Janus

Shprucked if I know. But she didn't understand the question, so how could she counted as giving, or failing to give, consent?

!. For something to be painful is for it to be felt as painful 2. On a subject can feel something. 3. Therefore, for something to be painful is for it...

How could she be unwilling to give consent to something which she didn't even know was a possibility?

Yes, we find ourselves able to know the past and unable to know the future. And entropy determines the direction of the arrow of time, the notion of w...

I don't disagree with this and I agree with Popper when he says that metaphysics is not science insofar as its speculations or theories are not falsif...

You mentioned Popper. He considered metaphysics to be important, but just not a science. He considered it be, although not itself a science, indispens...

You might find Ervin Lazlo's idea interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3

I think you missed the irony.

:lol:

The fact that hordes of scholars have pored over them for one, two or three centuries demonstrates that there is value and insight to be found. What m...

I haven't argued anything like that there is, objective speaking, value and insight in texts. I don't even know what that could mean. All I have said ...

You seem to be saying that my interpretation of what I said, that you last quoted there, is different than yours, but it is not clear to me why you th...

But I had not denied having the common knowledge that you laid out there. The issue is over how we judge the general moral rectitude of the courts and...

I know very well what "the role of courts and attorneys and law itself is" and, broadly, what their rules and modes of operation are. It's one thing t...

I'm not saying that a lawyer would necessarily tell any outright lies in defending their clients, but then who knows what they might get up to in thei...

I know the law is the law, but I also know the law is an ass, sometimes at least, and that the system does not always render justice. We are speaking ...

What are you referring to? Are you saying barristers don't do that? Or are you saying they should defend someone they know to be guilty?

Rhetoric, hyperbole, histrionics, playing to the emotions of the jury, defending a client they may believe or even know to be guilty? That's not cheap...

So being affected in a significant way without consent to it is not a real-world consequence? Kant would not say raping someone is wrong because they ...

Your arguments are nothing more than... cheap bar tricks, in other words the sophistry of the barrister.

This is consequentialism not deontology. You are deeply confused it seems.

:cool:

Sorry I missed your reply earlier. What were the direct questions you refer to? I'd be happy to try to answer them if you are still interested. Firstl...

Yes, and when I said earlier in this thread: " I like the terms exteroception and interoception as between them they encompass everything of which we ...

I think what @"Mww" is getting at is that we don't know we are having certain thoughts, feelings or sensations by looking inside and inspecting them, ...

You are of course free to "dismiss", in the sense of saying you have no interest in, or that you find no value in, any particular area of philosophy o...

Yes, but we don't have time to investigate every claim that is made with little or no evidence to back it up. And we don't need to have definite belie...

Don't get me wrong I was not accusing you of justifying your biases. I was merely noting that people often do justify their biases by saying that ever...

How can you find counterevidence if there is no plausible evidence to begin with; there would be nothing there to counter.

Thanks, I'll take a look. :smile: Edit: so I looked at the article, and I agree with the idea there that potentials are real (and not merely abstract ...

If no convincing evidence is provided for a claim, and it appears as though no definitive evidence either way is possible, then suspension of judgemen...

So, you have to agree with philosophers to make it worthwhile reading them?

I don't know, I think if there is no "lexicon" to discuss something then it is simply not a good subject for philosophical discussion. I agree with th...

Your questions do not seem to address what I have said, and your answers seem incoherent, so don't worry about replying further, I've lost interest.

We are talking about possibilities, not particles. Although as a side note it is a common view in quantum physics that electrons are probabilities, no...

I have never had any argument against the idea that some kinds of experiences may only be achieved by certain kinds of disciplines. That is what I ref...

I agree, but the point I was making is that Emerson would have had no truck with some of the kind of fundamentalist superstitious beliefs to be found ...

I think it is unseemly to justify one's own biases by noting that everyone has them. It is not so much that science should be used for every investiga...

Which continental philosophers do you count as being mere "wafflers", and have you actually read, and made any serious attempt to understand, them?

Emerson was a deist and only entertained the idea of the "small g".

Only if you were a moron. It doesn't take that long to assimilate the central ideas of any philosopher if you care to make the effort.

No, I would not say that counts as a 'concrete fact", but merely as a logical possibility; and logical possibilities are abstract. I think that's the ...

You said particles could interact and there could be several different possible outcomes of any actual interaction. Firstly if you are talking about a...

No, I wasn't suggesting anything like that. Consider the following passage from the preface of Difference and Repetition by Gilles Deleuze: "The subje...

Can you give an example from science that deomstrates that particles could behave non-detremistically? For example in respect of chemical reactions, a...

I like terms exteroception and interoception as between them they encompass everything of which we can be aware. So we know thoughts, feelings, sensat...

The salient point of our disagreement is that I don't believe you are capable of offering a coherent account of what it could mean to say that possibi...

I'm assuming that you accept that indeterminism at the micro (quantum) amounts to determinism at the macro scale, and the physicalist/ naturalist idea...

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I cannot see how physicalism can be coherently separated from determinism. From a purely physicalist per...

So possibilities are both "non-actual" and "concrete facts"? Can you explain how that could be a coherent assertion?