, at any time. The issue is that so many misunderstand, many of the "scientific" persuasion, what this means. It does NOT m...
This is absurd because statements aren't made outside of the context of our experience. If we are asking about the correctness of a statement, we are ...
Pain cannot be fought. At least that is my reading. The dishonesty of the stoic is in presenting a solution to pain. Nothing helps with pain. If there...
Partly. That more or less works as a convoluted description of the interaction between our experiences and community, to create a particular culture a...
This is an encapsulation of the separation between language and the world you are still holding. The point is this “classical” problem has never been ...
The problem is this is misleading. It creates the sense of separation between your language and the world which isn't there. When you talk about a cha...
The very discintion you are drawing there is one between two things in the world. You write on the former and sit on the latter in the world. In sayin...
But that involves more than a semantic distinction. It's a distinction between different states of the world. In pointing out states of language are n...
Indeed. And that's what constitutes the naturalistic fallacy. People are never Platonic idea(l)s. No human ever is. A Platonic idea(l) of a person has...
darthbarracuda is a little too kind here. You are committing a textbook naturalistic fallacy here. You didn't say it was women ought to do. Instead yo...
Comments