Right, but I don't disagree with that, and haven't said anything that should lead you to think I have. You will give up smoking if you care more about...
No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless ...
I didn't say or imply that it is a matter of deciding anything and then making the feelings follow suit, in fact that is precisely what I have been de...
Right, so you cared more about Buddhism and its ideas than you did about smoking. I have no doubt that your advanced age and the sense of the increasi...
Yes, that seems right. It seems that language is dualistic in its logical structure, its grammar. If that is so, then all of our discourse will be dua...
The irony is that @"Chet Hawkins" constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth...
If you accept that smoking is detrimental to your health, and you care more about maintaining good health than you do about gratifying your desire to ...
For me, he was a significant philosophical presence, and one of the most misrepresented modern thinkers. Some of those who criticize and even despise ...
The point is that we do not determine sui generis what is significant for us, what we care about, So what I have said does not support your claim at a...
This is bullshit. Of course there will inevitably be some categories that appear in both sets, but that would not be evidence that Kant "took" those t...
It's not apparent to me just what your skepticism consists in with regard to the example. Can you explain? I don't see how your skepticism in this exa...
I should have added that radical or global skepticism can be entertained, but not without holding some things certain, from which it follows that such...
The first point is that what is significant to you, what is important to you, conditions your desires. We all have first order desires for pleasure, s...
I accept 1. and 2. With 3. it would depend on what is mean by the objects possessing all the features we perceive them to have. Imposing the caveat th...
I'm not sure what you are asking me here. Are you asking if I agree that we are not in our own brains? If so, then the answer is yes. What if we said ...
A neat pair of summations of the alternative views. An interesting sidenote is that @"Michael" seems to take scientific knowledge to be definitively s...
To expect something, to think it most likely, is not necessarily to believe it will happen. Of course you could say that it is a belief that it is mos...
In the case of symbolic language symbols stand for something they don't physically resemble and they have no causal relationship with what they signif...
I think you're misleading yourself by claiming that experience exists within the brain. I don't know about you, but I experience things out in the wor...
You haven't. That is why I wrote "unspoken premise". It is also why I wrote that if you don't hold that unpsoken premise, then we have nothing to argu...
All of that is just on account of symbolic language, and no one with half a brain would deny that we do those things that other animals don't. But I b...
No, I'm not talking about inferences to the explanations for observed phenomena, I'm talking about observed phenomena. Things are experienced and that...
How is "classification of types" not equivalent to being concerned with the different kinds of entities? I believe other animals are capable of reason...
:up: How could we have reliable knowledge of objects if they were not experienced by us? This is all just hand-waving and insinuation. When you presen...
The point is that attempting to frame what we (reliably?) know about perception in a way that undermines the very assumption of reliability we are rel...
No it just shows how inadequate the 'direct/ indirect' parlance is, and how pointless it is to be arguing over what amount to merely different ways of...
What you're missing is the fact that light carries a great deal of information about distal objects, from which it follows that, contrary to your clai...
What's the difference between "kinds of entities" and "kinds of beings"? Why do you consider this obviously anthropocentric 'great chain of being" ide...
As I understand it ontology is concerned with the nature of being and with the different kinds of entities. I don't understand why you would say that ...
Please explain what you mean by "ontological gap", and why you think our existence is of a different kind to the other animals, as opposed to merely o...
That's your favored way of thinking about it because your Buddhist presuppositions require humans to be "more" than other animals. We can equally say ...
Just to be clear I feel no certainty except in the most mundane of matters. Beyond that I find it better to accept uncertainty and even cultivate it. ...
The irony is that in trying to neatly encapsulate and work it all out in terms of the enneagram typologies and fear, anger, desire and free will, you ...
The bodymind interprets what is given to it precognitively. It doesn't create what is given, at least I find it most plausible to think that it doesn'...
The first premise is not unequivocally supported by neuroscience, it is one interpretation of neuroscientific results. If all you mean by saying that ...
The way I see it the world is always already interpreted, so we are not going to agree about this. Our interpetations are constrained by the nature of...
I read that as making the point, since the empirical world appears to us, that without us it would not appear (that is it would not appear to us but i...
I don't demand determinable, metaphysical rights and wrongs, I observe that such are impossible. There are determinable rights and wrong in the everyd...
I meant that the transcendental can only ever be discursively "known" via ideas (the provenances or aptness of which are indeterminable). And those id...
I agree with you and just want to add something about the "it" in 'I don't understand it': it must be something separate from I, and separation is inc...
Comments