Thorongil

I don't understand the question. You might also have gotten it from its title.

Are you saying you reject a position you haven't actually read anything about?

Right, that's why I said, in the last sentence you neglected to quote, "They disagree about how it is supplied and how it ought to be described."

So they are, but I took your admission to be a polite way of describing your attempt to strawman my position, which you did in fact do. I do not concl...

I'm not sure I agree. The starting point of idealism and materialism could be the same and yet not be neutral, so I'm not sure why "neutrality" is the...

Berkeley, for one, does not do that, though. He provides arguments.

Some forms of it might, but not all. Fideism has never been theism's most common expression, at least among philosophers and theologians. Yes, I tend ...

Oh no, I've already passed that stage of development. My subtlety is so immense, I often need a crane to hoist it.

Correct.

My dear friend, this was effectively the point I was making. I presuppose no such thing. The question could be meaningless, in which case there is no ...

I mean this.

So you admit to strawmanning my position. Besides being thoroughly unnecessary, you ought also to have expected my disinclination to address whatever ...

"... the "why" question deals with the reason for there being objects of experience at all as opposed to the question of what they are ultimately comp...

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

No it's not. They exist outside of my mind, true (which is why Berkeleyanism isn't solipsism), but they still exist in a mind, namely, the mind of God...

"Find" doesn't make sense in the world you posit. Meaning must rather be created. But the meaning we can create isn't proportional to, and doesn't fit...

I don't think so.

Okay. Now you've provided a comment, not an objection or a request for explanation.

I'm tempted to say no, because I don't know what it would mean for you to understand it, not knowing you. I think it was fairly self-evident what I me...

Strawman. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. In fact, if you read the OP, I said exactly the reverse of what you impute of me here.

Phenomenalism is interesting, but I don't think there can be an answer to the question you pose, given the claim phenomenalism makes, as you define it...

A universe of things is by definition unnecessary, inasmuch as "things" are finite, contingent, and causally dependent on each other and "a universe" ...

A necessary being.

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread and elsewhere. Some of what you say here reminds me of the following recent speech by W.L. Craig I saw,...

Wayfarer is quite right here, which is why the following statement misses the point about idealism: Idealists do not dispute the existence of objects,...

Thinkers about thinking.

Maybe I will. If it axiomatically excludes consciousness I won't be impressed, though.

Huh?

Not explicitly, that is true. But it could very well be that consciousness is what collapses the system.

What's with the Copenhagen thesis bashing? I don't think it's so far afield.

I got Aquinas. Much worse quiz than mine, though.

Ha. Despite Aquinas being your favorite philosopher, apparently I'm more of a Thomist than you.

Found this: http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=PhilosophyGuys Made by a philosopher and somewhat surprising results for me. I thought K...

My thoughts as well. I would say Shapiro is better read in philosophy than Peterson, especially political philosophy. I like them both in certain dose...

It exists, but it isn't due to evil, patriarchal, sexist males, as the common media and feminist narrative asserts.

Lol, great video!

You keep confusing things. Sex and the sexual impulse is not going to be eradicated, but I think its ubiquity in society can be lessened.

How would I do that? You gave me a subjective observation about yourself.

I think so, because it can't ever be eradicated and nor would I want it to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVvdVGUkPNw Holy hypocrisy, batman!

Why not?

A strange inference. I spoke of society, not of myself. Because the former is more ubiquitous than the latter.

Interesting comma placement. "People, , sadly." Indeed.

Because society is sex-saturated, from which it is impossible to escape. Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something...

I find it sad and pathetic. Sex rules the world and I for one am tired of its reign.

I concur. The old Jesuit motto is true: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." Incidentally, you look a bit like Schopenhaue...

No.

No, obviously not. How is this thread four pages long....

Yes.

On a possibly related note: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-still-dont-really-know-how-play-ancient-roman-board-game-180967778/