a general conception is not contradictory, but to cognize a singular noumenal object as a referent — Mww
the referent of a noumena is the unknown something that causes such an appearance. — RussellA
"to satisfy the formal validity of the argument, the 2nd premise should be expressed in modal terms: “we can know we act unconditionally” (i assume since there are other ways we can act too) — KantDane21
The very act of considering the object of our action, nullifies the premise, and changes it. Can't you see that? — god must be atheist
The fallacy would simply be invalid premise. The full premise is implied, not explicit: We know that we always act directly/unconditionally. This according to Atwell is incorrect. — hypericin
What part of your action don't you know? Gimme one example.
What part of the effect of your action don't you know? Literally inifinite effects, of which you have infinite numbers that you don't know. — god must be atheist
he EFFECT of our actions — god must be atheist
What about two words blended into a single one (scapegoat, portemanteau, mockingbird, ...) ? :smile: — Alkis Piskas
I don't think any of these words, with the exception of "shit," is a metaphor. There has to be a comparison for it to be a metaphor. To say "She is a trailblazer" is a metaphor. Just "trailblazer" by itself is not. I think "shit," as an exclamation is a metaphor, because it represents "This situation is shit," which is a comparison. — T Clark
If one states the terms being compared, is that not more like an allegory? Plato's allegory of the cave places our experience of knowing and ignorance side by side with an image that is meant to correspond with it. — Paine
Geworfenheit — emancipate
The word metaphor itself is a metaphor, coming from a Greek term meaning to "transfer" or "carry across." Metaphors "carry" meaning from one word, image, idea, or situation to another. — Metaphor
Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, — Wayfarer
The very fact that humans have a sense of ‘what ought to be the case’ can be seen as the basis for a metaphysical argument, in that it posits a sense of a greater good — Wayfarer
True, empiricism is usually paired with a universalism about reality that thus requires agreement between different first-person experiences, i.e. intersubjectivity, but nothing ever said that phenomenalism has to be entirely solipsistic, caring about only one person’s experiences and no others. — Pfhorrest
modern ethical theorists will generally try and ground any such accounts in the reality of social life alone, so as to avoid anything that hints of metaphysics. But I don't see how such accounts can be anything other than reductionist. — Wayfarer
Yes definitely distinct. The observer can only surmise what's happening based on their own personal experience. But there will still be that shared relatedness of observing another's experience that causes one to recall something that something similar also occurred to them.
With regards to yawning, you don't even have to be sleepy but when the person you're with (who is sleepy) yawns, it somehow causes you to yawn as well.
Or seeing your friends laughing at something you didn't yourself see but you still find yourself "copying" their reaction. — 8livesleft
"what really moves the altruist is that she loves us, and is therefore moved to care equally for all members of the ‘us’, for self and others. On this representation of the altruist, no egoism of any sort is involved since the fundamental object of love is a nonego. Notice that an ‘us’, a community, is a natural entity a plurality of individuals. No appeal to metaphysics, to a non-spatio-temporal unity, is required to explain its existence."
How to classify this account? it seems empirical in the sense that it requires no appeal to metaphysics, but also seems to be a loosely phenomenological type of explanation since the person, via first person recognition, one recognizes that they belong to a community. However, strictly speaking, it can't be both an empirical and phenomenological account? — jancanc
Compassion is so lauded by Schop precisely because it is something which gets one out of the individuation cycle. — schopenhauer1
The discomfort of others causes the self to sense discomfort as well and so there is the desire to alleviate that. — 8livesleft
“the real self” as noumenal, the definitions are opposed to what Kant himself posits. — Mww
Your author may have some points to make, but it would appear he has nonetheless begun his theory under a misappropriation of terms. — Mww
False equivalence? — Mww
A fallacy is generally an error in logical argument, while equating T.I. with solipsism is merely a gross misunderstanding.
Probably shouldn’t try to identify a fallacy without the argument from which it may arise. — Mww