Aaron R

Agree with @"John" that truth is just "what is the case". In my opinion, objectivity has to do with justification, and not with truth per se.

I would like to suggest that what you're calling "the critique of pure logic" really boils down this: pointing out that classical accounts of represen...

Sorry for the delayed reply, Streetlight. I have to be brief for lack of time, so here's a simple question to cut-to-the-chase: what precisely is our ...

Yep, more or less.

There is a relation of exclusion involved here, but (as others have alluded to) it's the exclusion of contrariety rather than contradiction. So for ex...

That's a delicate project, insofar as any such critique must itself take some logical form. While certainly not an impossible task, one must be carefu...

It seems that you're real beef here is not with identity and categorization per se, but with the uncritical or dogmatic application of categories (esp...

Streetlight. I feel that the title of your thread is misleading, as you yourself seem to acknowledge in the quote above. For given all that you have s...

It seems that by "shallow" you simply mean "finite"? Is it surprising that finite reasoners would be limited to the construction and understanding of ...

Dennett has a point, but we also have to take what he says with a grain of salt. It's a sad day when the only way to advance your career as an academi...

I'm undecided. I tend to think that correspondence has some role to play in the theory of truth, but I don't think it works on its own. So you don't a...

In every day speech I most commonly hear the word truth being used in sentences such as "well, yes, I suppose that's true", "that is so true!", "you t...

I agree that thinking about truth as a property of statements is confusing. Nevertheless, truth is something that is most commonly ascribed to stateme...

It seems like truth and actuality are conceptually distinct. Statements that describe non-actual states of affairs can be true (e.g. "Harry Potter is ...

The word "object" is being used by Brassier and others in an entirely generic sense, and is intended to subsume anything that anyone (i.e. "the subjec...

Hi Schopenhauer. Sellars distinguished between the "mind-body" problem on the one hand, and the "sensorium-body" problem on the other and held that, t...

You might find this interesting, if you haven't already read it: http://bebereignis.blogspot.com/2011/07/brassier-and-sellars-on-sensation-and.html

No problem mcdoodle. As for Wolfendale's preoccupation with objects, you have to be able to appreciate the distinction he's making between the transce...

Thanks for the clarification, Streetlight. Some thoughts for consideration: 1. You seem very keen to avoid leveraging the concept of representation, a...

Hi mcdoodle. Sorry for the delayed reply. Here are some thoughts on what you wrote in your last post: I hope this doesn't come off as completely dismi...

Hi Michael, you might be right. I think there is some decent textual evidence to support the conclusion that Streetlight intends to claim that meaning...

Hi Streetlight. Thanks for the great post! I've been wrestling with similar questions for a while now, and while I find the idea that meaning producti...

But the theatre can be a forum for entering into the space of reasons and for making claims. Claims do not have to be expressed verbally, they can be ...

I am saying that there's no good reason to believe this insofar as there's no good reason for accepting the reductionism on which it is based.

But the apple you take yourself to perceive is not just the electro-magnetic radiation and subatomic particles that you claim "explains" the perceptio...

Hi Michael. I must apologize in advance for the length of this post. I usually try to keep my posts to a more modest length, but this issue is complic...

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but I think you did: Perhaps you did not mean to say that? Hmm...I'm not convinced that's right, but I need to think it ...

If you type "Reality Without Reference PDF" into google you'll find a link to a PDF copy the book "Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation" which cont...

I know this was directed at Jamalrob, so I apologize for butting in and ruining the flow of the discussion, but I can't resist... We can't have any id...

Right, but the distinction is not grounded in the fact that the one body is invincible and the other is not. It's grounded in my understanding of what...

I don't think that follows from quantum mechanics so much as it follows from reductionistic metaphysics/ontology: that is, from thinking that the obje...

Hi Michael. You raise some good questions, but I don't have time to reply at the moment. I'll try to get to it soon...

I don't think this matters. The statement of yours that I initially responded to argued that we ought to drop the distinction between the real and the...

That doesn't seem right. The person living in the Matrix would deny that they are lying in a vat of goo attached to an electro-magnetic power generato...

But we weren't initially considering the possibility of being in "opposite-land", were we? We were initially just discussing the distinction between t...

That's precisely what is under discussion, ins't it? I've proposed that the distinction between 'real' and 'fake' ought to be grounded in whatever cau...

Do you think so? If one believes that roller coasters are made out of thousands of tons of wood and metal, then to become unplugged is to be confronte...

It's the "different things" part that is relevant, though, isn't it? The reason we call the virtual roller coaster "virtual" rather than "real" is bec...

Don't we treat them as "metaphysically" different precisely on the basis of what we know about how the two experiences were causally mediated? We call...

Sorry for the delayed reply. Haven't had as much spare time over the last couple of days... That doesn't seem quite right. If someone were to stipulat...

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I still think your criticisms are a bit off the mark. Wolfendale is specifically concerned with disco...

In response to your first paragraph, I'm not sure the substitution of "kinds" for "particulars" makes a difference. I still think that the one questio...

I still think you're kinda missing the point. Again, he's not describing actual practice, he's describing the norms of rationality. He's arguing that ...

Hi John. In regard to your first point, I think there's a difference. The first question is about discourse, and the second question is about the real...

Welcome John! So, I think there needs to be a distinction between the questions "what is real" and "what does it mean to say that something is real". ...

I do have some sympathies with ontic structural realism, though I wouldn't endorse the manner in which it is typically motivated, and I'm not sure I'd...

Thanks for the response. I would agree that the boundaries of the real can vary depending on the shared assumptions of the people communicating in any...

In your initial post you had stated in reference to the actual denizens of future generations that "we cannot actually refer to them (as beings)...we ...

Thanks!

I'll take a stab. First, it might be worth briefly reviewing the way that Chalmers makes the distinction. For Chalmers, the distinction between consci...