Constance

This term has a long history. It is taken up to refer to a basic analysis of the world as it is understood, received by the understanding. It is the p...

I skimmed. The metaphysical basis of logic, as you say, and Wittgenstein: you know such an idea is an oxymoron in his thinking? As to the tutorial, I ...

He "ushers" the words? What could this be? Speak, usher, actually ushering is so vague one might as well leave it alone altogether: God.....then there...

Very Hegelian, and not wrong, by my thinking. But what happens when one explicitly allows language's abundance to fall away, and loosen its tacit grip...

I take my place among those who genuinely think that philosophy's job is to "discover" something original, beneath the complexity of language and cult...

Remember Wittgenstein in the Tractatus was adamant about stepping beyond what the rules of logic prohibited. There is this line that cannot be crossed...

But Kierkegaard (and I am in the middle of Paul Ricoeur Time and Narrative. see how he handles it) will "leap" upon this: that past is always already ...

Sure. Which experts do you have in mind? How about Heidegger?

But then, it is this Kantian prohibition I want to put to rest. Take a qualified Hegelian look at Kant: What lies before your eyes is a microcosm of G...

Not quite along the lines I had in mind. Don't think about temporal priority, rather think about logical priority as in something presupposing another...

But go back to the beginning: the good? What do you mean by this word? Why do you take this God idea seriously? I mean, if you're going to talk about ...

Odd that you make that left turn into "energy and its information" for it is a move away from where you might have headed, which is the analysis of me...

Well then, the proof is in the pudding. Clarity simpliciter is not the issue here. It is clarity at the sacrifice of substance. The substance I have i...

Sure. But in a more realistic way, we can ask how it is that language, "the word", constructs meaning that makes it possible at all to conceive of any...

It is from the Greek, and can be taken to refer to language and logic, and how it is essential to apprehend the world: apprehending the world, taking ...

The sea? Boats? This is rhetorical, right? But I don't deal in vague metaphors. Do you think Kant was a good sea faring captain? Why, pray, continue.....

But the question here is about the religious dimension of human existence, and 4d spatiality is a science term that has no bearing. You are working in...

But what is nonsense? Vague talk about the limits of logic and how this renders the most salient dimensions of human existence unspeakable is just dis...

But the question is begged: Prior to the Big Bang as a meaningful notion at all, there is the language out of which this theory in physics is construc...

Kant had one thing in mind: NOT to go there. Read his transcendental dialectics. No, they do not bring into its thematic distinction. Saying the Tao t...

When I say committed I mean the same kind of regard we have for any other fact of the world, and "facts" are doxastically binding . Mind/brain correla...

But then a couple of things come to bear. First, if you are, as I am, committed to the empirical thesis that phenomenal affairs are reducible to brain...

Because we say inside this and outside that all the time. The matter here turns on whether "inside/outside" talk has any meaning here. It's like a hal...

Yes, I see. But you did "ask" an implicit question of Time Wood, with "I shall await your exposition as to how the one might be grounded in the other,...

Certainly no argument should be determined ad populum. But then, consider that when it comes to Jesus, the standards are quite low, and often ridiculo...

Maybe I missed the issue coming in as I did. I took it that your question as to how the one might be grounded in the other referred to how an analysis...

You find this an issue with everyone who has their education, from elementary school onward, grounded in empirical science. Heidegger cannot be access...

Hmmmmm, a question: Of course, this division between the practical and rational is subsumed under conditions that make thought even possible at all. O...

The cat lives in the room, of course. But what is a room? one needs to ask, at the level of basic questions. It is a thing of parts. There is the conc...

Had to see where this was coming from, and reading The Question Concerning Technology is an extraordinary engagement. You see, Heidegger takes the mat...

Hold on. I am reading it.

Why not just read Heidegger and be done with it. Dewey was great, though I don't follow him religiously because I find he is out of touch with post mo...

But did you read "on the other hand"? I wrote: But there is a big "on the other hand" to this: Obviously there is in my knowledge of my cat something ...

This is where the post modern turn to language steps in: no, biology is not antecedent to language. Language comes first, for it is in language that b...

Heidegger didn't sound at all like Dewey. He was working in a vein of thought that moved from the Greeks, to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Huss...

Outside/inside certainly is a meaningful distinction, but it is articulated within the unity of phenomenology.

Just a follow up: in the natural setting, call it, it is not absurd to note that when a person leaves the room, then s/he takes away all of the pragma...

Take it bit by bit. I don't assume there is a knower outside the world to be known. Assume the world and I are one. Then in this unity there is a divi...

Let the conditions unfold then. I don't think we are bound to this phenomenological singularity because I think it makes all problems go away. I simpl...

A provocative set of ideas. First, I should say that the reason I want to give rationalism some presumption of favor is that individual identity insis...

I see. No greater motivation for joining a philosophy club, eh? Analytic philosophers are in it for the "fun" of puzzles, and are generally bound to c...

If you read what I wrote and find agreement, then by all means, feel free to disagree here and there. "Play" as you please.

It adds nothing in terms of explaining how a prism works. Nor does it explain how a prism is taken up as an amusement for a child, or how rainbows ins...

But he is a beneficial one, philosophically. It's just easier to turn on a light than it is reading Heidegger. This is the essence of the matter.

This is pure flippancy. And arbitrary. If you put something out there, then you have to explain it. I mean, go into it, and don't be shy about it. Eit...

But this is not philosophy's job. Obviously.

So tell me how it is not a phenomenon.

It depends on your level of analysis. A five year old will not understand the idea at al but simply talk about light i a natural way, but then, materi...

A flimsy rationalization for not wanting to do the hard work of reading perhaps the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. If you found out that Ed...

You have not, I suspect, read Kant? to understand existentialists, one has to understand phenomenology, this requires Kant. Of course, existentialists...