For emotional reasons we embraced now-questionable axioms or inferences. — R-13
few who identify with philosophy as a virtuous pursuit are eager to consciously "lie" to themselves or others. — R-13
bias is increased by the threat of humiliation or loss of status. — R-13
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. — Bertrand Russell (Why Men Fight, 1916)
But in my view, language (and reasoning) is (ultimately) necessarily circular. — numberjohnny5
Science is overrated and religion is underestimated — TheMadFool
... If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume (Enquiry, 12)
since the original percept itself is no longer present — aletheist
It is not your judgements that you perceive but objects and states of affairs. Otherwise you would never see the latter, only your own figments of mind, which could then only "represent" eachother.perceptual judgment, the involuntary (i.e., acritical) representation of the percept in thought — aletheist
Only A1's death come with a hope. — Cavacava
So the question is not genuine.if everything actually is futile, ... then it would be futile to ask "is it all futile?" — intrapersona
We should not selectively look at the flying, driving, and camping when the published films produce acquaintance, knowledge and empathy towards wild animals. If we'd only see Jaws, and other films that exploit our ignorance or selectively show wild animals as monsters, then the situation would be worse for the animals, and there would be little interest to fund organisations who work for animals' rights, preservation and so on. Urban populations would have no clue of the relation between their consumption and the fate of wild animals.Flying to somewhere in Africa, Central America, Nepal, Siberia, wherever, to drive around, camp, photograph, and so on isn't helping wild animals. — Bitter Crank
Are there unities without parts?'all things which have no matter are without qualification essentially unities.' Things with matter are however inescapably matter/form. — mcdoodle
Interesting. So, could an elementary particle exist without having any real properties by itself but getting properties from other things?The higher order reality has modified the lower order constituent. — Wayfarer
What is an example of an existing object which is anything and simple, not compound?Anything which is simple, not compound. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is there to understand, by way of reasoning, in the many unreasonable injustices which partly characterize the human condition?. . not logical in the sense of formal logic or deductive inference, but rather logical in the wider sense that it is something which can be understood by way of reasoning. — Moliere
Is this some kind of wacky pomo course? — Terrapin Station
What do people mean when they say: "what is the meaning of life?" or "life has no meaning." — Emptyheady
There is no good reason to exclusively adhere to the terminology of a 19th century theory of signs. It is fairly easy to see that representation is an asymmetric relation whereas resemblance is symmetric. That's what sets portraits apart from representational symbols, e.g. traffic signs or words.You are not adhering to the definitions that I am using, which come from Peirce and are well-established in semiotics, so we are just talking past each other. — aletheist
Granted that a portrait can both resemble and represent its object, but if resemblance is the predominant relation which determines how a portrait signifies its object, then in this respect (i.e. as in how it predominantly signifies its object) it cannot represent its object, because representation is asymmetric whereas resemblance is symmetric. The portrait may, of course, represent its object in other respects by way of convention, for instance. *In particular, you seem to have a very narrow concept of representation. If "the portrait signifies primarily by resemblance," then it represents its object by resemblance--it is an icon. — aletheist
But the question is how, recall. A tumbling dust ball is also connected to the direction of the wind, but that does not make it a representation of it, does it?The weather vane represents (i.e., indicates) the direction of the wind, regardless of whether anyone interprets it as doing so--it is an index. — aletheist
I'm also focusing on the predominant relation, but the mere application of semiotic terminology is not an argument for "HOW a particular sign represents its object".If the photo "presents certain features which are recognizable as the face," then it represents the face--iconically due to the resemblance, and indexically due to the causal process that placed the image on the film. Now, just about every sign has all three aspects--iconic, indexical, and symbolic; but I am focusing on the predominant relation of the sign to its object. — aletheist