Well, I think that it's far from uncontroversial; but it's a very complex and nuanced issue, so I don't think there would be much point arguing about ...
Not really a link but I attached it because you wrote this: "Even so, you underestimate how much the US has put into the military." and I posted it as...
Do you imagine it as though you were already in potential existence, so to speak, and then it was kind of like a lottery as to whether you were incarn...
It is generally accepted by science that all the laws of nature are reducible to the laws that define the four fundamental forces or interactions; gra...
If there are not rigidly deterministic laws of nature then there must be statistical or probabilistic laws, such that, for example, chemical elements ...
I agree that laws of nature, whatever we might think they are, or whatever we might think their ontological implications to be, are indispensable with...
Well what I mean is that scientists expect chemicals for example to behave the same tomorrow as they did today. Or when hypothesizing about, for examp...
I am not suggesting limiting options, though. I am all for thinking of every possibility we can imagine, and then working out how we logically conceiv...
There may be other logical possibilities than those I outlined. But if so, what are they? The point is that any universal invariance is going to be co...
Yes, but logically speaking the possibilities are that the tendency of nature to form habits is universal and invariant or that the tendency of nature...
If the behavior of things is actually invariant in some fundamental sense and doesn't evolve, then it would seem the invariant behavior must be determ...
I think Descartes is often unfairly maligned and undervalued as a philosopher. Personally, I am not a fan of substance dualism; but then I am not a fa...
I am referring to disagreement among people who do think a lot about those things; disagreement among philosophers that is. Spinozism, for example, ha...
If thought is not physical and it is yet real then there is something real which is non-physical. This brings us back to Descartes. The 'interaction' ...
Well, I don't think any untestable explanation like that can rightly be thought of in terms of 'plausibility'. Plausibility is relevant only to hypoth...
All this relies on the unproven ( and I would argue, unproveable) hypothesis that thoughts are 'really' nothing more than physical events. I would say...
All you are saying boils down to the fact that we don't see minds without bodies; and that no bodies are seen at all without minds. Yes, that is the h...
That's obviously a ridiculous example. It's a more subtle matter than that. We simply don't know what the relationship between thought, emotion, desir...
That is just an opinion; you have no way of knowing that. That they are always correlated is not "an obvious truth at all". Have you ever seen them be...
Perhaps you do, or think you do, but I don't have any idea what that means. If the two were merely perspectives on one thing as Spinoza claims, then h...
I don't have an explanation for it. I don't believe any one does. Do you have an explanation for it? I am not trying to make determinate claims about ...
What do you mean? I'm here speaking about my own take on these matters. I don't see your point. Again, what do you mean? I don't understand what you a...
I think enough has been said on this issue already. I don't think we are going to agree. For me, the identity of seratonin in the brain with happiness...
If God has perspectives that consist in knowledge we do not, then we do not know what those perspectives consist in. They are unknowable perspectives ...
I have no idea what this means. It seems like empty word play to me. Can you explain it to me? How can we know anything from perspectives that are not...
I don't think we can understand even how extensa and cogitans can be "perspectives over the same thing". I think that they are is just assumed to be s...
No I was always too afraid, because in that irrational half-dream state I always felt it would mean the end of me. I was between the ages of 17 to may...
I agree this is the core of it, so there's no point going over all the other point by point responses, you have made until we clear this up first. So,...
None of this has anything to do with what I have been saying. You are just playing with words; conflating 'infinite' in terms of quantity with in-fini...
Why change the term to "it in itself"? The 'in itself' is just the logical idea of what cannot be known even in principle due to our finitude, or more...
I used to have experiences like that, but not for more than thirty years, I would say. I remember it is as like being dragged down into a dark pit and...
Come on this is just dumb. The in itself cannot be for us because it is defined as not being for us. Otherwise it would not be the in itself at all, b...
I depends on what you mean; to say that we perceive mediated by space, time and causality is not necessarily the same as to say that we perceive spati...
That our conception of the in itself is for us is obvious, but it is conceived precisely as not being for us; in fact that is its definition. So, you ...
This passage clearly shows only Schopenhauer's superficial reading of Kant. Kant specifically denies that Space and time and the twelve categories can...
Berdyaev's point, as i interpret it, is that being shows itself at all only when there is subject. It is obvious that, understood analytically, being ...
To say that there is a transcendent God and the world, ( and the relation between them: Father Son and Holy Spirit, perhaps) is not necessarily to say...
It's not an issue of careful reading at all, that is your assumption, as though there is only your interpretation of what Berdyaev writes. It is an in...
Your first passage only talks about spinoza's conception of the "body' of God. And of course it is obvious that God is not a body in the world; to say...
Can you point to exactly where in that text you think Berdyaev makes the claims you say he does? I couldn't see it. I don't see how you can generally ...
Comments