If anything is an appearance it is known mediately,
The individual knows that he (or she) acts non-mediately
Thus, action cannot be an appearance. — KantDane21
Are you claiming my question is (somehow) illegal because it asks you to respond to a claim you haven't made? — ucarr
Assuming the above is the quote, is this a correct interpretation: causal relationships are always continuities? — ucarr
Do you agree that the above quote allows that continuities can sometimes also be causal? — ucarr
One thing may precede another thing without the preceding thing being the cause of the succeeding thing.
Is my above interpretation of your quote correct? — ucarr
Continuity alone does not imply causality.
Is my interpretation of your above quote correct?
Can you cite an example of causality without continuity? — ucarr
Can you take your above quote and apply it to your below quote? — ucarr
I'm curious how you can do that. :chin: — jgill
The parachutist has jumped out of a plane airborne at ten thousand feet. What happens next...? — ucarr
A film script is also known as a continuity. Characters behave and their behavior causes reactions in other characters. Action with emotional impact drives the story forward. As the story moves forward, characters change. This is the arc of the story. As we watch a film continuity, we feel and know the middle of the story is not the same as the beginning of the story because things have happened that have brought us to a new place in the story of people's lives. What Joey did to Cathy last night has made her become a more confident woman next morning. — ucarr
What Joey did to Cathy last night has made her become a more confident woman next morning.
What's going on inside of Cathy? — ucarr
Bottom Line: The latter, ultimately. For, according to the good ol’ bishop, without the divine mind, there would be no human perceivers, & so neither their perceptions.Bottom Line: Did George Berkeley mean that the existence of the entire world was dependent upon human perception, or divine perception? — charles ferraro
So that means that you accept that “x = not-x,” or “a tree = not-a-tree.” I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction to absurdity than that, being led to say that a thing is not what it is.Yes — Janus
It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem.Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the question is incoherent to me: I cannot get any conceptual grasp on it. — Janus
So, you’re saying that the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree?From memory and roughly paraphrased, Hegel said something like "every determination is a determinate negation". So a tree, for example, is defined as much by what it is not as what it is. It is not a shrub, or a mountain, a river, or an animal. This is how the game of "twenty questions" proceeds. — Janus
In fact, it's hard to imagine you don't understand it since you used the same word in the same way as me when you wrote this: — Tom Storm
L.o.l.,, why won’t you just (simply) define “assumption”? It’s actually quite funny that you won’t & avoid it by referring to a single reader for the purpose, such as myself.What have I missed? You seemed to have grasped my point rather well for someone who doesn't understand how assumption was being used. And it remains curious that you missed me saying this: — Tom Storm
A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’”But the absolute is thought as the polar opposite to the relative. — Janus
Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits?Do you mean relations between the smallest possible things? — Janus
I think that the only information about things is given by their relations, not by their identity. — Janus
I'm saying that the nature of anything which depends on its relations with other things is relative, not absolute. — Janus
They actually do, just no novel information.Tautologies don't tell us anything about the nature of things. — Janus
Is what’s “not relative to any other or context” conceivable? If not, why do you speak on something that’s not thought?It means 'not relative', not relative to any other thing or context. — Janus
... “relative to us.” Does that imply that if wasn’t relative to just “us,” it’d be “absolute”; that is, that it’s just because that it’s just related to “us,” that it’s deemed “relative”; as if a relation to someone beside(s) “us” would qualify it as “absolute”?Meaning what? All our judgements and knowledge, whetger true or false, are relative to us, so none are absolute. — Janus
... & you’ve yet to define what disqualifies a thing from being “assumed” or an “assumption.” When I first asked you, this was your response...No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — Tom Storm
This may be one of the least philosophical things that I think that I’ve ever heard (no disrespect is meant here, truly). Of course what you think a word means within your argument is significant. If it’s meaningless to you, how am I ever to grasp your meaning?It's not about what I think assumption means. — Tom Storm
The salient point is that there may not a straight forward 'I am' as the Cogito suggests. The experience of thought insertion leads some folk to doubt that they are a self and that their thinking may not be their own. — Tom Storm
The idea of thinking assumes there is a thinker — Tom Storm
Doesn’t the fact that those people think that presuppose that they’ve already determined themselves as thinkers in contrast to others? If not, how could they think that they were getting thoughts from someone else, i.e., distinguish between a sender & a receiver mind (so to speak)?I have known many people who experience thoughts who are convinced those thoughts are coming from someone else. How do we determine that any thinking you experience is yours, that there is a you, an 'I am'? — Tom Storm
Does something being a tautology make it false, if it’s really so? A tautology, just because it’s one, isn’t a falsity.The cogito is a tautology; if it is true that I think, that there is an "I" that thinks, then of course it is also true that I exist. Something is going on, that much we know, and thinking certainly seems to be one of the things going on. Perception is another, sensation is another, desire is another: if it is true that there is an "I" perceiving, feeling, desiring, then it is also true that I am. — Janus
How do you understand the term “absolute”?All our knowledge is relative...to how things appear, so in that sense none of it is absolute. We can think 'absolute' as the binary opposite of 'relative', but it does not follow that we can know anything absolute. — Janus
What makes something an “assumption,” according to you?Aren't there problems with the cogito? Assuming that there is an 'I' doing the thinking. And what exactly is it we know about thinking? — Tom Storm
Does what’s present change?It has always been so. I have always been in the present. The present is where I am now and where I’ve been my entire life. The present never ends. I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere. — Art48
That the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel
... then why even ask that question (in your O.P., i.e., "Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time?")? For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question [from the O.P.]). — ItIsWhatItIs
I think that to observe a change in nature which within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent implies that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'. — 180 Proof
....; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural". — 180 Proof
It seems to me supernatural is synonymous with necessaeily fictional (i.e. impossible). — 180 Proof