Sure, that could be the case. I think you understand Empiricism better than me, Corvus, so I don't think that I'm able to disagree with you in that sense.

:victory:

Thank you for your contribution, Wayfarer, and for taking the time to do so. It is much appreciated.

What are your thoughts on bishop Berkeley? I believe that he was an idealist as well as an Empiricist. You seem to disagree.

Homer: the first Greek poet.
Chaos: the First, in Hesiod's philosophical theogony.
Poem: what Homer composed, and what Hesiod wrote.

Myth: Something that did not happen.
Logos: Rational discourse.
Philosophy: the love of wisdom.

Water: the First and Ultimate, in the philosophy of Thales of Miletus.
Apeiron: The First, Ultimate, and Unlimited, in Anaximander of Miletus.
Air: The Ultimate, according to Anaximenes of Miletus.

Cosmos: The Universe.
Hyper-Cosmos: The Multiverse.
Arda: a fictional world created by Tolkien.

(To be continued)

No A.I. was used in the composition of this work of literature. Just my imagination.



Continuation: the continuing of something.
Vocabulary: it's not the same thing as terminology.
Difference: it's not identity.

Opposite: the other alternative.
Contrary: the opposite alternative.
Union: the bonding of opposites.

Federation: a group among others.
State: a human construct.
Province: something natural and artificial.

Landscape: something geographical.
Territory: something geological.
Map: the relation between the landscape and the territory.

Relation: a connection.
Link: a different sort of connection.
Bond: what binds variables and constants.

Free: an unbound variable or unbound constant.
How: the specifics of something.
Detail: a particular note.

Individual: something that can't be divided.
Atom: something that is mereologically simple.
Fundamental: something that cannot be reduced.

Ultimate: that which is last.
Primordial: that which is first.
Eternal: that which is always.

Always: that which is at every moment.
Moment: somewhat like a physical photogram.
Change: an event or a process (which is series of events).

You express yourself in a way that seems, quite frankly, foreign to my own ways of self-expression. Yet it seems to me that we more or less agree, here, if anywhere.

:100: :fire: :clap:

Canta el pueblero... y es pueta;
canta el gaucho... y ¡ay Jesús!
Io miran como avestruz,
su inorancia los asombra;
mas siempre sirven las sombras
para distinguir la luz. — José Hernández

fotos gif

It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda — Mikie

Then, will all due respect Mikie (and everyone else), people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late.

The OP appears to be playing on a misguided understanding of "perceive". I'm not seeing much by way of significant argument. — Banno

You're welcome to suggest fixes and improvements to it, should you choose to do so.

I'm just trying to gather some information about you, so that I can communicate better with you.

what troll?

How would you propose doing any experiment on no information, no data, nothing being perceived? — tim wood

You do what's called in the literature "an exploratory investigation".

This part of your posts lacks substance.
— Arcane Sandwich
Not at all. You appear to claim that geologists know something about a place they cannot perceive. Indeed they cannot see it directly or go there directly, but they do perceive what machines record, and that's what their conclusions are based upon. — tim wood

What do you think of van Fraassen work? He's an Empiricist.

What's the precise and exacting solution to the Sorites Paradox, then? Let's start with that.
— Arcane Sandwich
You're argumentative without substance or discipline. As such, useless. Stick to the topic. Or, if you want to change it, then make it clear you're changing it. That is, how, exactly is the problem of the heap relevant? — tim wood

Just curious: what's your IQ? You're under no obligation to answer, obviously.

Of course such psychologising is not a critique of what he actually says. Except that ressentiment has such a central place in N's criticism of Christianity - so it seems fitting to treat his philosophy as reverse ressentiment... — Banno

But our topic is perceivable v. unperceivable. I hold that if nothing is perceived, then nothing happens. That settled, we can get back to how, if, or whether substance is the same as the object. You may define it that way and that's fine, but then the test will be if that understanding is consistent with what is generally understood. — tim wood

Ok, cool. So let's do a scientific experiment to test your hypothesis, then.

No one sees the earth's core, but there are apparently a number of sophisticated tests that allow qualified persons to make statements about it. That is, they look at dials and meters and various outputs, which is what is perceived, and then they think about it. And I imagine you're aware that recent popular science reports some interesting conclusions about the earth's core from their researches. — tim wood

This part of your post lacks substance.

We're not at the agree/disagree line yet. I keep asking you to be more precise and exacting in your comments, because our subject matter requires such. But you don't seem to understand the need, and the lack thereof makes your comments nonsensical. — tim wood

What's the precise and exacting solution to the Sorites Paradox, then? Let's start with that. I favor a solution that is not semantic in nature: indeed, I believe in ontological vagueness. There are objects that have vague composition, for example. Think of an ordinary object like a hammer. There's a point in its sorites series for composition in which ontological vagueness occurs.

Yet they know that there's a very high temperature inside the Earth's core, beneath other levels, such as the mantle and the crust. And they know that there are no goblins or dinosaurs inhabiting the Earth's core.

Can you please just try to make better posts? Like Just a request, feel free to ignore it. You don't have to agree with me, just express your disagreement in a better way. Is that too much to ask of you, specifically? If "yes", then ignore this request.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. I mean, it sounds like a problem between you and Mikie, specifically. I can't do anything about that. And even if I could, I don't want to. There's better uses of my time. Just work it out between yourselves.

