Janus

Suffering is not simply caused by being born but by the demand that your life should be other than it is.

I think it shows that 'not-A' has at least two different senses. The world is not as neat as formal logic. Formal logic may not be as neat as it might...

What about my earlier example:

:ok:

I don't agree that it is self-evident (or even plausible) that time is merely "one of the forms of our sensibility". If, as according to Kant, the in ...

How am I not addressing the argument? What point have I neglected to address?

I think you missed "under a certain conception". Under the intuitive conception people commonly have of the mind and consciousness and the subject a p...

This clearly shows a confusion between judgement and what is being judged. Of course judgement is mind-dependent, but there seems to be little reason ...

For me the idea of explaining the nature of the subject in physicalist terms is simply, under a certain conception of the nature of the subject, a mis...

Sorry Timothy your point there escapes me. I can't see how death, if we accept there is no afterlife, is not the negation of life from any point of vi...

Yes, all that. As I mentioned earlier the opposable thumb has also played a great part.

Naturalism consists in the idea that the natural world is not dependent on humans for its existence. Your view, counterpointing naturalism, is that th...

I'd have thought it is the opposite. If death is equivalent to not-life it means no afterlife.

Right so no counter argument or critique of what I've said just more references to your favourite authorities. Seems pointless.

What I said was a comment on that passage. I can't help it if you didn't understand that. Also I should point out that passage is not a quote from Hus...

Are you worried about what I said being an attack on authority? I explained what I think is wrong with ontologically absolutizing human consciousness....

:up:

Here's an example in ordinary langauge with the same form.: 1.Life therefore death 2.Life Therefore 3.Death. Both valid and sound it seems.

So species which do not create religion and science cannot be intelligent? I would agree with you if you had said instead "intelligent species which a...

I'd say consciousness has evolved from very rudimentary sensory awareness. So what is ontologically fundamental would be the pre-existent conditions t...

Yes, I agree that every species is unique in some way. For us it just happened to be symbolic language (unless there is at least one other species tha...

I'm doubtful that we would be in agreement as to just "what all that this entails" apart from the bleeding obvious.

"Though Spinoza’s Ethics suggests a monistic view where everything is part of a single substance (God or Nature), he also suggests that the mind and b...

We are a different kind of animal just as all the other kinds of animal are. I'm very familiar with Spinoza and I doubt he out of all those mentioned ...

I would put that a little differently since I believe animals (to varying degrees of course) do non-symbolic or non-abstract reasoning and have non-sy...

I was referring to a more modest capacity—the ability to articulate that we can use words and construct sentences. I wasn't claiming that we can artic...

I would say not by dint of reason but by dint of symbolic language. Symbolic language enables collective learning and perceived history. I believe ani...

I don't follow this argument. I can see that the judgement that "all such supposedly unseen realities" exist relies on an implicit perspective. What I...

What do you mean by the "sovereignty of reason"? Reason by itself delivers no knowledge. As I understand it the main principles are the LNC and validi...

Sure it can depend on how you define "symbolic language". Via symbolic language as I understand and define it we can explicitly understand ourselves t...

You just ignore any point that tells against your position. I've already said that I am arguing against the idea that because everything cannot be exp...

They are not explained by it, just as history, evolutionary theory itself, sociology, etc, etc are not because they are all different paradigms of inq...

None of which are incompatible with physicalism and evolutionary theory.

Otherwise known as reason or meaning.

Nothing is defined until it is in some sense "measured". It does not follow that the properties of particles do not exist until measured. How could yo...

It seems to me that the problem with some people's understanding of correspondence rules it our while a more sensible understanding makes it central t...

Right. I term it 'implicit knowledge' with its explicitation (usually termed explication) being enabled by symbolic language. I think it is plausible ...

It's just the distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic signs. The former denote whatever they do by convention. As far as we know only humans pos...

What you have said here does not seem to disagree with what I've said. I think I've said several times in this thread that I believe we can read the b...

You could respond instinctively to the gooses hissing which I would say would be a non-symbolically mediated understanding of it. Discursive knowledge...

I agree and I don't think I've said or implied otherwise. I'd say abstract objects are probably all generalizations, but I don't think generalization ...

Right it seems that is what my position entails. The liar is in ordinary language and as I said for me it is implicitly self-contradictory from which ...

I think of validity and consistency being inseparable. I could say the liar sentence is inconsistent insofar as it asserts that it is both true and fa...

I guess I have. Apart from the 'liar' sentence and the 'barber' paradox I can't think of any coherent sentences which are demonstrably neither true no...

I would only consider dialetheism to be justified if I could think of an example of a sentence which is demonstrably true and false in the same sense ...

I don't find that I can be attentively aware of looking at an object and of myself looking at the object in the same instant. The latter comes very qu...

Not lost. For me the liar sentence is neither true nor false, not both true and false.

Can you think of any examples of a sentence wherein both A and not-A are true in the same sense or context? For example I could be said to be both old...

Can you explain how dialetheism rules out the LNC? My point was that within any valid logical argument of whatever stripe there must be consistency be...

I havent been following this thread closely as it seems to me to be mostly boring. However I do remember someone asking whether there were any logical...