Sure, but philosophy cannot give you what you seek; only faith can; so, at best philosophy can prepare you for faith. For that to happen you need to g...
What does this mean? I don't think you can fairly characterize Nietzsche's philosophy as "pessimistic". So, could it be that you mean that he had a pe...
Philosophy may greatly enrich our understanding of the grandeur and complexity of life. I don't believe philosophy can have any soteriological functio...
That may be true, but nor does Aristotle's position suffer... I mean, my point is really that, for example, whether humans are distinguished by being ...
The same applies to humans using language; and nothing in Aristotle's definition necessitates otherwise. So, the idea that the conclusion that being h...
I agree that it is a good thing that the idea of a 'realm of forms' has fallen out of favour. I do not go to the other extremity of holding to nominal...
Nor is it semantically equivalent to 'the animal that has always used language' or 'the animal that will always use language'. If I am identified as t...
By and large and/or ideally, humans are the "rational animal" or "langauge-using animal" (whichever you prefer) among other things: of course it doesn...
The objection is appropriate because that is your conclusion, whether correct or incorrect, from the "whole argument"; and thus I don't need to addres...
That doesn't follow; the definition doesn't say that we became human by beginning to use language, or that we would cease to be human if language use ...
Why would you consider something that is made op of parts to be a unity rather than a multiplicity? Boundaries are notoriously imprecise, so it seems ...
Obviously when I say "physical" or "non-physical" I am referring to these as categories as we conceive them. In fact I would say our conceptions are n...
I don't have much time: (it's the Christmas rush and all my projects are expected to be complete in a few days time :-} ), but you don't seem to have ...
But a discrete thing is considered to be one thing separate (or at least separable) from all others. If it is composed of parts and this entails that ...
Yes, I agree the self is neither physical nor non-physical. And I would say the self is not independent of the physical nor the non-physical. If we sa...
So, if we were to say that there is some immaterial reality completely independent of this physical universe we would just be talking nonsense; we wou...
I was alluding to the difference between breaking new ground in terms of form (the paradigm of 20th Century art) and in terms of content. I can use tr...
Cool; it's a creative misreading. And that seems to be pretty much what it's all about. I was being purposely somewhat obscure or allusive there, but ...
You've obviously put a lot of effort into this. So I read it, but you don't seem to be saying anything that I can get hold of sufficiently to respond ...
Actually, no, but I like your interpretation.Wos was remarking that "everyone" is suddenly adopting bird avatars; and I was pointing out that mine is ...
So, then do you think "non-physical" things exist, or are real, and, if so, then what is the nature of that existence or realness? Could it be complet...
It very much depends on exactly what you mean by "breaking new ground". There is one sense in which an artist cannot fail to break new ground. The que...
There is a distinction between what you might know, and what you might think that you know. There is also a distinction between what you might actuall...
The reason is simple: there is no 'one rule fits all' and the greats are the exceptions to all rules. What about Radiohead? Also bands are bands, not ...
I can't say which philosophers have influenced my thinking the most. The philosophers I have been most interested in have been Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, H...
The problem is that no cogent argument for your point has been given; and until then any rebuttal would seem to lack an object. You're just expressing...
See my response to apokrisis above. The point is that the concept of mind doesn't make any sense without there being matter and symbol. It's a matter ...
But it is just stating the obvious. What is the point of that point? I don't think anyone has been claiming that science just is metaphysics. On the o...
Apologies for the late reply: I just saw your post now. I don't have time to respond in detail, but let me just say that I have not made a really cons...
'Being' is a generalization from our perceptions of beings. Science studies perceived beings; particulars and their attributes and relations (i.e. it ...
This idea of matter/symbol as fundamental certainly has appeal. Substance, then, would not be matter or mind but matter/mind (where mind is understood...
Humans are designated as "human beings' in distinction to other kinds of beings. Stars, galaxies, planets, are all different kinds of beings; they are...
You seem to be conflating 'being' with 'conception of being'. Prior to humans there was no conception of being (obviously assuming that it is true tha...
My take on this question is this: Platonic Realism seems incoherent if it is taken to posit a separate realm of "Forms" which empirical objects someho...
I don't think reincarnation or resurrection, for that matter, are logically incompatible with materialism. But they are both incompatible with present...
So, you're saying that he was genuine about dropping the idea of re-birth because it does not accord with science, or it does not accord with Christia...
Sure, but who argues against the possibility? There are other positions apart form mere agnosticism; one could argue that there is no good evidence fo...
Sure, but I have read something of Leibniz; and quite a bit of each of the rest and found them to be understandable, despite their idiosyncratic langu...
Comments