That's a fallacy. Has any geologist seen the center of the Earth? Of course not.

Nope, never heard of him. Thanks for the reference, I'll check out his work.

I'm more of a Hegelian than a Schellingian. Hegel is easier to understand. Schelling is just a scholastic nightmare.

Thank you for such a valuable contribution to this Thread. I mean that, honestly.

:100: :fire:

This thread's all a bit too fanboy for my taste. — Banno

No fanboy here, son. Just a man, like you.

I think that the same could be fairly said of what I have called "Divine Complexity", but I don't want to derail Bob's Thread. If you want to start a Thread on Divine Complexity, be my guest, and I'll discuss it with you, with an open mind. That's all I can promise, nothing more.

This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. — Arcane Sandwich

Let me add something to this. It's not OK that this problem is a mindfuck. We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. That's all I'm saying, as far as the topic of "respect vs disrespect" goes.

it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives. — Mikie

It's a real mindfuck if you think about it, like, this isn't politics anymore. This is straight-up ecology, from the plastic in the ocean to the plastic in your hospitals.

I guess "rabbit hole" is the more appropriate philosophical term, but no. This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. I say that as a proponent of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy. — Mikie

:100:

And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible.

And yeah, when I said "scientific prediction", I said what I said. I didn't stutter.

If not, a counterexample would be welcome. — tim wood

Ok, how about geology, then? The core of the Earth has not been observed, as of 2025. Is it unobservable? Maybe, maybe not. However, scientists (geologists, in particular) know exactly what's in there.

Or, what would be an example of science done with anything not perceived? — tim wood

Astrophysics at the exact moment of the Big Bang. You need both quantum physics and general relativity for that. And they're incompatible in relation to that problem.

Yeah, but it's like, why wouldn't I? I've never read the SEP entry on Divine Simplicity before you referenced it, so why wouldn't I give credit where credit is due?

↪Arcane Sandwich, Bob Ross, I've no more to add than I did at ↪Banno, the contents of which I believe remains unaddressed — Banno

Not sure why you tagged me here, Banno. I don't think I can address the contents of the post that you linked, it sounds to me that you wanted Bob's reply to that, not my reply.

Be that as it may, I suppose I could ask you: if it makes sense to talk about Divine Simplicity, then (by parity of reasoning) does it make sense to talk about Divine Complexity? If you say "no", then your dispute here is with Bob, not with me. If you say "yes", then you might have found something worth arguing about with me. But that would be Off-Topic here, since Bob's argument is for the simplicity of God, instead of being an argument for the complexity of God.

If you feel like this is something worth discussing with me, then I invite you to start a Thread about it. We could even have a one-to-one debate, if you prefer that format.

Salam alaikum, mate.
-A. Sandwich

I can't disagree with your comment. It sounds like something that I would agree with, even if I wouldn't phrase it like you phrased it. But that's inessential. So, it looks like we're in agreement here. :up:

You wanna know who has the most unorthodox interpretation of Plato, in my opinion? Iain Hamilton Grant, in his book Philosophies of Nature After Schelling.

True, Grant was associated with Speculative Realism in the past. He is, after all, one of its "Founding Fathers", if you will, together with Meillassoux, Harman, and Brassier (and perhaps one might add Toscano as well, since he moderated their discussion). But Grant then distanced himself from Speculative Realism, and no longer identifies as a realist. He was always an idealist, through and through. His specific brand of idealism is in large part indebted to Schelling.

Philosophies of Nature After Schelling is one hell of a trip. It's an extremely technical book, it assumes, on the part of the reader, prior knowledge of Schelling, Plato, Deleuze, and Badiou. But it's definitely worth studying.

Grant claims (among other things) that there are no "two worlds" in Plato, or "two realms", or however you want to call the classical Platonic division between the world of sensible things and the world of Ideas. Grant doesn't deny that there's a difference, what he suggests is that Plato should be interpreted as a proponent of a "Physics of the All". In this sense, he is a precursor to Schelling's Naturphilosophie.

I think it's something that you might be interested in reading, despite your aversion to Speculative Realism. Just forget about the "Speculative Realism" label for a moment, and picture that Iain Hamilton Grant is an idealist (which he actually is, he even identifies as such).

Give me an example of what you would describe as a mainstream intepretation? — Wayfarer

The book El Sol, la Línea y la Caverna (The Sun, The Line, and The Cave), by Conrado Eggers Lan. This book represents the standard, mainstream interpretation of the allegory of the cave, in Argentina. We use it in Ancient Philosophy, which is a semester course (4 months) in the first year of the Licenciatura en Filosofía and the Profesorado en Filosofía. There are other books, and other scholars, and other interpreters, of course. But that book would be the main one, I would say.

You came in with this:

Maybe it's talking about the time, before the Paleolithic (before cavemen) when men and women were not human. — Arcane Sandwich


which I for one have never encountered elsewhere. — Wayfarer

Well, like I said, I think I've earned the right to have my own, unorthodox, and unique interpretation of the allegory of the cave.

Yeah, but it's like, we can live with less plastic, I'm honestly really sure about that. Can we live with less transportation or less electricity? I'm not so sure. What are your own thoughts on that?

Nothing you've said in the brief exchange we've had about 'the allegory of the Cave' would indicate that you interpret it accurately :brow: — Wayfarer

I feel like I've earned the right to have my own interpretation of it, after years of teaching the standard, mainstream interpretations of it.