Janus

The self is not determinable, as, for example, an apple is. You say: . Exactly the same can be said for the apple, the apple is itself in this sense t...

Apparently unlike you MU, I already know what living and eating are, I do them every day. I also have ideas about what it means to eat and live well, ...

Right, I agree and I would not say it is of little consequence per se, I just can't, for the life of me. see its broader philosophical significance. I...

We know we are living, otherwise we would not be able to say we are living, right? And it would make no sense to speak about living well, if we didn't...

So, we are not necessarily living then?

No. I think that would be backwards. We always already find ourselves living, so we know what it is to live. The important question is what it is to l...

I can understand and agree with the sentiment that my opinion, per se, doesn't and shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand my opinion is hardly "ra...

Thanks for your kind words. I think we share a lot of common philosophical ground. There is little doubt I will keep posting. I just have to be carefu...

LOL, I have never claimed to be a saint or a mystic. The only qualities I judge people on, based on what they write here, are the kind and degree of p...

When are you going to realize you actually know nothing at all about my life other than that I spend some time posting on philosophy forums? If I was ...

Spare me your supercilious projections and faux-wisdom, Agustino. You know nothing of my actual feelings, motivations and thoughts, and only succeed i...

The world is in itself infinite: and I have never denied it. The infinite nature of the world, however, can only be determined by us, if it can be det...

This is incorrect for a start. Kant allows that there are empirical (finite) selves and transcendental (infinite) selves. This is so for the self just...

It shows bad faith to be always misrepresenting those whose questions you apparently cannot answer adequately. I haven't asked for anything like you a...

Nah, I just now commented on it. :)

This thread has not at all been about animals fearing death for quite some time. :s

If it's 'determinable' you should be able to say something about it in terms that are not merely allusive or poetic. You're very wrong in thinking tha...

LOL This seems to be gibberish and reminds me of Nietzsche: "They muddy the water to make it seem deep".

You seem now to be equating substance with the in-finite, and contrasting it with the empirical (the finite). I can relate, as I said earlier, to the ...

That's incorrect, I am expecting an explanation of why we should think of substance as being real, as opposed to merely formal or imaginary. The equiv...

Yes, but I wasn't asking for substance to be identified as some empirical phenomenon, obviously. I'm just asking for an explanation of what you say it...

True enough, I guess, provided it is actually possible to talk it out in terms that are satisfactory to both parties.

Not always Heister, not always...

Talk is cheap.

Bearing in mind that I think substance, unless it is simply equated with being, is an incoherent, inconsistent notion, can you answer these questions ...

Being is often considered as analogous to the ocean : "the ocean of being" . The waves generated by the ocean are analogous to the beings generated by...

When are you going to relax? You sound like you're becoming apoplectic. I am well aware that Spinoza does not use the same language as Heidegger. But ...

Yes, I get that the idea of substance is coterminous with the idea of being for Spinoza. But the question as to what is being is no easier to answer t...

I haven't said that, I have said that 'what is' presents itself as a vast field which displays a whole range of rates of change in its different parts...

You referred to God as being constituted as we are, as "being of the same substance". But if God is the substance that constitutes, then it makes no s...

You obviously fail to understand that I was presenting it as a stupid question, not posing it as a sensible question to which we should seek an answer...

Of course it's a stupid question, that is the point; it is stupid to think of God as "being of a substance", which was what I was trying to point out ...

The problem with the notion of 'God as substance' and the idea that He must be constituted as we are if He is to be able to act on us is that the idea...

Jesus, Agustino, get your head on straight; philosophy is not a competition! My intention was never to insult you. The same, it seems cannot be said a...

OK, so what is substance then? If you cannot clearly say what it is, then it would seem to be utterly senseless to claim that it is the only real.

You wouldn't say that objects and events are immanent in the world? Why do you think it follows that if objects are immanent in the world all we would...

Good on you. Me too...fuck the greedy bastards..

'Becoming' or 'flux' are words used to denote what is as it presents itself to us. What is presents itself as a vast field of more or less changing si...

I think this is kind of true if you think Hegel, but I think of spirit more as a process of expressing freedom than as any kind of substance. The worl...

OK, no worries. Since you took the trouble to weigh in on it, by taking the moral high ground; I thought you might have something enlightening to offe...

I agree that none of it was on-topic; that is hardly at issue. But your answer is not an answer to the question; or at least is not complete. Perhaps ...

LOL, which of those comments would you count as being merely honest expressions of the one's impressions of the other, and which would you count as be...

Yes, I think that's true. Ontology is only ever us doing ontology, right? We can't get beyond our own doings to the Real itself, as it is in itself ab...

I would say the sense of unfairness comes before the resentment. Do you think it is right that the rich be allowed to accumulate as much as they are a...

This is too simplistic, and ignores the fact that power corrupts.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. :) What's a "man period" though? I've been on a man period my whole life, as far as I can remember. Maybe it's time...

What could that possibly mean? If you start from monistic assumptions then you will never accept a dichotomy as being ontologically robust. As I tried...

If being is thought in its ontological (temporal) sense, then it simply is becoming. In the temporal sense, being that does not become, does not proce...

I didn't even mention 180 by name until after you identified him from my description. 180 is an online identity, so there is no question about "defami...

You can characterize it however you want Agustino; I was simply expressing my opinion about your grandiose statements and behavior. Why not start a th...