Remember, there is Reality; it's accessed by being, not knowing. — ENOAH

Interesting. Though I agree that knowledge is derivative of being, what is the basis upon which you imply "reality" is any less derivative of being than is knowledge?

And even Plato did not go so far as to claim the shadows upon the wall were "fictions."

our knowledge comes to a certain extent before the object, making our concept of „objects“ and the inference to future occurrences from past ones possible — Pez

This reminds of Heidegger's notion that being is that upon which beings are already understood. There is no being in the absence of at least a "vague and average" understanding of beings. So even if we grant for the sake of argument the irrefutability of Hume's logic, the rigor of logic is not the primary basis upon which we make our way about in the world. Instead, we make our way about the world from within our already existing "vague and average" understanding of the world. The number of actions submitted to the rigors of logic are few and far between.

It requires no proof here that Language isn't the "thing" it only re-presents the "thing." — ENOAH

But why is language any less a "thing" than whatever "thing" it represents? Can we even talk about language if we do not consider language to be the "thing" about which we talk? Are you suggesting that thing-ness itself is the fiction?

I thought so.

I'm curious - you don't think reality is one of these - or do you have a presupposition about the nature of reality which informs the others? — Tom Storm

Interesting. I have long defined and consider philosophy to be an ongoing discussion over the nature of reality/being (ontology?). So in some sense and in so far as they are real, the nature of morality, the nature of knowledge, and the nature of art are encompassed within the "nature of reality." They are grist for the ontological mill.

Descartes. And I reject the notion that what constitutes a paradigm shift in one area defines a paradigm shift for all areas. Philosophy of mind, ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics as well as the scientific method are deeply rooted in Cartesianism for better or worse.

All paradigm shifts are philosophical. All paradigm shits are rooted in the way we look at the nature of being of particular areas of study. And it just does not get any more ontological than that.

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. It is the exceptional man "who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment." -- Walter A. Kaufmann

In: The Encyclopedia of of Philosophy, Vol. 5, Pages 504-514, Macmillan, New York. at page 511.

First everyone was enslaved by the "ego or conscience", both which you left undefined.

Now everyone is enslaved by "the will", which you have also left undefined.

You are simply repeating the same claim using different terms.

Where is your argument?

The will rules — Piers

Substituting "the will" for "ego or conscience" changes nothing.

The self can be slave to "the will" ego or conscience, or the self can be master of "the will" ego or conscience. You have provided insufficient support for your claim that the former is necessarily the case.

You keep making the same unsupported claim using different terms. Repeating the claim will not make it true nor does it persuade.

Where is your argument?

But it is always interesting to ask whether a belief is held on rational grounds and if one wants to know whether that belief counts as knowledge, it is essential to ask that question. — Ludwig V

I agree. People do tend to treat their beliefs as if they were facts and no good comes of it. On the hand, I am resistant to the notion that established knowledge is supposed to be the only basis for action.

What is your question? You seem to be asking all sorts of questions but the title of the discussion refers to "a question."

And are only Christians allowed to respond?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

sort of like identical twins. they are exactly the same until they aren't.

In place of this false unique — Isaac Kramnick

You seem to be asking us to choose between a post modernist view of the self or a "false" view of the self.

Is that not akin to seeking my opinion regarding which cookie is better, the good one on the right or the terrible tasting one on the left.

Why would I choose the "false" view?

Belief is connected to knowledge through rationality. — Hallucinogen

The epistemological status of belief is relevant only to those who insist it must be.

I have no problem with anyone (including Plato) presuming the moral perfection of the Gods without argument, especially an idealist such as Plato. Why would he waste his time arguing the perfection of that which appears to us as if it were shadows upon a wall in a cave? Is there a difference between the "ideal" and the "perfect" when it comes to the Gods?

Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. — Piers

The self can be slave to ego or conscience, or the self can be master of ego or conscience. You have provided insufficient support for your claim that the former is necessarily the case.

Kaufmann, Walter A.. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton Classics Book 3). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

in tandem with

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Delphi Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (Illustrated) (Series Five Book 24) Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.

modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists — Dermot Griffin

Richard Rorty suggested to the effect that modern philosophy is more about "skillful" conversation and less about "interesting" conversation.

as Vaskane suggested, it is not a quote from Nietzsche. Instead, it is a scholar's "summarized" description of Nietzsche's overman/superman/ubermensch.

"The overman is the type approximated by Goethe—the human being . . . who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment." -- Walter A. Kaufmann

In: The Encyclopedia of of Philosophy, Vol. 5, Pages 504-514, Macmillan, New York. at page 511.

