Theorem

Ha. Well at the very least is shows that Russell didn't skewer Meinong's position. He didn't even address it.

I suspect that most are. Because having such a skill make us less susceptible to manipulation via bad arguments. It can also enhance our power to infl...

Here Russell gets Meinong wrong. Meinong does not claim that such objects exist. He claims that some objects exist, some subsist and some don't exist ...

I don't look at it that way. Dialetheism provides a way solving certain problems. Like any proposed solution to a problem, it has costs and benefits r...

Priest (and other dialetheists) would obviously disagree. They present arguments. You should study them sometime.

In my opinion, that should not be considered a side quest. That is the quest, and far too few people take it seriously. Imagine if literally everyone ...

And per regarding belief revision, dialetheism could also have practical applications within the field(s) of artificial intelligence and machine learn...

The only dialetheist I've read at any length is Graham Priest, and he, at least, does not maintain that all contradictions are true. Rather, he argues...

I don't think it's quit as different as you're making it out. People make a lot of hoopla about the "facts" in science, and yet we still have flat-ear...

You're only looking at one side of the equation. Bitter Crank is right - contradiction is at the heart of things. This implies the existence of good a...

- In my opinion, you're going to run into the same problem whether it's with the "subject", "point-of-view" or anything else. Again, the fact that you...

Ok, but your argument contains claims about the subject, which implies conceptualization and pretensions to knowledge. You defined knowledge in a late...

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but if there is an aspect of the subject that cannot become an object-for-a-subject, this would imply we could never k...

But the statement "I know that I am knowing" implies knowledge of self as the subject of knowledge. Right? Such statements only count as knowledge (pe...

I'm going harp on this a little. You said: If subject can never become object, then subject can never know itself as a subject. But your entire argume...

Ok. but what function does punishment play among animals? Presumably it provides some utility or it wouldn't have evolved. The question, then, becomes...

Why?

This seems to be denying the possibility of self-knowledge.

Speaking in evolutionary terms, I suspect that the emotional satisfaction associated from seeking retribution evolved as a mechanism for preventing in...

I'm not so sure. The closest Dennett has ever really come to laying all his metaphysical cards on the table (that I am aware of) was in his paper "Rea...

Usually folks who label certain acts "unnatural" will presuppose some kind of "natural law" position. For instance, this is basically how the Catholic...

Ah, I see. That helps clarify things for me. It strikes me that the only possible act that God engages in directly is the act of creation ex nihilo. I...

I haven't heard back from you on this, so I am going to assume I have misunderstood your claim. I think where I am getting tripped up is when I read t...

Using this line of reasoning, we could say that a finite being acting as only an infinite being or as only any other finite being can is also not a po...

Sure, if you like ham sandwiches. Wait, so an infinite being cannot engage in any possible act? You seem to be saying that there are certain acts that...

I apologize if you addressed this already, but could you clarify what you mean by any possible act? Could an infinite being eat a ham sandwich for lun...

I think we will, more or less. As artificial intelligence develops and machine behavior becomes more and more convincing, most people's intuitions abo...

Thank you both for your replies. I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by your responses. With regards to noumena, you both seem satisfied with Kant'...

Ok. I mean, I've tried to back up my interpretation with textual evidence and reasoned argument. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you, but if w...

I think I accidentally replied to both you and Janus in my previous post. Sorry about that. Here are my thoughts on your thoughts... I can agree with ...

And yet Kant crosses it by conceptualizing and talking about noumena and setting them into causal relation with phenomena. Suppose I draw a line down ...

:up:

Yes, it does. This doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about things-in-themselves. It means that we shouldn't talk about them in the way that Kant does (e....

Sorry, I seem to have overlooked the bottom half of your post. Kant could posit unknowable causation "in-itself", but he'd be in the same bind, illici...

Hi Janus, I agree that in the particular passage I quoted Kant does not posit noumena as the cause of phenomena, but he does do this on other occasion...

My caricature was intended to be tongue in cheek, by the way. No offense intended to you or others on the forum.

No, I don't think Hegel brought up the point on causality, though I believe that many of Kant's contemporaries did. I know some modern commentators ha...

Exactly. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that "plausibility" and "good sense" are all you have to fall back on in your war against the idealists. Bu...

Look, if you guys know of a place where Kant specifically argues his concept of representation, then fine. I'm well aware that Kant presented lot's of...

He did argue that insofar as sensible intuitions are appearances they must correspond to something else which they are appearances of. This he calls n...

Locke famously maintained that the direct objects of knowledge were ideas, and that ideas were representations of the so-called primary qualities of e...

Is it though? Sure, there's much to be learned from exploring the arguments for idealism. I'd even be willing to say that it's a right-of-passage for ...

Much as I agree with you, you're never going to win this argument. For the idealist, to be is to be an object of experience. Arguing about the nature ...

Sorry, Terrapin. We've gone as far as we can go. Thanks for chatting.

I deny that they are identical by pointing out that they share nothing in common and you retort by re-asserting that they are identical. Nice one! Loo...

No, they're not. That should be painfully obvious from the fact that they have literally nothing in common with brain states. Because some people argu...

What do you mean "how"? Non-measurable properties inhere in substances the same way that measurable properties do. They're just aren't measurable. Exa...

They have characteristics, yes, but not empirically measurable properties. Yawn. More assertions and ad homs. I'm all done here.

No it wouldn't. You're just begging the question. Prime matter and substantial form.