Esse Quam Videri

Yes. Yes. Yes. The move to the unconditioned is not made by upgrading epistemic necessity into modal necessity, It is made by reflecting on what judgm...

@"Banno" @"Joshs" @"Philosophim" There has been a lot of drift in the discussion since the opening replies to the OP, so I'm going to try to recapitul...

That characterization is neither an accurate representation of the argument I'm making, nor an apt framing of the state of the discussion in general.

I agree that norms don’t gain their authority by being “grounded” in something else in the way empirical claims are justified. I’m not suggesting that...

- I've been enjoying our exchange very much, so let's continue on. By the way, I do try to tie this back to the question of grounding and necessity at...

I would place my position as neither Kantian nor Hegelian, though it takes something from both. Against Kant, I don’t think intelligibility is imposed...

I think you’re right that “nothing” isn’t a genuine option. In my opinion, absolute nothingness isn’t just empty, it’s unintelligible. The real contra...

An excellent and thought-provoking reply. I think it succeeds in clarifying your position even more sharply than before, and that helps a great deal. ...

I think your description of intelligibility as temporally enacted and internally differentiated is right as far as it goes. It captures something esse...

Thank you!

Let me begin by saying that I continue to be impressed by the care and effort you’ve put into your essays. You’ve clearly thought through your positio...

Thanks for clarifying. I think we’re circling a deeper disagreement that’s worth naming. It’s not really about becoming, difference, or performativity...

Quite right. However, in order to diagnose the purported performative incoherence, Bitbol must presuppose universally binding normative standards of j...

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think this clarifies the disagreement quite a bit, and I appreciate the acknowledgment that the move to panentheism...

Thank you for the generous compliment! I admire the clarity and sincerity of your writing as well. It's been a pleasure reading through your replies. ...

Another excellent post, thank you. I don’t think you’re being naive, but I do think there is still a gap that hasn’t been closed. You’re proposing a t...

Indeed, and this point is well taken. However, there's a real tension in Bitbol's position. The issue is not that he wants to engage in a critique of ...

I think this is where we bottom out. You’re treating metaphysical necessity as defined by invariance across admissible worlds, so that necessity is en...

Thanks for the incisive reply. To clarify, I don’t mean “intelligibility” as a feature of our representations but as a condition of the possibility of...

Appealing to grammar doesn’t really answer the point. Grammar explains how judgments are expressed, not what makes them meaningful or truth-apt in the...

Yes, that’s a misunderstanding. I’ve already clarified the distinction I’m making a few times now, so I don’t think there’s much more to add. Thanks f...

I’m not denying that metaphysics requires a framework; I’m denying that metaphysical necessity is itself a framework stipulation (language, logic, mod...

I’m not reifying intelligibility or invoking Platonic Forms. The point is transcendental: conceivability presupposes intelligibility as a condition of...

Again, I'm not challenging accountability. I'm challenging reducibility. Metaphysical conclusions as to the existence of necessary beings (if there be...

Thank you, this helps clarify your position a great deal. You've covered a lot of ground and introduced some interesting and unexpected (in a good way...

Thanks for the thoughtful clarification. I think this helps me better locate where we’re really diverging. I agree with you that the epistemological a...

Thanks for clarifying. Since the post I originally responded to specifically referenced Meillasoux I think it is worth noting that Meillasoux would re...

Thanks for the additional clarification. Your additional comments do a great job of hammering in the logic behind your argument. It seems like the que...

Yes. In standard modal semantics (e.g. S5), whether an individual exists in all possible worlds depends on how we stipulate the domain of worlds. Moda...

I think we're talking past each other. The point isn’t that incoherence is acceptable; I'm not advocating for inconsistency, I'm doing the opposite. T...

The original argument was not claiming that intelligibility is causally prior, instrumentally required or merely pragmatically unavoidable. It was cla...

Yes, this makes sense, but I don't think it fully evades the original objection. The original objection wasn't that you hadn't traced the causal chain...

The point is not a trivial reminder that consistency is good, it's that the claim "only contingency is necessary" is being advanced as a true account ...

I just realized I didn't address this point: I would say that these (performativity, becoming, difference, intra-action) are descriptions, not grounds...

I consider this is a position worth taking seriously and part of why my "yes" is tentative, but ultimately I find it unsatisfying for the following re...

I would tentatively answer "yes", and argue that contingency means dependency on conditions. Dependency implies ordered explanatory relations. A struc...

This is an insightful reply to antinomy framing. I wonder, though, if there's another way forward that renders the antinomy only apparent. An alternat...

Agreed. I am familiar with these thinkers, and would say that my own thought on these matters is indebted (at least in part) to all three of them.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have encountered N?g?rjuna before through the secondary literature in the philosophy of religion, but I...

This is a surprisingly interesting question. I think I would throw my hat in the ring with those who say that the question is poorly framed because "t...

Welcome back! And many thanks for the well written summary of Bitbol's essay. I've been aware of Bitbol for some time but have never had the chance to...

No problem! Thank you for your question. It helped me to clarify my own thoughts on these matters.

Of course! As mentioned in my comment, it depends on how strictly we are defining "anti-foundationalism". Foundationalism in ethics typically refers t...

Not a view from nowhere, just an adherence to the norms that are implicit in the act of judging anything to be correct or incorrect.

I don't think anti-foundationalism has to deny trans-community fallibilism. Personally, I'd argue that such denial fails to account for the fact that ...

A few people on the forum still seem to be defending various forms of relativism, which is why this response keeps resurfacing. To answer the question...

I'm skeptical. After all, your thread is entitled "Comparing Religious and Scientific Worldviews". You literally spend the entirety of the OP showing ...

That strikes me as a mischaracterization of the situation. If I saw someone about to harm my child, my implicit response would not be "this will make ...

Maybe you didn't add a category to the thread when you originally posted it? I'm not sure, I've never started a new thread on this site before. It is ...

You've conceded quite a bit here. Notice that your claim has shifted significantly to being one about the comparative risks of orthodoxies grounded in...