I think that agrees with what I said? I would probably word it a bit differently to say: "morality is specifically about right and wrong behavior towa...
Again I was comparing the necessity of the mathematics, and inferences form that, that predicts neutrinos with the lack of necessity of inferences for...
I don't disagree and in practice I think that's what we do; but I was considering the question from the solipsistic perspective of Terrapin, which say...
I've said this before, not sure whether on this thread or not, but I count ethical thought as being a broader category than moral thought; moral thoug...
Saying yes indicates general agreement in my view and should not be taken to guarantee agreement with or even cognizance of every minor point or nuanc...
I don't deny that it is a matter of fact that the literature exists and is a part of what is generally understood to be the tradition. I also don't de...
These are good questions. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I can offer some quick thoughts. Yes, I think we pre-reflectively take it for gran...
Even if Zen were grounded in literature, literature is always a matter of interpretation. Surely you realize that? In any case I don't think it is nec...
Saying that nominalism is about identicality just is saying that identity is, for nominalists, about identicality, which is what I have been saying al...
Neutrinos are known only by observing that predictions obtain, and that they obtain is only known via precise measurement, so I still say it was a bad...
That's a bad analogy, because the existence of neutrinos is known via predictions and precise measurements of observed and quantifiable phenomena whic...
Well, I hadn't realized that you accepted the distinction between identity and identicality that I had proposed. If that is so then I have misundersto...
Yes, and I'm talking about moral solipsism, and saying the logical consequence of that is epistemological solipsism. But to discuss that would take us...
Yes, but this is in response to your passage quoted above where you say that people claim that a thing's identity is dependent on it being numerically...
I haven't said that you say that; I acknowledged that you haven't. I said it is the logical consequence of what you do say. If you say there can be no...
What do you think "that' refers to in the passage below, which you quoted from me (and lifted out of context) if not identity? (In future quote the wh...
No, I'm not. If you say that nothing external to the mind/body can be internalized then you could have no contact with the external world, which is ta...
No, fuckwit, it only "defines it (identity) away" for those who accept that definition of identity, such as yourself. As I always seem to end up sayin...
This is becoming ludicrous as it often does with you. Where in that passage have I said that people "universally deny identicality multiply instantiat...
Where have I said that people do "universally deny identicality multiply instantiated". I acknowledge that there are those who claim that there are re...
What specific thing written by you do you claim I am not understanding? On the basis of what exactly that I wrote are you claiming that I didn't under...
I don't need a "101 philosophy lesson" on what nominalists say. This is just patronizing bullshit designed to make you look like the teacher, an image...
What exactly have I said which you consider "nonsense/ strawmanning'? I corrected you for apparently claiming that I had referred to "strict nominalis...
Oh well, at least he has a couple of like-minded companions. I don't need to name them, as I feel confident you are well aware as to who I am referrin...
Yes, and he counters feebly by saying that empirical claims cannot be proven (which is true deductively speaking, although they can be demonstrated), ...
@"Terrapin Station" is mired in a worldview with rigid notions of 'internal' and 'external', whose logical consequence is an unbridgeable dualism betw...
"Numerically identical": if you define that as meaning that an entity is absolutely unchanging from one moment to the next then you have defined away ...
Yes, and in addition there must be continuity and sufficient commonality of attribute (sameness and uniqueness) across time within that which is being...
I find that hard to believe to be honest; I think you're probably being too hard on yourself. And I wasn't accusing you of being one of those awful bl...
No problems; I didn't read this response as combative. My definition of "a priori" is simply that which we know that experience must look like in orde...
I was thinking more along the lines that experience, to be coherently understood at all, presupposes causality. And we know that from experience, beca...
My understanding is that the synthetic a priori conditions of and for possible experience requires prior experience in order to establish just what ar...
Yes, I wouldn't say we have "zero autonomy" any more than I would say we have "absolute autonomy"; that 'black and white' dichotomy of 'all or nothing...
Hume said that we do not "observe" causes, but only constant conjunctions of kinds of events and that from that, out of "mere habit", we infer causati...
Yes, it seems to be "much ado about nothing". We all know that entities are constantly changing, although obviously more or less than other entities a...
Comments