He has said many times we have no access to the world. If all he meant was that we have no certainty about the world, or that we have no access to thi...
I do not forgo such knowledge but accept it provisionally to the degree it seems plausible. My point to Amadeus was that if he denies we have access t...
I get that the "objects" Wittgenstein refers to are not ordinary objects but logical simples or something like that. But they seem to be as inscrutabl...
This seems to invoke things in themselves. Do you read it as suggesting that we can know any "internal properties" of objects, or is all we can know o...
It's not a conviction, it's simply something I see or feel. If I have two hands, and I can see or feel, I can see or feel that I have two hands. What ...
You have it backwards: I'm saying you cannot rely on empirical facts to support any conclusion at all if you assume we have no access to empirical fac...
Are the Skeptics skeptical of reason itself or rather of the common stock of premises upon which reason elaborates? The story about Pyrrho could well ...
This begs the question as to just what reason is or what it consists in. Do not those dogmatists and relativists give reasons for their stances? Surel...
The inconsistency in your view, which I have many times and am probably now again unsuccessfully pointing out to you, is that if we have no access to ...
I agree with your responses to the point where my intended response would be redundant. I think @"Ciceronianus" is working with narrow conceptions of ...
He does say at the beginning that it is an empirical proposition, so yeah, I'm disagreeing with that. I think it is a conceptual matter, you might eve...
I don't see the judgement as an empirical one but as a confirmation that the concept of something that thinks involves the concept of existence, furth...
Exactly, speaking in terms of the external it seems to be consistent with our general experience and understanding, including science—but the question...
Yes, the assumption of the conservation of energy seems to work in the sense of being consistent with most of our science. Does that mean it is true? ...
It might be a fact about the world, or it might not. Do we know what the "might not" could look like? Most of our experience points to it being the ca...
Yes, I think humans are generally fascinated with the unknown, even the unknowable—a space is left for the imagination to speculate, a creative activi...
I agree but speculative metaphysics is not necessarily inconsistent (Hegel for example) even if it might be thought implausible or empirically and /or...
What does it mean to say that models are wrong? Wrong in relation to what? If a model is useless it is useless, which means it doesn't accord with exp...
Right on, brother! Great philosophical works have their own aesthetic, just like mathematics does, but it doesn't follow that the great works will nec...
I think it's not a matter of shame, as if there could be a fact of the matter as to what is intellectually shameful, but rather a matter of personal p...
I'm not too sure about that. The direct realist would say "I see what appears to be a bent stick, but I know it's really pretty straight, because I to...
That's one way of putting it. Another would be that things present whatever it is possible to present of themselves to percipients, depending on their...
It seems to me that phenomenology, like any other form of investigation, is as secondary and derivative of primal, non-dual experience as science. I t...
For me a more accurate way of expressing that thought would be "I see a straight stick that appears bent". I see no cause for confusion in that—I've n...
It's a good question. I'm not convinced that speaking of things presenting themselves to us necessarily invokes agency on their part. Well at least no...
:up: Yes, in one sense. Spinoza. Natura naturata and natura naturans, commonly translated as "nature natured and nature naturing. The passive and the ...
All this seems hopelessly wrongheaded and confused to me, but I lack the will to try to untangle it, since I fear it will just continue going around i...
I don't agree that they are equivalent. Naive realism is pre-scientific realism, the eyes were thought of as windows looking out onto a world which ex...
The distinction you mention is either a phenomenological or a metaphysical distinction, and as I said Heidegger, I believe, equates phenomenology with...
Sounded like you were claiming it was entailed by direct realism, but what you wrote was somewhat ambiguous so perhaps I interpreted it differently th...
No, on second thought you are probably right, as I imagine there would be basic pragmatic forms of life common to all peoples, which are socially, if ...
Would it not be better then to say "human forms of life", since the only common form of life is the basic biological form which, as basic, is not cult...
I agree with you that @"RusselA" does not give an account which is in accordance with common usage and I said as much. I'm not sure if you misread me ...
The way I see it the "critical reflection" you speak about is the practice of phenomenology, not metaphysics (although interestingly as far as I under...
I think it is less confusing to say that the little light you are seeing is Mars presenting itself, appearing, to you. Language may be representative,...
:up: Yes, the seeing just is the representation of the thing, which would mean that saying we see representations is equivalent to saying we see seein...
Under your criterial demand the only "direct link" would be if the object was the experience. If the object is separate from the experience of it, the...
Comments