But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed. — Mikie

It is now patently clear you’re communicating in bad faith.

Take care buddy.

it's still just rhetorical hyperbole rather than making a factual moral claim about right or wrong. — Vaskane

I agree. But that isn't his position. Which was my point. But it seems we more or less agree on what's actually happened.

Check ya DM's mate

Currently looking at a lot of Opera (on top of In a Silent Way - Miles Davis, and Gregorio Allegri's Miserere)

Mario Lanza and Jussi Bjorling's performances of La Donna e Mobile are absolutely phenomenal.

Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else. — Mikie

The irony burns.


Hi again Vaskane,

It seems you're under a false impession about my part in this exchange. Very well may be my doing, though so i apologise - and i will note that as i go. But it is entirely wrong to say that I care much at all about the 'buffoon' issue. It is minor, uninteresting and a passing comment in my initial response. You might see my response as emotional - sure - but it was mild, and in passing.
What is substantive, and on which, Mikie and I actually exchanged, is the moral valence of caring, or not caring (to different degrees, i can assume) about the climate crisis (and nominally, what to do about it).
I disagree that not caring is objectively immoral. Mikie thinks it is. That's the disagreement. It is not emotional. It is not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of my subjective position vs his attempt to make it objectively immoral... about whether "I don't really care about climate change" is a statement illustrating immorality. I disagree, he appears to think it does, regardless of any potential objections. So, up front, I want to make that extremely clear. I don't give a monkey's about any ongoing discussion to do with 'buffoon' in this thread. It was a throwaway comment, though one I agree with still.

Of course it's an emotional reaction, but that doesn't make it a fallacy. It's okay to express emotions in arguments. It's an emotional reaction that I happen to agree with. — Vaskane

Fair enough, certainly can't argue with this; totally reasonable. As noted, it didn't reach ad hominem - but I didn't attempt to claim it was a fallacy or ad hominem. I merely suggested it would be better not to. Which I, subjectively, think is the case. That's all I'll say about this.

The facts of the matter aren't about moral correctness. There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane

Hmm... I readily (even in the comment you're responding to) agreed. Unsure if you've missed that this was not the subject of our exchange(as outline in my preamble), from my perspective, and as I tried to point out multiple times. If i failed, that's on me. But let this be clarity there, in any case.

I don't see anywhere in his sentiments that detail right and wrong in the sense of "Good" and "Evil," again Mikie is saying the guy is acting being a fool for disregarding the science. — Vaskane

Hmm, fair enough in the face of taking that 'buffoon' element of the exchange as major I have no problem with that; you're more than welcome to hold that view with no objection for me... But, because to me it was extremely minor, I have no idea why you're/he are fixated on the way I communicated about his emotional response. Seems hypocritical (and ironic, considering Mikie's last little bit of immature nonsense just there is exactly a gripe about communication, while accusing me of same...wild). But that said, it also doesn't bother me, just seems odd.

The substantive exchange, and the 'gripe', for my part was directly related to his (in my view) asserting my moral response to (the established facts of) Climate Change have a definite, inarguable moral value in the negative. The 'buffoon' disagreement was very much secondary and unimportant to my mind. If it didn't come across that way, again, apologies for not achieving enough clarity.

It would be like you going to the doctor and finding out the science indicates you've an aggressive cancer, possibly too late to cure, but there is still a chance to rid your body of it should you act now, and you choose ignoring their findings, like "oh well, I don't have cancer, I feel relatively fine." — Vaskane

Its not at all like that to my mind, but taking it as an analogy, sure. Still, there is no moral content in either that reaction, or an extremely cautious one. Those just are the two reactions we've chosen to discuss. Mikie thinks otherwise. That's the conflict.

I rest my point, Mikie isn't making a moral argument about "Right" or "Wrong." — Vaskane

Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha?

I'm not engaging with a complete ignorance of that fact (assuming you've read the exchange). Otherwise, thank you for a rather pleasant exchange.

