Janus

Ah, but has it been justifiably overruled?

I haven't read much of Kant for quite some time, but I was pretty certain that he used terms which are translated as "transcendental realism" and "tra...

What you seem to fail to understand is that similarity is not a concept sufficient to substitute in all uses of 'same'. "Two dogs are the same kind of...

As I have already said the fact that the world of human experience, which is what we all experience, insofar as it is experienced and judged by humans...

Well, it works because the world that we experience is like this. Whether the world "as it is in itself" is like this is undecidable; but we can at le...

I think it's a matter of sharing the same function, or at least the same kinds of functions. So, a cup (to refer to MU's example) is designed, and pre...

:cool: If memory serves me, Kant referred to naive realism (and its more sophisticated transcendental realist elaborations) as "transcendental illusio...

You speak as though the way you see things is the way things are, period. So, are you saying that anti-natalism should be enforced by law? If you had ...

I agree with the distinction, the thing in itself is not precisely coterminous with noumena. The noumenal is like the formal abstraction of things in ...

PRECISELY!

The problem is that the naive realist insists that objects do, totally independent of all minds, exist in the same form (whatever that could actually ...

I would say that "considerable attention" is an exaggeration. How many philosophers, ancient, medieval, modern or postmodern can you name who have giv...

Of course there is not a single perspective for all humanity and I haven't said there is. Why do I have to keep showing that you are misrepresenting w...

Kant did not deny the mind-independent existence of what appear to us as empirical objects. Anyone who says he does, doesn't understand Kant, in my vi...

Stop being such an idiot. I think you know, or should know, full well that by "for us" I am referring to human perspective. I have nowhere used the wo...

That sticks like shit to a blanket!

Dream on, turtle man...

What I said was: The special theory of relativity won't help your case here because it is part of the "for us". The "for us" does not make "a useless ...

I haven't said it is true that "things only ever exist from a perspective"; I have said that this is only true with the added caveat "for us". To say ...

A purported explanation should make what it purports to explain clear, otherwise it is no more than a purported explanation. @"Terrapin Station" is be...

Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance has affinities with Ervin Laszlo's conception of the akashic field and David Bohm's implicate order. Ervin Lazsl...

Again, it seems to me that you are drawing an unwarranted conclusion here. Of course our knowledge is always "for us" by us, of us, in us and so on. O...

But this is not something we are entitled to claim tout court. We can say that "things only ever exist from a perspective, for us" or "nothing has rea...

Mentality cannot be seen as "something physical", so it's not a matter of bias. Bias would be to say that mentality simply cannot be something physica...

What you're missing is that no thought of a reflexive nature is necessary to recognize and feel the significance of objects, for either humans or anim...

The logic is the same with either "seeing" or "experiencing".Hallucinating an asteroid is not experiencing an asteroid, but experiencing an hallucinat...

Fair enough indeed! For some reason your mention of healing reminded me of these words in the poem by Jim Morrison: "Words got me the wound and will g...

I wasn't referring to philosophy generally as being merely a matter of terminological preferences, but specifically had in mind the the terms "underst...

Hallucinating an asteroid is not seeing an asteroid.

That's true; I think it would be absurd to attribute delusions to animals. Cognitive disorders or mistakes certainly. Heidegger actually distinguishes...

A mass hallucination of an asteroid is a highly dubious proposition to say the least.

Yes, it's probably one factor at least... :smile:

That's not really what I have been arguing, although I can see why you might be led to think that by the 'dog and bowl' example. I imagine the dinosau...

You thinking I said that is what is "wacky and very wrong". Knowing what things are is not (just or even necessarily) knowing what they are called; it...

You are misunderstanding the different ideas of meaning. I have already explained it; the inherent meaning of things consists in us knowing what they ...

It's not a matter of thinking about it; Things are meaningful, in the sense that we identify them, or better, recognize them, prior to any thought.

I don't know about you, but I see or feel that process in myself more or less constantly.

You still haven't answered the question: have you ever perceived anything that is meaningless to you ( IE, you didn't know what it is)? This is just t...

Well I could not miss the mark if I fail to fire the imaginary arrow at the imaginary target, could I? In any case I doubt we would agree about what e...

Don't what?

I am no scholar of socialism, but a quick search yielded this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism Capitalism is the valorization of self...

Leaving aside any desire to analyze the situation to discover philosophical caveats I totally agree. I mean what sense could it possibly have, other t...

I don't understand the question, Wallows.

Marxism is one form of socialism. One aspect of Marx's theory which a socialist might disagree with is the idea of the inevitability of revolution and...

Where I disagree with this is that I don't think it is right to say that the mind is not a part of what is given. It is part of the given insofar as i...

I agree there is no problem for our present talk about the age of dinosaurs insofar as we can say that if we had been there there we would have seen, ...

Because philosophers are more likely to have learned to see that following self-interest per se is not the most suitable path to a good life.

I wasn't speaking about "perceiving meaning" but perceiving meaningful things or perceiving things meaningfully. Have you ever perceived anything mean...

They were your words:

OK, so you said there is no uninterpreted nature to the world. Interpretation is an activity exclusive to humans, so prior to humans there was no inte...