Banno

Where did that come from? The clowns have certainly taken over this thread.

Well, that's a first. If you haven't been able to follow the thread so far, there's not much point in continuing.

forfucksake. :roll:

Where were we? You'd kindly listed some of the argument so far. To be sure, (1) was that we understand vastly more of what lies behind our perceptions...

Again, why 2d?

Pancakes are best served with a sprinkle of white sugar and a large squeeze of lemon juice. Why is the dog in your picture wearing pants?

I suppose the blue artificial maple syrup compliments the orange artificial cheese.

No. I read certain philosophy, and found it was wrong. There's a tad too much presumption in your prognosis. And very little of any substance to your ...

Nor do I, nor is that sentence strictly analytic - It's not true at the moment, for instance. The point being that there is considerable variation in ...

...and still not enough. A statements is not true if and only if there is a consensus that it is true.

, , if you restrict yourself to Physics, you will be misled. That you are now reading this sentence is true. Now it isn't. :wink: That's not physics.

Sure. But it's not enough. Groups of people can be wrong, too. There's a difference between being at odds with the majority and being wrong.

Ah, is that so? Is it true? Drop truth and statements cease to be of any use. ...none of which implies that facts are not true. Quite the contrary. Ag...

Well, yes. If it's not a fact, then by that very fact you do not know it. This is no more than the way that these words are used. And of course some o...

As I said earlier, metaphysics is inevitable. Analytic philosophy is particularly helpful in showing inconsistencies and lack of clarity in metaphysic...

I just do not know where to go with that. I don't think anyone does.

True. But beliefs can sometimes be mistaken, not so, facts. That's an important difference. ( already pointed this out.) And you know more than you th...

Saw this yesterday: Žižek: his key ideas explained. Your comment reminded me of the stuff there on Ideology.

Which raises the question of whether that is disposition or strategy... :wink:

That's what they say. I set out a little story on that for you, which we didn't finish chatting about.

Sure. I think it also all too easy to grab a passing answer and take it as verity. Indeed, this is far and away the most common approach - making shit...

I've noted your playing at cat-and-mouse on this thread.

I don't see why we should take any interest in your acts of faith.

We might be in agreement here, I'm not sure. Some folk would read the above as diminishing the import of verbal disputes. But I suspect that what we a...

It's not the whole of philosophy. It is a part of it. If you want to do Philosophy to earn fame and fortune, good luck to you...

It's a very odd thing for @"RussellA" to say - even folk with one eye have depth perception.

Wittgenstein's philosophy as remediation, or Midgley's plumbing. You do philosophy when you pick at folk's thinking, trying to get at what is going on...

You don't see the cup as having depth? Odd.

Have you managed to find Sense and Sensibilia? It would be worth your while to have a look at it.

No. I meant that if you have a choice, you'd perhaps best not do philosophy.

Use orange juice instead of maple syrup, or just skip this - the pumpkin will usually be sweet enough for those outside north America. And dice and bo...

A human is so much more than that. Being aware is so passive.

Yep. It's a question of preference, of what "parlance" one chooses, but I'll go with there being one table, described in two ways, participating in tw...

Here? Following on from the OP.

Call me credulous, but when I have the tea in my hand, that's what I mean by talk of 'physically existent". Well, it's atomic structure is not somethi...

The difference in parlance is a deeper issue. Sure, there are things about the cup that are unperceived, and things about the cup that we don't know. ...

But for Bob, there are two cups:

Sure. Bob wants to use Kant's ideas to build two ontologies - the thing perceived and the thing unperceived. It's not as if one's ontology can be utte...

Well, you can still either put sugar in your coffee, or not. Understanding the physics does not remove this choice.

oh, the irony.

Going back to the two cups, That you have to make such sophisticated an argument, sundering ontology from epistemics, what is from what we know, does ...

It doesn't. But when we talk about the cup, the pot, the cupboard, we are not talking about our private perception-of-cupboard, or the pot in itself, ...

, ’s intuitions seem out of kilter.

So "The woman who was mother to the king" does not refer to anyone? No, the relative pronoun is for both the quick and the dead.

Perhaps; I was not her confessor. But whom do you say is in the tomb?

Yep.

Hmm. Who is in the tomb? I say it is Elizabeth Windsor. What say you? But moreover, I say that, that we say "Elizabeth Windsor" is a question of conve...

Not seeing it.

Cheers. For my money the dual aspect account amounts to admitting the thing-in-itself is irrelevant, extraneous. So we might well just drop it.

Very droll. I approve.