Hi Vaskane :)

At risk of this being another round of redundant talking past each other... (so, forgive if i bow out quickly. I can see it's not the best use of time if that does occur)

To which we can clearly see you're having an emotional reaction — Vaskane

Do you not see Mikie calling someone a buffoon as an emotional reaction? Because to me it is one without doubt, and if you do not agree we have no further to discuss. The premises we're on aren't the same. I could accept my response is emotional in the sense that it irked me that Mikie is so intensely convinced of his moral correctness, yes treats others with moral disregard. Noticing things is naturally an emotional process.
So, from my perspective, to deny that would be a patent disregard for the facts of the matter. It is a personal attack, not an attack on the argument. Though, I note it doesn't reach the ad hominem level. I guess this just isn't an issue. Pretending his response was not emotional, but my noting it was, is incoherent.

Kasperanza's rhetoric is completely overturned by science — Vaskane

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Based on only the comments that have been addressed, his position isn't one on the science. It's one on the moral status of the facts of the matter (given you both are saying his 'facts of hte matter' are counter to science, I defer, but it's not all that relevant as I never addressed that in any way whatsoever and so responding to it misses me completely). The comments i've addressed could well be in light of accepting the entire mainstream position, including recommendations on combatting CC. If that's not his intention, sure, but this just further supports my intuition that Mikie's responses are confused emotional comments about something I never claimed or addressed.

I simply said calling someone a buffoon might not be hte best idea. It isn't. Clearly.

You're turning it into a debate about the morality of change being either good or bad. — Vaskane

That is exactly not what I did. My entire position rests on change being neither good nor bad without an arbitrary framework to measure it against(and I refrain from choosing one, basically. Could be A-moral i guess). If that isn't clear, I apologise, but i'm unable to formulate a version of what I've said earlier more clearly if that is the case. A failing on my part. But, regardless of that failing, it is entirely counter to reality to pretend I'm making any kind of moral argument about climate change.

Doesn't over turn the science though, that science by independent neutral organizations, not the "science" funded to find counter arguments against climate change, which indicates terrible consequences if solutions, necessarily, aren't found and met. — Vaskane

At no stage did I even tangentially intimate that I was anywhere near denying any of the science around anthropocentric climate change. I actually actively acknowledge it, and my, let's say trust, in it, multiple times. I also observed Mikie's position as admirable. I actually called the situation a crisis at one point. If that doesn't indicate an emotional state that is in line with Mikie's, im unsure what would. I simply reject his moral position and find nothing convincing in his warblings about it.

Further, and contrary to your assertion, Mikie was, in fact, arguing that for me to hold the position I hold, i must be suffering some kind of defect of humanity (his initial formulation was to charge me with psychopathy. Laughable in many ways, not worth addressing further. I've dealt with it). So, at-base I'm unsure where this is relevant, unless you're (maybe accidentally) actually responding to Kasperanza. Though, in that case, I suppose i can ignore it. He may well have been saying untrue, or misleading, or wilfully ignorant things ( in fact, i would agree, it's just not relevant)

In fact, an object is only its set of properties, in that if all the object's properties were removed, then no object would remain. — RussellA

Are things more than their parts?

I'm late to the party but ordering it today! I'll be sure to check the version :) — Daniel Duffy

Good. I think i F'd up on this one - I got F. Max Müller's translation, which I take to be neither well-renowned or particularly good, because it was available and cheapish.

I take it that the Cambridge translation by Guyer and Wood is considered the best when considering a ratio between readability and accuracy to the original.

No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about: — Mikie

Suffice to say I cannot understand how it is even possible, without what I've asserted, that you're appealing to feelings to support your position - whcih is exactly what you've done. However, the below... So, adieu :)

Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh? — unenlightened

Fair; hahahaha

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true. — Mikie

Hmm.. I think I see what you're trying to establish - putting the glibness aside, I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back(I would also posit those things are a result of a lack of impulse control, rather than an actual intention to do those things actively, as it were).

You're conflating actions (readily understood to represent a defect (though, I would argue its not a moral defect, but a neurological defect per above hypothesis)), and a mere moral difference of opinion. (be careful not to jump forward to actions from here... they may be inferred, but not entailed. I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway). I don't have any particular view on actions being taken - Could be good to do so, might not be.

In this case, there is. — Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy.
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this.

Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. — Mikie

Hmm, again, that's just your position. Nothing more, nothing less, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone but you. There is absolutely nothing factual, objective, or verifiable about that claim.

