Wherever driving licenses are administered people sign forms indicating they've read the materials which explain the hazards of the road (along with g...
I'm an 'epicurean-spinozist' (or absurdist) meaning that aponia & ataraxia without transcendent illusions (or sisyphusean eudaimonia) is (my) "hedonis...
:death: :flower: :lol: Au contrair, O Simplicius! :point: Nature-minus-mystery (where 'mystery' is a fiat-of-the-gaps, appeal to ignorance) is clearly...
I very much agree. By claiming there is only one unique substance S implies that only one unique subject is real with no 'separate objects' to be cons...
Not at all. I'm with @"Banno" in this because I think (though he's just another "broken cuckoo clock" to Banno) Freddy was more right than not: (Empha...
:chin: :up: All I can say about this is that Spinoza didn't make videos to convey his philosophy. ("Ok, boomer!") :roll: I don't understand this quest...
Attributes of Mind & Body belong to substance and not to the modes themselves. "Everything" is not conscious; rather mind can be attributed to any mod...
True. Yet all the flavors of 'immateriality' are even more unsavory, more ad hoc or preposterous, and demonstrably more maladaptive for surviving & th...
"And you're making me feel like I've never been born" :yikes: I don't imagine "it would be like" anything at all ... except the absence those who have...
So you're denying that the distinction between (e.g.) reflective equilibrium & begging the question makes a difference or that the latter is a negativ...
"The most Good one can do", I think, is to engage in solidarity, with as many others as possible (especially) in any exigent situation, to simultaneou...
To my way of thinking, 'circular reasoning', where needed, is not problematic IFF 'the circle' is virtuous (i.e. a positive feedback loop) and not vic...
Perhaps. If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is not an artifact of a 'description' (i.e. what Spinoza...
Really? Not Spinoza, not Hume, not Kierkegaard, not Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche, not Zapffe, not Sartre, not Merleau-Ponty, not ... but Heidi?! C'mon....
:up: Poseur & bricoleur, respectively. For Witty, understanding of the forms-of-life within which we undertake living is gained from, or enriched by, ...
He sure did! Spinoza has cured me of any Heideggerasty I might've contracted from getting a little too familiar with the old Black Forest bugger back ...
Welcome to TPF. I think the question is misplaced, or poorly formulated; understanding pertains to scientific theories – the degree of causal depth, o...
They're "baffling" when one forgets or denies that only as one deviates farther from this – our – scale-perspective the more "inconsistent" those high...
No, not in the least. It's a conceptual paradigm (i.e. methodological coarse-graining filter), btw, and is N O T itself a scientific model (i.e. expla...
The impossibility of being 'the same X in two places simultaneously' isn't merely "practical", Fool, but fundamentally physical as I pointed out in re...
Whatever you/we say about the unsayable, syn, is all noise & no signal (i.e. you're not conveying information). Of course people aren't "aware" – don'...
Which is it? The "intellect" and "time" are not the same, the latter is definitely "outside of" the former (in so far as "our intellect" is itself tem...
And also a comfortable familiarity with them, no? So does your attraction differentiate among black men from North America, Carribean islands? Cuba? B...
I prefer a conception like human ecology to the essentialist shibboleth "human nature". ? ? ? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/325726...
The unnatural is immanent to nature, it's shocking distortions perversities grotesqueries, which disgust us with proximity to the ordinary. The supern...
Comments