You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Agustino

Comments

>:O Mine is 3.3 on Purity.
February 03, 2017 at 16:10
This was slightly more interesting - as can be seen I highly value Harm, Loyalty and Purity /uploads/resized/files/eq/ulf8lajpfjatc4p5.png Loyalty see...
February 03, 2017 at 16:08
That 0 score on purity is disgusting.
February 03, 2017 at 15:54
Yes but you three certainly have more agreements between you, than you would with me for example.
February 03, 2017 at 15:54
You are the one using a fiction. You rely on seeing those lines being curved in a Euclidean analogy to non-Euclidean geometry to say that they are cur...
February 03, 2017 at 15:52
No it's really no illusion at all. If you are a two dimensional creature living your live on a two dimensional piece of paper which is curved to form ...
February 03, 2017 at 13:52
I haven't seen a lot of those points of divergence asked.
February 03, 2017 at 13:37
Maybe theoretically, but practically, most people would not consider me libertarian. For example thinking the state should prevent the population's ac...
February 03, 2017 at 13:32
Meaning?
February 03, 2017 at 13:22
Funnily enough, Epictetus wasn't a skeptic though ;) What exactly do you mean by the habits and attitudes associated with wholehearted skepticism? If ...
February 03, 2017 at 13:17
This is correct.
February 03, 2017 at 13:12
No it doesn't give rise to the world in a causal (empirical) sense.
February 03, 2017 at 13:12
If you look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic#/media/File:Spherical_triangle.svg You see straight line AC (actually a curve from our point o...
February 03, 2017 at 13:10
This is irrelevant though. A geodesic appears as a straight line to observation - in fact, it actually is a straight line in a curved space. Non-Eucli...
February 03, 2017 at 13:01
Yes it is >:O (which is the point I've been making all along) Now let me address your other post
February 03, 2017 at 12:57
This one was actually the absolute worst in my opinion... the questions were so biased, I couldn't even answer them properly. It's like being asked if...
February 03, 2017 at 12:54
Well, it is clear how two material things can interact, in fact just as clear as how two ideal things can interact. They can interact because they are...
February 03, 2017 at 12:39
Only if you replace Schopenhauer's conception of the thing-in-itself for Kant's (in other words, only if there is no possibility for a space in-itself...
February 03, 2017 at 09:32
John has forgotten that the principle of causality which he presupposes in asking the question applies only to the phenomenon (empirical reality) not ...
February 03, 2017 at 00:37
The old trope - there's no explanation but I'll go on believing it >:O
February 03, 2017 at 00:37
You're trying to ask what causes the thing-in-itself to be so and so - that's stupid, nothing causes it, because causality applies only for the object...
February 03, 2017 at 00:36
Right so if they're not due to the curvature of space, what the fuck are they due to?! :s
February 03, 2017 at 00:32
Yes we can. Have a look here ;) it's called a convex mirror https://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2016/Grabiner/convex_mi...
February 03, 2017 at 00:32
Hegel regurgitation! I have given a means for how it does so. It does so via the forms of space, time and causality.
February 03, 2017 at 00:31
delete - was off topic >:O
February 03, 2017 at 00:26
Yes you do experience its effects. And if space isn't curved, and space is an a priori form provided by the mind, where the hell are those curved effe...
February 03, 2017 at 00:20
Ultimately yes, hence why you experience it in time. Yes, your brain is working well in logical deductions. They are glimpses of the noumenon, they ar...
February 03, 2017 at 00:19
Yes, but as Schopenhauer told you, it takes a genius to imagine from the very imperfect information one has, to what is actually the case X-)
February 03, 2017 at 00:12
Your only other escape is to run away "Ahh but Kant is talking just about our perception" but again we do perceive non-Euclideanness in the world. So ...
February 03, 2017 at 00:04
But regardless, if you're not such a Kantian, then yes, if NE geometry refutes S it would also refute K. And it quite simply does as far as I see at t...
February 03, 2017 at 00:02
No he doesn't, but future Kantians do ;)
February 02, 2017 at 23:59
That was outlined in the OP largely and in subsequent posts That is not needed, as S's transcendental idealism can clearly be treated as independent o...
February 02, 2017 at 23:54
This just isn't true. You don't recognise the thing-in-itself at all for Kant. It's just a big X with no understanding of it at all. No understanding ...
February 02, 2017 at 23:41
Well your shallow reading of Schopenhauer and comparison with Kant is just as offtopic as your reciting to me some of Hegel's insights, however, I mig...
February 02, 2017 at 23:39
It is possible, if you get your lazy bums up and running day in and day out, shut down and clamp on time-wasting activity, remove hedonism from your c...
February 02, 2017 at 23:35
Well it presupposes bracketing it, to say the least, as it's not what is under discussion. Yes, I agree, so this discussion isn't for him, he's free t...
February 02, 2017 at 23:32
I disagree with this. There can be no situation where measurement would indicate that the perpendicular from a line to a point isn't the shortest dist...
February 02, 2017 at 23:25
How is it pertinent to the OP? The OP is "can S's transcendental idealism survive the challenge posed to it by non-euclidean geometry?" And in fact, w...
February 02, 2017 at 23:17
Yes. It seems to me that John is merely carrying out his personal vendetta though, with little interest to the underlying philosophy. As you can see, ...
February 02, 2017 at 23:16
Right, things-in-themselves don't exist then >:O How about you cite me some of Hegel's insights, as a shallow reader of Hegel I'd be more interested i...
February 02, 2017 at 23:13
The Will is closer to thing-in-itself than Representation as it's only conditioned by one of the categories, time, and not the other ones. However, la...
February 02, 2017 at 23:12
It's merely sharing what I think. I don't have to back up everything I say, especially when it's totally unrelated to the topic and a quick reply abou...
February 02, 2017 at 23:04
No that's not the point. The point is WHY he earns the right to property by work, which is the most significant point, otherwise it would be just a me...
February 02, 2017 at 23:00
No the US isn't "highly developed" it merely created a myth to rationalise its own laziness and lack of economic growth. We grow at 1%... why? Ahhh we...
February 02, 2017 at 22:06
This thread isn't about how Schopenhauer applies a corrective to Kant and it would entail quite a long and off-topic discussion to explain. I don't se...
February 02, 2017 at 21:54
No this isn't where you find them at all. They are just empty concepts in there. Bones with no meat on them.
February 02, 2017 at 20:06
Yes. But perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that space, time and causality are synthetic a prioris, but rather judgements involving them. Space, ti...
February 02, 2017 at 19:55
If you study Chinese history in detail, you'd be amazed by their strategic mind to be honest :P
February 02, 2017 at 16:36
This is interesting, so fine, let's have this discussion. Let me first provide more detail on Schopenhauer. Now why is it important that space, time a...
February 02, 2017 at 16:36
They don't need to attack you - they'll steal your influence by becoming bigger and better and stronger than you. There's no need to hurry doing it ei...
February 02, 2017 at 16:27