You've contradicted yourself; you've said something purportedly meaningful about "it"; that it is divine, is an essence, and is "beyond existence". Ah...
All the sophisticated stuff—yeah, I can acknowledge that, where "seeing more clearly" could be understood to mean 'identifying more features', but I w...
That's not true; being a bachelor means that you have not gone through various processes, at the very least, being wed, whether in a church or a civil...
How is the model "better" ? Are you seriously claiming that I can see a flower more clearly than I could when I was five years old, because that would...
Sure, you can talk about us representing in that way. But if perception is understood to be representing something unknowable (which is in itself a co...
The external world is not an "hypothesis", but is where we live every day. If all we know are "models" then we know nothing about perception because w...
So, you think we are better able to see (and I don't mean understand, but simply see) the world today than the ancients were, on account of our "bette...
This is confused. You are not conscious of a representation, you are conscious of a flower. And it is not a representation in any case, but a presenta...
The problem is that proponents of "qualia" end up saying that we don't experience the flower at at, but that we experience only "quales" that represen...
Did Dennett say that was why he posited that dreams are "coming-to-seem-to-remember"? We all know there is, for example, a visual field and that it is...
Knowledge is conceptual, both qualitative and quantitative, so it doesn't consist in qualia. Your perspective on anything is your perspective of cours...
What are qualia, according to you? That's a typical response from you; anyone who disagrees with you must not have understood what you are saying. I u...
Dennett is a considerable philosopher; even if you might disagree with his conclusions. I think it's always a bad idea to reject a thinker out of hand...
'We are aware of things', 'we experience phenomena' or however else you might want to describe perception; these are ways of thinking and talking. Whi...
It depends on what you mean by "justified". If no false belief is ever really justified, even though we may think it is, then knowledge could indeed b...
I don't understand the question;can you elaborate. I just used it to symbolize original nature, what we are before the socialization process has worke...
What you say makes no sense. We have evidence that the world is not a disc. We have images taken from space. We have satellites that orbit. We know wh...
Batchelor equates the unconditoned with the state of non-attachment, which makes sense to me since our reactivity is based on concepts of what should ...
OK, but even though I've explained what I mean by "non", and what I think the nuanced (as opposed to the "straw" or stereotypical versions of) Buddhis...
You do understand that some reactions are liberating and others are enslaving, right? The distinction between negative reaction and positive response....
No, we can enjoy non-attachment to some things, it is just questionable as to whether we could realize non-attachment to all things, and in any case t...
I didn't say I endorse that view. Read it again: " JTB is just a definition and says nothing about whether we actually do have knowledge. If we do hav...
I wasn't making an appeal to consistency, although obviously consistency is important to any rational thought; I was merely pointing out that the vari...
OK, you've edited that, and now it seems that you mean that to be radically non-reactive would be "kind of dull". That's not the way it's portrayed. I...
What do you mean "harsh"? I'm using stupidity as an analogy to attachment; unlike pregnancy there are degrees. I don't believe that you don't understa...
Is that relevant to whether it is the best way to understand what enlightenment is? Should philosophers only be interested in, only take seriously, id...
My take is that enlightenment in its non-deflationary sense is a culturally mediated phenomenon. but since there are many cross-cultural commonalities...
The annoying thing about a "lecturing" tone is the adopted posture of superior knowledge on the part of the "lecturer". Those who really do have super...
Right, so it's only a matter of degree. Right, but only those who are really fuckwits won't let go once they see that the alternative is unacceptable,...
You're being pedantic; the fact (if it is a fact) that a few fuckwits cannot let go of their attachments even when the alternative is dire is not rele...
You should read more closely and try not to think in black and white. I said I don't know if complete non-attachment is possible. We all know that we ...
That's odd; it seems crystal clear to me. Try this: attachment in this context we are discussing means reactivity; or better, it means being invested ...
Depending on how you want to think about it, you could claim that any belief is not justified, since it is not absolutely certain. The acceptance of f...
Not being attached to the fact that, when thought about in a certain way, some attachment seems inevitable, is a substantial part of non-attachment. D...
The issue is obviously with what constitutes justification. But JTB is not concerned with establishing criteria for that; it is just a definition base...
The idea of JTB really is not concerned with whether we know anything or don't know anything; it's just a definition of knowledge. We may have true be...
Comments