Banno

I think that's a bit too quick. But it's not an important point, so I won't argue it.

@"Pantagruel" might agree with Rabelais, seeing philosophy as serious play. I would.

I'm no expert, but in answer to , isn't the purpose of first philosophy, for Aristotle, to provide a firm foundation for politicking, in the broad Gre...

If you like. We might usefully differentiate between speculative physics, which is common hereabouts, and a more general investigation of the logic of...

As if the continuation of inane religious ritual and witchcraft showed that science was wrong.

I won't argue against any of that, since it's beside the point of my reply to the OP: It seems we agree that metaphysics does not have the special pla...

How? If anything, ethics is "centred" on the other; it is social, political.

That looks to be pointing to the overlap between ethics and metaphysics. A rule of thumb: metaphysics is about what is the case, ethics, about what ou...

Never a good place to start. I'm not. I'm asking why the posited inner life could not be as much a social construction as the self.

When you take first-person phenomena - observation - as your starting point, including others becomes problematic, as it seems you have found. But ins...

...as if this were a distinction that could be made firm. You yourself point out that it "only finds its relevance within that context". Don't both yo...

A potted summation of Wittgenstein's distinction between what can be said and what can only be shown. To which we might add Davidson's point that if w...

Yeah, an inconsistency that shows the logic of the argument to be fundamentally flawed. That there is stuff - reality - is fundamental to any discussi...

How do simulations help explain what is real? One argument might go: "it's all simulation, therefore nothing is real"; but then, the simulation would ...

Not convinced. Tools are for doing, and ethics is about what is to be done. Metaphysics is more what is the case that what to do about it. That is, th...

It was an error on my part - I thought you had responded to a different post... But congratulations, a worthy achievement.

~~

Hence Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley

Not so much.

The OP is illformed, of course. The notion of a philosophical "project" with some statable goal misses what's going on. The moment a goal is stated, s...

, Does the link not work? Try http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251532

Looking again, (9) seems not to fit that definition of metaphysical, either. So it appears that (2) and (9), both subsequently, if not falsified then ...

Perhaps. In previous discussions I've pointed out that it seems to be equivalent to ...a cause being an explanation. This relates back to the puzzling...

Note how all but one of your ten principles are examples of haunted-universe doctrines. So If we come across something that is not understood, we do n...

Indeed. It's enough to make you suppose they've misspoken.

Does Camus make sense? Did the man who claimed things do not make sense make sense?

No I.

:roll: Ok. Whatever.

If Wigner swapped places with his friend, what would change? They agree as to what is the case.

... and yet still agreeing that if they swapped places then they would also swap observations. The one would see the spoon, the other the fork. Ok, yo...

The point I wish to make is the simple one, quite a commonplace, that folk do indeed describe seeing things differently; and that despite this they ar...

What? I'm not. You appear to think you are. Odd.

Cheers, again. :roll:

I do declare, this counts as a cat, that counts as a mat.

Yeah, it is. One fork. Left, right. You haven't made a case for a difference, which leaves the suspicion that you only wish to hide your views behind ...

Exactly. The supposed problem with objectivity does not involve QM.

The point of the forks is that we both can see the different responses to the same thing and be right, meaning we aren't seeing the same thing yet are...

Why? Sitting opposite each other at table, you see the fork on the left, I see it on the right. Are you saying that because we see it differently, the...

Perhaps. It depends how that plays out.

, Have you noticed how folk tend to rely on this distinction as if it were an argument? I don't understand that. Ontology and epistemology are not lik...

Cheers, Apo.

so long as it’s “we” who decide, it’ll do.

It's a philosophy forum, so, yes. Better, the mooted distinction between epistemology and ontology is here misplaced. Always, already interpreted.

Just real. Arses on armchairs. What is foundational depends on what one is doing. (Congratulations on using "arse", not "ass")

But I was, in the part you quoted... so you are not addressing that? "The cat is on the mat" supposes cats and mats. The relevance is that such stuff ...

But doubt presupposes certainty. One can doubt something, but one cannot coherently doubt everything. Descartes never doubted the language in which he...

The nature of materialism? Or of matter? This old armchair is solid, yet mostly space. And saying this is no contradiction, just a concatenation of de...

Such Cartesian bullshit isn't going to help you understand how things are.

A shame, since it is right. it's just that we get to decide what counts as a simple.

That you think this is why you have so much difficulty with these notions. There are perceptions, and there are things perceived. The only situations ...