So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism. — Mikie

Perhaps. But that is a far cry from your position elsewhere, even in this same post. I also pointed out i'm an anti-natalist. A fully valid position that results in my not really caring about this issue. No nihilism required. I still very much enjoy my life when i can, and appreciate that those around me also do. I recommend Rivka Weinberg on this particular topic and how it doesn't denote any kind of anti-social attitude.

But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. — Mikie

This is true - and I am not denying there are swathes of (lol) denialists who come to the same conclusion as I (emotionally speaking) or, more importantly, an actively negative position on combating CC, but deny the base facts of your position (i.e moral reaction). So, we've got at least three distinct positions - none of which require psychopathy to be inferred. Assuming what you mean is nihilism, that's not required either as outlined above.

Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me. — Mikie

Yes, and yes :)

I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person. — Mikie

You might want to pull back from using examples that are readily distinguishable. I'm not going to answer to this one. The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. That's a rather silly and kafka-esque illustration to my mind.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny — Mikie

Scrutinize all you want. That's actually what we're doing here. I've rejected one black and white fallacy around the position. and in fact, semi-accepted one other. That's all. The discussion is on going.

Ive denied only the logical inference of psychopathy from differing morals. That's ...absolutely fine.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. — Mikie

It isn't, So there we are :)

Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels. — Mikie

That is exactly what you are doing. Your emotional reaction is causing you to make wild speculations about another person's mental state - because you cannot fathom the possibility that the amount of time and effort you've sunk into this topic might be relatively unimportant (see, i can do it too!).

Neither my take there, or yours, is in any way reasonable. We do not disagree about hte facts. We have a different moral reaction within the bounds of general human cognition. I am not alone, and I am not even on the fringes in this. If you're seriously suggesting there is only one allowable moral reaction to the climate crisis, I cannot continue taking you seriously.

Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance. — Mikie

Sure, and I did thank you for not taking the 'latter' route :) . But, neither is required or inferable. Both speak a bit more to the shakiness of your conviction, to a third party. Morals just differ... Whether that's 'correct' ethically isn't the question here. There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.

But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.” — Mikie

I would say, yes, and i would even ascribe 'ignorance' to the commenter. But this is exactly what I intuited, and described - his lack of interest isn't buffoonery anymore than you're not being interested in why I don't care is *shrug*. I would say pointless, though. Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking.

you’re just a psychopath. — Mikie

No. I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. If your form of deduction rests on such a wild black and white fallacy, i think you're charge of buffoonery might be more than a little ironic ;)

There are so many assumptions on your position it's hard to tease apart without sounding like an utter wanker.

What do you infer by 'care about'? How do you ascribe this to non-persons? I am an anti-natalist. Does that explain your lack of understanding of position? Because psychopathy isn't on the table anymore, for you.

in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part. — Mikie

Its not fair, reasonable or anything other than a protection of your emotional investment. Sunk-fallacy and all that.
You've a world-view that allows for only two options with regard to an adequate understanding of climate change:

1. One knows about climate change adequately, and cares the same way you do;
2. One knows about climate change adequately, and is a psychopath


This is - to put it mildly - f'ing ridiculous.

I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed. — Tom Storm

This is brilliant lol

That is indeed all I'm saying. They (the politicians) are poisoning the country. Given the corrosive effects of crime, the metaphor is quite apt otherwise. — NOS4A2

It's not, if we're to take your immediate next phrase seriously. Politicians are allowing is not the same as simply Politicians are doing something.

First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. — Mikie

Hi mate,

Just to preface this, because it's going to come across slightly combative, I have no skin in this argument. I accept the facts about anthropocentric climate change (despite your assertion; more below). and have no problem with you, or you holding your views. I in fact called them admirable. I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. So, that disclaimer in place...

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
I generally don't check dates on posts. I see things i find interesting and reply :) Apologies if that's not your jam! Genuinely; folk do stuff differently. It wasn't personal at all. As none other of my comments are!!

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. — Mikie

This is both not in any way inferable from having a different moral reaction, and it is in fact, counter to the truth. As i've noted, I understand and accept, basically, the 'mainstream' line on anthropocentric climate change. You do not need to posit all these empirical differences to account for our moral differences. This somewhat encapsulates why your take makes me both chuckle, and want to prod a bit. If your assertion is that one requires an in-depth, technical knowledge of climate change science to form a valid moral response to it, I'm just off the bus a few stops back. That's all. But..

