All states are material though, whether they be rocks or experience. There's no gap in causality which logic needs to fill. (i.e. idealism or anti-realism). — TheWillowOfDarkness
Have you yet started praying so that Schopenhauer won't see those words? ... X-)A man so extraordinarily brilliant, quite possibly the greatest philosopher ever — John
Yes but Being itself is different than any particular being. Being is transcendent relative to being.Being immanent has no such connotations for me. Immanence is the being of things; being cannot become an object for a subject, to say that is to evince an incoherent dualistic mode of thinking, that is, if you intend it to carry any significance beyond being merely a convenient mode of locution; to repeat: being is immanent in both subject and object. — John
Why would this not hold true in the time of Aristotle? Voegelin's vision would be the possibilities of consciousness are always there - whether in Aristotle's time, or Hegel's. Thus history cannot be divided into blocks, or assessed linearly.Thus, there are no possible new questions now, that is. — John
This seems to be a very gnostic structure - I'm not sure what will actually happen - I don't know the end of history, and I think it is a mistake to think we do.Now, with modern science being where it is, spiritual science is possible; which will yield endlessly new knowledge in the spiritual evolution of humanity, if all goes well. — John
So what about the place divinity holds in your views? — Mongrel
Now obviously the material states are all completely different - but the meaning is the same! Hence, meaning can't be reduced to material states. — Wayfarer
Have you yet started praying so that Schopenhauer won't see those words? ... X-) — Agustino
Yes but Being itself is different than any particular being. Being is transcendent relative to being. — Agustino
Why would this not hold true in the time of Aristotle? Voegelin's vision would be the possibilities of consciousness are always there - whether in Aristotle's time, or Hegel's. Thus history cannot be divided into blocks, or assessed linearly. — Agustino
This seems to be a very gnostic structure - I'm not sure what will actually happen - I don't know the end of history, and I think it is a mistake to think we do. — Agustino
It was a joke :)Can he see them, you know, being dead and all? Why would I care in any case? — John
Because there is an ontological difference to speak Heideggerian to you between Being and beings.Being is the being of beings, so how transcendent? — John
I have my reservations about this. What about Wittgenstein's philosophy? Or Heiddeger? What about speculative realism? What about Marxism? What about eliminative materialism? Many of these philosophies tackle quite new questions or have very new ways of approaching them.No, the dialectical possibilities of philosophy must actually be unfolded along with the dialectic. The ideas of for example Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz , Kant and Hegel are all new. Hegel's master idea of the whole of philosophy as the logical shapes of spirit is unprecedented. It closes the circle and brings the whole tradition together. Any ideas since have been merely explication revisitations of ideas already inherent in the tradition; or reworking variations on Hegel's system such as we find with Peirce and Whitehead, for example. — John
Why do you think things have to continue in steps? There is an undiscussed assumption of progress underlying your discourse. And I'm not quite sure that assumption is justified, that's all.Once philosophy as the unfolding of of all the logical shapes of rational/ empirical consciousness is complete, then the next step for spiritual science is into the supra-sensible realm of experience and knowledge. — John
It was a joke :) — Agustino
Because there is an ontological difference to speak Heideggerian to you between Being and beings. — Agustino
I have my reservations about this. What about Wittgenstein's philosophy? Or Heiddeger? What about speculative realism? What about Marxism? What about eliminative materialism? Many of these philosophies tackle quite new questions or have very new ways of approaching them. — Agustino
Why do you think things have to continue in steps? There is an undiscussed assumption of progress underlying your discourse. And I'm not quite sure that assumption is justified, that's all. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.