"To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom" - Socrates

and a reply in the post comment box at the end of the thread will refer to the original post only.

nature of existence — Philosophim

What does that even mean? What do you mean by "existence"?

Look at the logic I point out about being — Philosophim

I looked at your OP several times and it is void of your understanding of "being" and "nature of existence".

The notion of such a thing as a "logic of being" is interesting but hardly self explanatory. Many are likely to share an understanding of "logic" while not sharing an understanding of "being".

Simply put, there is nothing in your OP that explains your understanding of "being" and how your understanding of being and your understanding of logic are related.

A first cause is not logically necessary. — Banno

I agree. But that does not mean a first clause is precluded.

But logic in general is our best tool to analyze whether ideas fit in with the nature of existence as we know it. — Philosophim

this only begs the question. Even if "our" best tool required a first cause, then that would only mean that "our" best tool required a first cause. There is no basis for asserting that being or the "nature of existence" (whatever that means) must conform to "our" best tools.

Being is still not required to conform to logic even if logic is "our" best tool.

to say that "logic" necessitates a first cause is not the same as saying the "nature of existence" (whatever that means) necessitates a first cause. Being is not required to conform to our understanding of either logic or the nature of existence. Only we are.

Determinism is a tautology. If everything were exactly the same, then everything would be exactly the same. This is philosophy as industry. The freshmen love it.

If there is free will and you live as a slave to ego and conscience, then that is tragic.

If there is no free will and you live as if there is, then you could not have done otherwise.

I take little comfort in the notion that truth is either that which we agree to be true or that which is arguably true. It strikes me very much as another garbage in/garbage out situation.

I suspect that anyone unable to tell me what they mean by the terms they use does not know what they are talking about.

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation — Lionino

French is a Latin language.

Quine seemed to disbelieve that words have meaning yet to even say this he had to use the meaning of words. — PL Olcott

I suspect Quine would consider the process by which words are attached to meaning is far more organic than people prefer.

That is one reason why I am making sure to exclude them — PL Olcott

My bad.

I mistakenly presumed your post was about "Overcoming all objections to the Analytic / Synthetic distinction."

Good luck with that.

that can be verified as true — PL Olcott

or verified as not true. Cats are rocks. An analytical statement that is verified false is still an analytical statement. And the same can be said of synthetic statements. So again, whether a statement is true/false does not determine whether it is analytic/synthetic. Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data.

We cannot have vagueness and ambiguity in the key terms that are being defined.
We must stipulate their precise definitions. — PL Olcott

You misunderstand. I am not saying your "definition" of either the analytic statement or the synthetic statement is ambiguous. Instead, "tokens" of the statement "type" synthetic are more prone to ambiguity than "tokens" of the statement "type" analytic.

A precise definition of "synthetic statement" will not render synthetic statements less prone to ambiguity than analytic statements. The world to which synthetic statements refer is more ambiguous than the world to which analytic statements refer. And you cannot define that difference away. You can try to account for it.

And besides, I think the definitions implicit in your original post are precise enough.

I believe turning the adjective into a noun-phrase does the heavy lifting for the dualist. But appending the suffix “-ness” to the word “conscious” doesn’t make a description of the thing a thing itself. — NOS4A2

Well said. But I suspect both materialism and dualism require "thing-ness". The "I" is subsumed by the "thing-ness" of the former while the "I" is ever more isolated by the "thing-ness" of the latter.

you may be correct in that the reliance upon sense data to configure the meaning of a statement renders the statement synthetic. But the truth value of either analytic or synthetic statements is irrelevant to that point.

"Cats are plants" may be an incorrect analytic statement but it is still an analytic statement. Similarly, the statement "there is a cat in my living room" when there is no cat in my living room may be an incorrect synthetic statement but it is still a synthetic statement.

The truth value regarding analytic/synthetic statements detracts from your central point. It is a classic red herring that only illustrates what is already known, i.e., synthetic statements are more fraught with ambiguity.

You cannot navigate without some kind of reference, point, line, star, compass reading, lighthouse, mountaintop, whatever. Definitions, then, at some point, essential. — tim wood

We are not bound by the already existing definitions created by others. We can use existing definitions, we can modify existing definitions, or we can create new definitions. A (the?) primary goal of philosophical discourse is to deepen understanding, not define it.

There is freedom because nobody is slave to ego or conscience. Please note I offered as much support for my refutation as you did for your claim.

First, Nietzsche did not say it worked. And second, there are more weak than there are strong.