It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense.

If that is not the case, forgive, but that is exactly what you are illustrating above. Your assertion that my non-denial is 'because' I don't know the facts is just plain ridiculous, though. So even with my potential error in your thought, what you've said is the kind of unsupportable position I'm trying to deal with in the previous paragraph...

Absolutely; bizarre, isn't it?

Conversely, as noted in that thread, I have an extremely active internal dialogue to, at times, a debilitating degree. I cannot understand how you could possibly deal with systematic knowledge, or logically working through propositions without definitive reference to prior thought - whcih occur to my mind in sentences/phrases. I can't 'image' an emotional concept, for instance, but i can put it into words and hold that while i tinker with the next element of the larger thought process. If i attempt to think in concepts and images only, not only is it utterly, dismally, emotionally triggeringly boring, I can't make heads or tails of fucking anything. I can't only make sense of images in reference to the language in which i first understood the image (perhaps this was a process of acquiring 'concepts' when i was an infant), or subsequently reappraised it under.

There is someone who made a thread yesterday or the day before explaining how he has no inner monologue and also cannot form images mentally. — Lionino

This is true for the majority of people, it seems. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue-explain-what-its-like-in-their-head-57739

https://irisreading.com/is-it-normal-to-not-have-an-internal-monologue/

I find it fascinating - and fascinating that it took until 2022 for a real grappling to occur.

when you come across sentences half a page long, you’re bound to miss the mark sooner or later. — Mww

Hahaha, very true!

Okay— what was the point? — Mikie

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions; we can co-exist in that state.

You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that. — Mikie

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from, and how it's informing your passion to encourage others to essentially hold the same moral outlook at yourself. But my 'point' is more that i think it's misguided to be so certain in your moral reactions, as to allow yourself to denigrate others on that basis. Particularly over a joke :P

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way — Mikie

Nice. I found the previous commenter's joke funny too :) No trouble here. Thanks for the video!

Yes, i think this is the basis for most 'inner work' type of stuff. 'self help' being a bastardization of it.

Controlling one's inner mono/dialogue is very difficult, particularly for someone oddly perceptive, or quick to discern patterns. I have quite a high IQ and have been told this contributes to both the intensity of my internal mono/dialogues, and my ability to rationally calm it down.

I'm unsure its a reasonable expectation of someone who has both an intense internal mono/dialogue and does not have that level of rationality available.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention t or everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade. — Mikie

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. Respectfully. This is obviously something that ignites a serious passion in you, and that's admirable.

I simply don't care.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Mikie

Exactly. That is your opinion. It is not mine, despite likely agreeing on the basics of the 'facts' of the matter. Though, i appreciate you taking this route instead of trying to assert that my lack of moral alarm is somehow indicative of psychopathy :P

hy anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know — Mikie

Surely not, given the above. But i think jokes are fun. I cannot conceive of why the subject matters to that.

Both, in turns, but through much hard work It's overall constructive/instructive these days. I went through some seriously dark periods though.

Close enough. To reduce it all to the subtleties of transcendental philosophy might be a little different, but the gist is good enough for a general idea. — Mww

Ok, wonderful. Very much appreciate that. I'm getting somewhere heh.

Thanks for this exchange :)

Christ; sorry, for whatever reason I thought neomac's response was part of yours. Doh. Rookie move.

As such, I project that the opposite leads to opposing views, which to me hinge on a kind of superstition regarding language and its effects. — NOS4A2

Interesting. I have an unstoppably verbose internal monologue, to a serious fault (insomnia, I am able to induce mental illnesses etc...) and share those concerns.

Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation. — frank

That has always seemed a more reasonable approach to me, so fair enough lol.

without concepts that allow phenomena to cohere in the understanding, we wouldn’t actually cognize anything at all, as made clear here: — Mww

Ok, nice. That feels like a slightly more adequate key to the lock im trying to pick, compared with my question. Thanks! Feeling a little less lost now.

in which the major is (1.)the understanding of the manifold of conceptions related to an object, the minor is (2.)the judgement regarding the compatibility of the synthesis of those conceptions to each other, and reason (3.)concludes the validity of that synthesis with respect to those already given — Mww

Something i've wanted, for some time, is a plain-language expression of the passages that express this in the CPR. So, if you wouldn't mind commenting on, or correcting hte below, I would sincerely appreciate that(these numbers being the three parts I've inserted into your description above):

1. In which your mind retrieves a priori concepts under which the sensation can be brought in order to cognise the object;
2. In which your mind determines which concepts are 'correct' to apply to the object, with regard to their inter-conceptual coherence (i.e avoiding contradiction); and
3. In which your mind determines whether that coherent set of concepts, in fact, applies to the sensations you're 'judging'.

is that, or how far is that, a reasonable unadornment ?

