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

3017amen

Comments

One is forced to conclude you do not know what the LEM is, how it works, or what it is for. It's 'for' a priori formal logic. And what is your conscio...
September 09, 2020 at 19:48
I know what you mean. I experienced the same frustration in the Kant thread.
September 09, 2020 at 19:46
But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, I wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true....
September 09, 2020 at 19:43
The philosophy/psychology/phenomenology of the dialectics of love, paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, you know, stuff you have no interest in... .
September 09, 2020 at 19:40
The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a ...
September 09, 2020 at 19:26
Not true. I use the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming, crashing and killing yourself. Was it true you were driving yet not driving? ...
September 09, 2020 at 18:27
No. This is why human's accept or reject each other's aesthetics within seconds while being observed. It's more Freudian than not. As you said earlier...
September 09, 2020 at 18:22
Yes, because without it, in your case of Thomism, no judgement is apperceived. Correct. And that is the part you keep denying. Love is certainly more ...
September 09, 2020 at 17:46
There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way. However, if one were to use som...
September 09, 2020 at 14:25
Yes indeed, physical appearances do matter! :chin:
September 09, 2020 at 14:14
I'm thinking it was more private... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/35/9a/a2359a654bdb3201ffcc6fc018fba641.jpg
September 09, 2020 at 14:04
Yes. It's been quoted by other philosophers that he was considered one of the first from his particular era...
September 09, 2020 at 00:17
Imagine that! LOL
September 08, 2020 at 23:56
On what "basis" are you referring?
September 08, 2020 at 23:40
No. That's formalism/ logico deductive reasoning not inductive reasoning. With respect to the former, and with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your...
September 08, 2020 at 23:38
Inductive reasoning. But with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?
September 08, 2020 at 22:56
Through the study of history as I mentioned.
September 08, 2020 at 22:53
Yes there's a lot of emotional baggage for sure. As a Christian Existentialist myself, I get the whole nihilist deal. But it's just yet another parado...
September 08, 2020 at 22:51
It has something to do with the past. Usually, it relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and...
September 08, 2020 at 22:41
See what I mean? Many atheist put a lot of emotional energy into their belief system, drop f-bombs frequently, etc.. Emotions are good, but unfortunat...
September 08, 2020 at 22:32
Historical accounting.
September 08, 2020 at 22:27
It seems to me in my experience, more often than not, atheists are angry. Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon. He coined the term "fanatical athei...
September 08, 2020 at 22:25
In Christianity: Jesus. In logic and ontology: logical necessity. In phenomenology: the religious experience. With respect to the OP, we can start wit...
September 08, 2020 at 22:24
Yep. Another reason formal logic (a priori) by itself (and associated concepts) have limited impacts on the " sentient " human condition.
September 08, 2020 at 22:18
Atheism already defined it as a negation, per OP. Your point?
September 08, 2020 at 22:10
The ironic thing is you are very likely to use formalism as your criteria for no God.
September 08, 2020 at 22:08
I agree. It fits nicely into the unity of opposites principle. Furthermore, anytime an atheist makes a positive statement of no God, they unwittingly ...
September 08, 2020 at 22:05
Ironically enough, times two: And any answer to that is going to be definitional and problematic because bespoke, and thus not one-size-fits-all. — ti...
September 08, 2020 at 19:45
Just not to be confused with the real, which I suspect you're zealous to do. — tim wood What is real about consciousness?
September 08, 2020 at 19:43
I would exercise caution against use of the false dichotomy. Dialectically, it's both/and. In this case, a synthesis between the two. Not too dissimil...
September 08, 2020 at 18:40
What is real about consciousness? Causational.
September 08, 2020 at 18:09
They (intellect/wonder) are kind of like mathematics. They exist. It's another form of reality. Indeed. Just like the explanation of consciousness its...
September 08, 2020 at 17:32
Yep, in layman's terms, it's called everyone's sense of wonderment. It comes from self-awareness. And where does reason come from? Does that mean inte...
September 08, 2020 at 17:08
That there was always a person. Because we're time-dependent, it's just an aspect of "person-hood " as it were.
September 08, 2020 at 16:40
Causation exists as a metaphysical reality from your stream of consciousness. Otherwise you would have to explain why/how you wonder about causation t...
September 08, 2020 at 16:35
It is simpler (not an intellectual concept that you keep arguing) than what you make it out to be; don't conceptualize it. You're trying to make metap...
September 08, 2020 at 16:26
BTW, ironically enough, a co-worker just showed me his newborn litter of pigs. we both felt happy seeing the little piglets next to their mom, and how...
September 08, 2020 at 14:08
If I understand that correctly (which I may not be), the one problem with that would be causation. If causation didn't exist, then the argument for a ...
September 08, 2020 at 13:57
Yes, that would be correct. No. The logic behind time-dependent Beings make personhood irrelevant because to get to point B (birth), you must have a p...
September 08, 2020 at 13:20
I would say TMF, you were 'wrong' to conflate the illusion of time with the personhood argument.
September 05, 2020 at 14:38
Thanks I'll check it out when I get time, no pun intended. In the mean-time :smile: , my gut tells me that it's worthy of a completely different threa...
September 05, 2020 at 14:15
Are you suggesting somehow that a person during the procreation process is a ghost?
September 05, 2020 at 13:04
In our context, the act of creating another human being (human's procreating) in our world of temporal time, we in effect become time-dependent beings...
September 05, 2020 at 12:47
Does this mean that a person is not real? Meaning if I have sex, and create a person, that that person is not really real. I'm not following that... ?
September 05, 2020 at 12:42
How is that germane to personhood?
September 05, 2020 at 12:26
I'm not following that, are you trying to imply that personhood is not real?
September 05, 2020 at 12:23
TMF happy Saturday! You and I both can appreciate the concepts of eternity, timelessness, mathematics, Platonic ideals, abstracts, etc.. Unfortunately...
September 05, 2020 at 12:09
Real is relative to what is not real. Now there's a revelation :smile:
September 04, 2020 at 18:01
Your example seemingly wants to speak to dualism. And your latter question speaks to metaphysics, the nature of time itself. Succinctly, I would say y...
September 04, 2020 at 17:11
Nice! The experience of the color red comes to mind as the infamous metaphysical quandary :smile:
September 04, 2020 at 15:34