This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things. — Bob Ross
Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world.
Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.
Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA
I need to see an argument before I can tell you whether or not I think it follows.
— Janus
It was a simple statement with no complexities in its point. But you pointed out something doesn't follow in the statement, which indicates you have an argument why it doesn't follow. You couldn't have said it doesn't follow without your argument why it doesn't follow. :) — Corvus
That doesn't seem to follow. Do you have an argument for why and how the fact that imagining is a function of mind precludes the possibility of imagining that the world is independent of mind?
— Janus
Tell us first why it doesn't seem to follow. — Corvus
It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus
I never did :) — Arcane Sandwich
I'm a Smart Fox :)
I'm a Firefox! :D
:fire: — Arcane Sandwich
And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich
The point about DOGE's activities is that NOBODY knows on what basis all of these wild claims about 'fraud and corruption' are being made. — Wayfarer
True, but I don’t see magnetism as a good example of more going on. It’s perceptible. So Arcane’s argument supporting the assertion that there is more going on than just a bunch of perceptible properties based on a distinction between seeing apples and (somehow not explained in the post) distinguishing magnetism doesn’t work. — Fire Ologist
Which anthropology has comprehensively debunked - many tribal and non-industrialised cultures are shown to have high rates of murder and domestic violence. — Wayfarer
Neither can I. I just believe in it. — Arcane Sandwich
We need light to see objects attract and repulse - all we ever see is light, we never see anything else. — Fire Ologist
Why does democracy fail to bring about what he hoped? — frank
It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind. — Corvus
Nothing to comment here, from me. I neither agree nor disagree with those statements. — Arcane Sandwich
Deleuze says he was an atheist. — Arcane Sandwich
As far as I'm concerned, Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit is the Ultimate Truth about Reality itself. I do not intend that as a polemic. It is simply what I believe. — Arcane Sandwich
Are you assuming that God exists?
— Janus
No, I am not. Fictional entities have essences, just as much as real entities do.
Because if God is merely a human idea, something imaginary, it seems strange to say that it is impossible to understand it.
— Janus
No essence can be understood. — Arcane Sandwich
There's nothing incoherent about the idea of a single unique essence. It's called pantheism. Spinoza was a pantheist, unlike Descartes, for example. — Arcane Sandwich
It's possible. Kant didn't believe in intellectual intuition, yet Meillassoux does. In After Finitude, he says: — Arcane Sandwich
Clearly illegality is not the proper benchmark of corruption, nor is it the proper benchmark for "incitement."
5 hours ago — Count Timothy von Icarus
The situation afterwards is hard to know. It makes me think of the novel, Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. — Paine
No essence can be understood. — Arcane Sandwich
It is impossible for human reason to understand the essence of God. — Arcane Sandwich
Then perhaps you'll be surprised to know that Bunge suggests that the Big Bang didn't happen. In other words, Bunge himself denies premise FTI10: the Big Bang did not happen, precisely because (in Bunge's view), creatio ex nihilo is impossible. He says that as a physicist. He thinks that the Universe is somehow eternal in an Aristotelian sense. — Arcane Sandwich