Then you really don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest taking literally 10 minutes, type in "climate change" in Google, pick one result -- whether from NASA or NOAA or the Royal Academy or MIT or anything you like -- and read about it. Because you're making an utter buffoon of yourself. — Mikie

Not at all, no. I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. I'm open to reasons and discussions, but i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. I'm not going to accept a 'well, you're a monster' then type response as meaningful.

I would also suggest perhaps not positing someone is a 'buffoon' for not sharing your moral intuitions :) Particular as I would also note it appears old mate is being fairly glib. The air conditioning comment can't really be taken seriously and I don't read it as intended to be more than a poke of the bear.

currently illegal jobs like prostitution, selling organs, dealing drugs. — neomac

Given these are, either in restricted senses, or in other jurisdictions, completely legal, we have to accept that this is the case. People as means-to-ends seems imbedded in human interactions.
It seems 'morality' consists in the preventing ourselves from taking an advantage over those means as opposed to some form of co-operation.

Correct. — Patterner

On some accounts... I don't really understand how Bob is getting his 'must's. I'm also awaiting that draft of why we should assent.

I recently discovered that others can think in words. Some have even admitted to hearing an inner monologue, not so much as an audio hallucination, but as a fundamental component of their thinking. Having been unable to find these words or hear these voices myself I naturally began to envy their powers and the company they keep. — NOS4A2

This has been a bit of a phenomenon recently.

Apparently, about 60% of people have no internal monologue https://irisreading.com/is-it-normal-to-not-have-an-internal-monologue/ (good explainer).

I've found the inverse of your position baffling. I can't work out how to interact with the world if there is no internal symbolic representation of the most common and apparently effective communication mode. Perhaps this accounts for a differential in critical, systematic thinking between the two groups.

With regard the OP question; I think that inhabit minds and cause more than their form implies, but aren't that themselves.

mathematics — Patterner

I suppose it depends how you're defining it. If you mean the anthropocentric system of allocating symbols to facts about the world and abstracting them to come to proofs, then yes. That's true.

But if you take mathematics as merely a naming of those aspects of the world that necessarily are attending by the former description, i'm unsure this can be said.

you hear the sound, but don’t know whether it’s a firecracker or the tailgate on a dump truck. — Mww

On this account, are you illustrating the 'concept' of that (I guess, specific..) sound, without needing to invoke an object to understand the sensation? If so, yes, that's helpful. My response to Russell will be illustrative of why It's only helpful to understand the intent there, rather than my understanding of why that's the case..

For practical experience, true enough. Phenomena always antecede the conception, but they certainly do inform the concept. — Mww

Ah, this is clarifying, in terms of what i intuited(in the colloquial sense) was inarguable in the hypothesis. Thank you.

pure logic, antecedes the phenomenon. — Mww

Is the suggestion here that without the concepts that allow phenomena to cohere in the understanding, we wouldn't actually intuit (in the Kantian sense) anything of any comprehendable nature?

Would you accept that even in that case, the objects exist, we just have no access to even their indication? (i realise this might be pedestrian to you and somewhat obvious - I'm new to this work).

Hi Russell - thank you very much for your reply. It is helpful in someways, and not in others.

As a pre-empt; shortly after making my comment, I was watching Lecture 2 in a series by Robert Paul Wolf on the CPR... Nearer the end another prof. from his department (Dr. Alan Nelson) asks a question which is somewhat answered there, and then further answered in the opening of Lecture 3.
The question he has is somewhat similar to mine, but posed in an infinitely more reasonable and i think clearer way: his question is Kant's use of hte word 'experience' with regard to delineating between 'understanding' and 'intuition'. He is asking why Kant thought he could get away with the premise that het two are necessarily distinct and why, with regard to Humean/Leibnizian alternatives, he thought it could not be argued against. Wolf's answer was basically that he thought he had already established the delineation in his inaugural dissertation (i've not read) and so didn't bother elucidating in the way Dr. Nelson was looking for. Ultimately, he concludes that it's not all that convincing (as best I can tell). I suppose that's where i am now.

