180 Proof

Sounds like Schopenhauer's philosophy.

:up: What's wrong with this? e.g. https://bigthink.com/thinking/4-hardest-unsolved-problems-philosophy/ :chin:

The question is unwarranted (like 'Cartesian doubt'), so why it was asked is philosophically trivial. In a scientific sense, however, Einstein's quest...

Afaik, no one here has made any of the claims you're "arguing" against.

Demonstrate how "cognition" is "more fundamental" than whatever is (i.e. nature) that embodies "acts of understanding". https://thephilosophyforum.com...

Like atomism: we and the universe are fundamentally the same 'atoms swirling in the void'. Spinozism too: natura naturata (modes) are ontologically in...

I don't see any examples on this thread of anyone using physicalism as an ontological category. Your stipulation (as usual) is a red herring, Wayf. Sp...

:100: :up:

This seems to me to aptly describe @"Wayfarer"'s m.o. (and that of some other TPF members of the woo-of-the-gaps gang).

:100:

I tend to agree but for different reasons from the ones you give. From your 2020 thread How important are Fantasies? ... https://thephilosophyforum.co...

How do you know existence has "purpose"? What is that "purpose"? If "a person" is real, then s/he belongs to "reality", therefore s/he cannot "constru...

I don't think "intuition and reason" are "approaches" but rather are presupposed by "understanding". Their "significance" is linguistic, or discursive...

An inquiry into – speculation about – 'what (the synoptic results of) physics means for understanding existence' ...

C'mon, this same rhetorical question / rationalization has been invoked "In The Name Of God" by countless priests & princes at least since the Bronze ...

:smirk: Denial is a hell of a drug ... "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." ~Blaise Pascal, ...

https://youtu.be/ZyCN0Uzi26o?si=zHnq64T5UpG7Adrp :smile:

:up: :up: :roll: Wtf: map (description) =/= territory (pain).

No doubt derivations from Descartes and Spinoza, respectively. I read Kant as contra the latter (re: "pure reason") and yet inconsistently far more th...

:fire: Well said!

This is caricature. Paradigms like physicalism are not applied "to philosophy" but applied interpretively / methodologically to experience, science, h...

Only for subjects. Neither proves nor explains anything. And given that there aren't rational grounds to "doubt everything", The Cogito only makes exp...

:up: :up:

No doubt (like sin, miracles, angels/demons, ghosts & the afterlife (e.g. resurrection, reincarnation, spirit world)), "God¹ exists" nowhere else but ...

So, in other words, "the mind" is mind-dependent. :roll: "Non-physical power/process"? More fatuous nonsense. :lol:

So, in other words, you're just making shit up like "the ground of metaphysics".. That's Reddit bs, son.

:eyes: Put up or shut up, son.

:up: :up: Obviously you've not studied Spinoza's work. So what? Hume dispenses with this "axiom" (more recently Q. Meillassoux's anti-correlationism)....

The whole is infinite and eternal (nature); its constituents and their configurations are finite and temporal (physics). Logical relations – entailmen...

:up: :up:

:chin: E.g. 'a priori the real negates all unreals (i.e. impossible objects/worlds)', no?

This point bears repeating (reposting): @"Wayfarer" @"Gnomon" @"bert1" ... @"T Clark" et al

Great book. :up: That's evil, sir!

We don't. :mask: Yeah, but which happens to be true.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that...

And your point is?

:smirk:

Re: (woo-of-the-gaps) substance dualists such as @"Wayfarer" @"bert1" @"Gnomon" et al.

Yes. :fire:

"Problems" such as?

:fire:

:100: :up: :up:

:up:

Sufficiently corroborable evidence.

Thanks.

Even more so, I think of metaphysics (ontology) as a synoptic, rational study (contemplation) of fundamental (a priori) questions (aporia) ... from wh...

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts). Negative, or apophatic, theology is undefeated. A...

:100:

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false. Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable'...