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

Bartricks

Comments

Well, I'm sceptical about precisely that - but happy to be corrected. (By that, of course, I mean that I am sceptical that 'necessary' and 'contingent...
January 23, 2020 at 02:03
No, I've said explicitly that art is 'that which answers to the concept of art'. The concept of a chair is not a chair. Chairs are chairs. Concepts ar...
January 23, 2020 at 01:49
I don't think that's what 'always' means (since something could always be the case, yet not be necessarily the case). 'Has' to be the case would be mo...
January 23, 2020 at 01:42
'Determining it' is ambiguous. It can be used to mean the same as 'discerning it'. (The witnesses determined that Sarah was stabbed by James). If that...
January 23, 2020 at 01:40
Ah, I now see that the 'it' refers to 'exclusivity'. Well, in a way what you've said just underlines my point - which is that words like 'necessary' '...
January 23, 2020 at 01:26
What does the 'it' refer to? I don't follow you. I'm not arguing for magic. I mean, it is necessity and contingency that seem to require magic, not th...
January 23, 2020 at 01:20
They are not 'deciding' it, but discerning it. If we can just 'decide' these things then just decide that art is a piece of cheese and be done. It's l...
January 23, 2020 at 01:17
Can something non-agential write a prescription?
January 23, 2020 at 01:15
No, not completely - one of the reasons why it is not a perfect test. But taking that possibility too seriously amounts to just being a radical scepti...
January 23, 2020 at 01:09
No, I wouldn't say 'exclusively'. I don't see what that adds.
January 23, 2020 at 01:02
If archaeologists dug it up now, and because of where they dug it up from conclude that it is 20,000 years old, would they consider it a work of art? ...
January 23, 2020 at 00:52
It's not secret - I've made it on this forum before - it's just not on topic. But here it is boiled down to its basics: 1. Prescriptions of Reason exi...
January 23, 2020 at 00:49
Well, first we should not assume that there is some set of features that all artworks have to have in common in order to be art. What I am proposing i...
January 23, 2020 at 00:36
That's what you say. I say "if A is B, and B is C, then A is C". I don't think those don't mean the same as 'necessarily'. For instance, most would ho...
January 23, 2020 at 00:23
Take. Your. Meds.
January 22, 2020 at 23:42
I am arguing that we do not need necessity - that we can dispense with it and still be able to reason about reality just fine, find out stuff, and not...
January 22, 2020 at 23:26
All you are doing, it seems to me, is insisting that there are necessary truths. You are not showing me why I must, on pain of incoherence, accept the...
January 22, 2020 at 22:27
I don't really follow you. Let's say I define 'bachelor' as 'never married man'. Well, as Roger is a never married man, then Roger is a bachelor. That...
January 22, 2020 at 22:14
That's a misleading way to put it. It doesn't 'host' conscious states (for that implies they could exist elsewhere - they just happen to be attending ...
January 22, 2020 at 21:35
I think the bulk of the philosophical community - naming them all would take years. But the vast bulk would accept that some truths are necessary and ...
January 22, 2020 at 21:23
Conscious states are 'states' of a thing. That thing is, by definition, 'a mind' ('a mind' being just 'that which bears conscious states'). So if you ...
January 22, 2020 at 21:05
You expressed in an earlier post your conviction that God's existence could not be demonstrated rationally. That's really neither here nor there, but ...
January 22, 2020 at 20:47
I don't see how that follows from what I said. It just implies that that particular artefact is probably not a work of art (and something produced tod...
January 22, 2020 at 20:18
There were six beers in the fridge. You took two. Now there are four (which is fewer than there used to be).
January 22, 2020 at 10:59
Partly right. It would be like showing a Rembrandt to a dog. But also it would be off topic.
January 22, 2020 at 10:56
What a brilliant piece of analysis. Do say more. Really? I never realized. Me learn lots. clap clap. Hm, that's a bit of a thinker.
January 22, 2020 at 10:44
I don't see why. I have not claimed that necessarily there are no necessary truths, only that there are not in fact any. None of that follows. First, ...
January 22, 2020 at 10:34
I too am confused as I am not clear how what you've said connects to what I've said.
January 22, 2020 at 10:24
By our reason. We cannot know something by instinct, for unless or until that belief which was formed by instinct is ratified by reason is does not co...
January 22, 2020 at 03:43
Yes. That's why it isn't disputable. The idea of art is the idea of art, and art itself is that which answers to the idea. But although that sounds tr...
January 22, 2020 at 03:36
Are you an expert critical thinker? I don't think you are, because you don't seem to know what follows from what. So, once more, your views on what do...
January 22, 2020 at 03:34
Yes it does. It's true by definition. Art is that which answers to the concept of art. It is exactly what that concept is the concept of that is the m...
January 22, 2020 at 03:30
Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about?
January 22, 2020 at 03:22
No, I mean the concept of art. A concept is an idea. The 'idea' of art, then. We have the concept - that is, it is in our intellectual warehouse, as i...
January 22, 2020 at 03:21
What is it considered to be? Some kind of a fertility symbol, yes? Not a work of art. Perhaps it is a work of art - perhaps there's a degree of ambigu...
January 22, 2020 at 03:20
That's not equivalent to what I said. Persons, minds, create art. But we're talking about what it takes for something to qualify. What I am saying is ...
January 22, 2020 at 03:10
Well, I expect they'd think it was a urinal and not a work of art. Thus we should take seriously that it is not a work of art. Artists create art, but...
January 22, 2020 at 03:06
They're not 'defining' art. If you want a definition for art, here's one: art is cheese and cheese is art. There. That's obviously a false definition,...
January 22, 2020 at 02:52
Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. You know when someone says "I'm not a racist, but...." We all now know that we're about...
January 22, 2020 at 01:49
It would lessen it, but it is not guaranteed to cancel it altogether. The claim is not, then, that if an object passes this test it is necessarily a p...
January 22, 2020 at 01:37
By your own admission, you have no expertise whatsoever in metaphysics. And by your own admission, you probably have below average intelligence. Given...
January 22, 2020 at 01:22
Just try and keep inside the lines and resist the temptation to eat the crayons.
January 22, 2020 at 00:02
'no yo'? Hmm. Look at the pretty unicorn - it's all sad. Make it happy with colour.
January 21, 2020 at 23:45
I am going to draw you a unicorn too.
January 21, 2020 at 23:41
Yes, by all means.
January 21, 2020 at 23:39
You want an example of what, dementix? An example of a metaphysician making a metaphysical claim about God's existence that isn't a metaphysical claim...
January 21, 2020 at 23:36
You have dementia? Is that what you're saying?
January 21, 2020 at 23:22
No. An example of what, exactly, Pratis? I also didn't claim to be an expert. That you are not an expert does not entail that I am.
January 21, 2020 at 22:52
No, it is because they don't have a brain and minds seem to be associated with brains, not mere cells. For example there seems to be precisely one min...
January 21, 2020 at 22:50
er, no it doesn't. You're not getting this are you. You don't need to 'remind' me. Why don't you remember what you admitted in the last post. To make ...
January 21, 2020 at 22:39