I would suggest that concepts such as rough and smooth are innate and pre-exist any phenomena subsequently experienced. — RussellA

I guess this is what I have trouble with (noting for anyone else reading; I haven't attended the other replies to my recent comment re: concepts. Am working backward through notifications).

"apple" doesn't appear to me to be the same as "rough" - which, from what i understand of the world, is heuristic rather than a definite descriptor (but as usual, I could very well just be wrong). Apple can collapse into many other categories and concepts, but 'rough' is a sensation regardless of that which it inheres. I understand 'apple' to still be a concept - I'm not skirting that - But, 'apple' describes an arrangement of things in the world via their impression on the sum total of our sensible "inputs" ideally. 'roughness' only applies to one, in the context you've outlined and so appears far more apt to the distinction, where I can't get over into putting 'apple' there too. The 'concept' of apple is surely derived from an amalgamation of the totality of instances of 'apple' one has experienced brought under another concept - say, 'hand fruit', which itself has the same collapse pending into lesser-distinct concepts (food, flesh, juice etc..). But those sensations one could ascribe to an apple (colour, texture, smell, taste etc...) can be thought of in that a priori sense. One can cross-reference those aspects of an experience with other, disparate experiences, to form a working system of sensational categories.

Good lord I hope that's not just intensely confused muck :snicker:

Why not, pigs? — hypericin

I worked as a debt collector for a time in finance and I no kidding once had to put through an application for hardship for a fellow who had been suspended from his rural job for kicking the pigs out of frustration at the COVID lockdowns .. yikes.

Denied. Naturally.

"One ought not kick puppies" is both sensible and true. — creativesoul

It's not true. Thank you for your time :)

No apple, as such, ever existed independently of that by which it is conceived, and, thereby, is represented by that name. The object represented by the concept, however, does. — Mww

This has struck me, in CPR, as absolutely nonsensical (which may just be me, hence questions).

How could the concept of an apple indicate it's actual existence? You couldn't possibly have the concept without the phenomena, and the phenomena informing the concept is tautological. I haven't grasped this in the sense that, on multiple readings of several sections (I would need to pull out my copy to cite, so forgive.. tis a general comment anyway), it appears that I understand, and entirely reject the coherence of his position. Lil help? LOL.

I mean if evolution were true, we would have had wings and fly around to the work instead commuting stuck in the traffic jam polluting and burning the toxic gasoline paying out fortune just for one example. — Corvus

What? That's not at all a reasonable comment on evolution to my mind. I hope i've missed something.

New Zealand - but i also looked about a bit in the UK, as i'm also a citizen there (and Ireland.. lol).

Fair enough. Luckily, that was (roughly) the approach i took anyway.

However, I've seen a pretty clear distinction - some schools only teach what is generally understood to be 'continental' philosophy to the exclusion of anything similar to the majority of what i understand to be analytic philosophy. I saw one department that only offered courses from Kant forward to the Frankfurt school and no further (i.e, still some modern philosophers but only included the likes of Zizek and the Ljubljana school, basically, under their BA structure.

Maybe i just 'got lucky' in that sense - But in any case, i am far more toward choosing courses and tutors based on the questions i want to address in the next forty-some years.

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented. — Fooloso4

Interesting. Starting out my academic journey sort of at the moment - seeking advice from many quarters, the one cohesion between the bits of advice i've gotten is to ensure the faculty doesn't favour continental philosophy - and that this is widespread, and a slippery slope to actually not doing philosophy lol.

obviously, i can't speak one way or the other, but interesting that you've a different conception of that. Gives me pause.

AmadeusD
— AmadeusD

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones and boy are we in a mess! — Athena

Hi Athena! Sorry for not yet replying to your earlier comment. I don't necessarily think I am the best-placed member to give a good account of that school of thought.

