The facts indicate that there's not an iota of evidence for this — Manuel

And my mention of Socrates is not about Socrates. :roll: — 180 Proof

Meaning-making" isn't any more objectively meaningful than not "meaning-making", thus its arbitrary (merely subjective), or as you say "an individual pursuit". — 180 Proof

Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else? — Jack Cummins

And what corroborates these "experiential grounds"? Uncorroborated they're merely subjective assumptions or dispositions. — 180 Proof

So what? What about the astronomically vast domains of phenomena that we (not only do not) cannot "experience" and upon which "consciousness" – however it is explained – necessarily, unconsciously, supervenes ... like a single grain of sand on a wind-swept slope of a dune somewhere in the Sahara? — 180 Proof

You've got that backwards, I think. "Consciousness" is only a dinghy ("remains ... stable") tossed on ocean waves ("protean ... backdrop"). — 180 Proof

Not in the least. All this indicates is that "consciousness" is/may be an epiphenomenon (or hyper-developed forebrain spandrel) of 'ecology-bound information systems' complex enough for intermittenly sustained 'self-awareness' (or intentional agency). "Fundamental" things or processes (e.g. entropy, gravity, vacuum energies) constitute embodied "consciousness" (since there is not (cannot be) A N Y evidence of it being "disembodied") – which, by the way, it's a dynamic process and N O T a non-dynamic thing or abstact object. — 180 Proof

What grounds are there for assuming that "consciousness" is (something) "fundamental"? — 180 Proof

What, then, is Philosophy? Philosophy is the supremely precious. Is Dialectic, then, the same as Philosophy? It is the precious part of Philosophy. We must not think of it as the mere tool of the metaphysician: Dialectic does not consist of bare theories and rules: it deals with verities; Existences are, as it were, Matter to it, or at least it proceeds methodically towards Existences, and possesses itself, at the one step, of the notions and of the realities. Untruth and sophism it knows, not directly, not of its own nature, but merely as something produced outside itself, something which it recognizes to be foreign to the verities laid up in itself; in the falsity presented to it, it perceives a clash with its own canon of truth. Dialectic, that is to say, has no knowledge of propositions ­ collections of words ­ but it knows the truth, and, in that knowledge, knows what the schools call their propositions: it knows above all, the operation of the soul, and, by virtue of this knowing, it knows, too, what is affirmed and what is denied, whether the denial is of what was asserted or of something else, and whether propositions agree or differ; all that is submitted to it, it attacks with the directness of sense-perception and it leaves petty precisions of process to what other science may care for such exercises — Plotinus

no true proposition is also false.

The conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore p and q.

And so on.

But you miss the point spectacularly. Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth. That doesn't presuppose that we ready know what's true, but that we don't.

It's like me saying that mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains and you replying 'name me a mountain that has been successfully climbed' — Bartricks

Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true. — Bartricks

And if the "seeking" is "perennial", doesn't that mean that the seeking itself is the only answer – "the path is the destination" – just like the ouroborous or a dog chasing its own tail? — 180 Proof

You would agree with me, then, that it is rather silly to talk of western philosophy as if it is something. We should just talk of 'philosophy' and pay no heed to where the philosopher happened to be born. — Bartricks

When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. I would certainly agree that we should approach things rationally, and it is my complaint against academics that they rarely do this. Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . . — FrancisRay

If I unfailingly believe I can directly and infallibly understand everything that is going on with myself and others, with humankind's situation in the world, with life and death itself, then I will manifest a charismatic certainty that will be extremely attractive to those who are drawn to individuals who project an impression of supreme self-confidence. — Janus

Its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.

We're the puke of chance? That's different indeed from being made in a god's image or mirroring the essence of the universe — j0e

I cannot write an essay here but if you explore the idea of neutral; metaphysical theory you'll find it solves all philosophical problems. — FrancisRay

Theirs isn't the cry of the oppressed, it's the buzz-speak of the very confused. — Bitter Crank

There is so little consensus in shared ideas and so much fragmentation — Jack Cummins

That's not a knowledge ...

. Just a truth being reflected by me ... Truth is never a knowledge ...

. It is existencial ... It is not your so-called philosophical jargon ... — Anand-Haqq

You need to be a light unto yourself ... Books will make you more knowledgeable ...

. A wise being is not knowledgeable ... He is as an innocent child ... Pure ...

. You don't need to decorate scriptures nor to read them ...

. You need to read your book ... your inner book ... YES ... that's the only one worth reading ... — Anand-Haqq

Hah. So no one can actually say if Weinstein is being legit here with his arguments. That's odd of him, I'd think he would want to let other people see his work even if outside academia... — Manuel

Two apple plus Two orange still equals four OR two? — SteveMinjares

Our understanding is no better than it has ever been. It's just more complex (which is an indication that it is further from the truth). — synthesis

I am using philosophy to become a better computer programmer. By not trying to find solutions but to engage in different forms of expressions that can be adapted to my programming language. — SteveMinjares

The critic, Harold Bloom, was able to read and process 1000 pages in little over an hour with almost total recall. — Tom Storm