However, did i miss something that the post i've quoted above relates to? I'm unsure it was intended for me :)

Certainly. — Alkis Piskas

Hi Alkis :) Thanks for your thorough response.
I\ve started with the above as i believe it, in some senses, makes some of your other responses redundant or contradictory.. though i do not think this is on purpose, a result of stupidity or anything.

Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you? — Alkis Piskas

Consciousness entails perception. Sentience entails feeling about perception. It seems counter to both the definitions used by philosophers, and the basic notion of these two concepts, that Sentience could precede consciousness. That seems exactly backwards to me and i can't grasp how you're seeing it another way.
To my understanding, consciousness is more basic than sentience. Sentience is in addition to consciousness. This someone goes to my first response above - you seem to be not really using the correct distinction that philosophers use when discussing this - but that is based on my understanding just there, so i may be wrong. But it doesn't seem in any way a philosophical problem in the sense of 'debate'. One of us is using hte wrong term.

Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment? — Alkis Piskas

No. It means i expect someone presenting sources for their arguments to actually have verified sources, rather internet articles for which there are no references, no credible citation and no clear author or institutional source. And to note, I did, in fact, critique it via my own 'judgement' anyway.

How can you judge that if you can't judge what the person says in the first place? Or are you going to believe that authority unquestionably because it is a famous personality? Or are you going to start doubting or arguing about what that authority says or even about the authority iself? Wouldn't that end up in a vicious cycle?
It all loses its meaning, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

Give both aspects of what i've said about, i think this entire passage is misconceived and potentially a way of trying to deflect from a lack of support for the initial assertion. I don't know that to be true, but its a huge protest that doesn't make any sense given i addressed the article and the lack of credibility. I would also note that being directed to Google for sources supporting your own argument is bizarre, and Twitter-level interlocution to my mind. I left Twitter to avoid that type of "Do you own research" kind of thing. To be a little more direct, If i can't find a good reason to take your assertion on board, or consider it seriously due to it failing at xyz hurdle, your sources are the way to convince someone you have something. Your sources are used to ensure you're not making stuff up - in this case, as your source fell well short of being credible, thorough or even clear in its origin and thesis, i can't understand why you're being dismissive of wanting sources. Seems counter to what we do here.

the final acceptance or rejection of a proposition will always depend on your own jugment. — Alkis Piskas

That's true. But unless you're suggesting we jettison understanding, reason, veracity and debate - i can't see how this is relevant.

I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

If this was your intention, it was not clear and doesn't seem to be relevant to what we're actually talking about.
If we both agree sentience isn't required for the above, we are left with consciousness (which was my assertion all along). That means you've somewhat shot your objection in it's own foot.

I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings. — Alkis Piskas

This, again, doesn't seem relevant. They aren't particularly close in the context we're discussing, but further, even if they are 'close' its their distinction that matters to us here - not their similarity. And in any case, we seem to both have established (albeit, you've done it by accident) that sentience is further up the chain from consciousness, as consciousness is not required for thought (mental images) where sentience is. This ...almost... feels like you're pulling my leg.

I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up. — Alkis Piskas

No. That is not the case, at all. I have pointed out to you that the definitions you are using are both non-philosophical, and fail us in making a distinction (which clearly exists).
The fact that your utterances aren't taken as wrote is not any indication of some kind of resistance or dishonesty on the part of your interlocutor. As i've found out, it's difficult but extremely helpful to accept where you are wrong, or where your thinking isn't clear. More below...

Why don't you look up for yourself and clear the meaning of all these words/terms in a dictionary? Do you hate dictionaries as a lot of people in here do? — Alkis Piskas

If you are not apt to use philosophical definitions and usages of words, this may not be the best place to discuss these things. I also note three instances of ad hominem in this response ( most recently, in the quote immediately above this section of my comment.

Just rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in talking more about this subject. It's totally useless. — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting you have no further interest in establishing communal philosophical usages of words, that you have no further interest in discussing consciousness, or that you have no further interest in philosophy?

IN all three cases, i return to my earlier suggestion - this may not be the place for you to discuss these issues. Given that you've been here three years and amassed more than 2000 posts, this strikes as quite odd. Has this been a long time coming, or have you long-had a distaste for the nitty-gritty as it were?.

It's a direct supporting context for while British and American law is not alike.

If it isn't relevant to your point, your point was either extremely orthogonal or nigh impossible to grasp.

'tis no matter in any case.