that is not a meaningful relationship, definition, or framework. What you 'care'' about has nothing to do with the metaphysical/logical/causal/scientific relationship between information and meaning . — Sir Philo Sophia

Seriously?

The thread is not about "information and meaning."

Instead, it is about information and "the meaning of life."

And when it comes to conversations regarding the "meaning of life", you can rest assured that what I care about matters.

I certainly hope you can say the same.

My understanding of what Kant meant is rooted in my interpretation of Heidegger's response to the same question as set forth in Basic Problems of Phenomenology.

First, by existence Kant means "actual" as in currently existing in time. In that sense, that an object "exists" simply means that it has a location in space. And where an object is located would generally not be considered a quality of the object.

Second, by "real" Kant essentially means having primary (and presumably) secondary qualities. And if one were to make a list of Aristotelian or Lockean qualities as applied to the realness of objects (such as color, shape, weight) "existence" or "location" would not be on the list. For example, whatever qualities are essential for a book to be book, where the book is located will not be one of them.

So in that sense, the color, shape and weight of my auto would all be considered qualities while the fact that it currently exists in my driveway would not be considered a quality. The qualities are real predicates of the car while its location is not.

yes

There are many a great philosophers who also wrote about government, e.g., John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and many others.

How would you say they are related? — Sir Philo Sophia

I can provide information regarding all things I find meaningful. On the hand, the world is full of information the meaning of which I care not.

interesting. it does strike as somewhat of a cart before the horse type of thing. though information and meaning are certainly related, I would not consider them synonymous.

This discussion is partly about about Heidegger, and Heidegger uses the term being in the traditional Aristotelian sense: a being is something that can be said to be. Being is about existence. — jamalrob

For Heidegger, existence is one of three modes of being; the other two modes are ready-to-hand and present-to-hand.

This is the philosophy forum. I have no time for those who are unable to explain what they claim to know.

philosophy as industry

no

yes

Objectivity is an illusion. You cannot be more on the inside than we. Objectivity is not intended to be a space in which to live. Instead, it is intended to be a disposition adopted for the sole purpose of examining a particular proposition. People who mistakenly believe they can live within the adopted disposition of objectivity are essentially on the inside thinking they are on the outside looking in. And that is a formula for overwhelming cognitive dissonance. And he we are.

Second, what we experience is known a posteriori, not presumed. — Dfpolis

Seriously? Flailing in the wind are we? At no point did I suggest our experiences are presumed. Instead, what I said is that YOU are presuming our experiential mode of being is capable of grasping ultimate reality. Perhaps you should give the idea some more thought. I am done now.

Your underlying presumption is that our experiential mode of being is capable of grasping ultimate reality and therefore our experiential mode of being grasps ultimate reality. Once you let go of that presumption, the false dichotomy of ideal/real is obvious.

Experience is the data we have to work with. One can either work with experience, or one can simply cease thinking. — Dfpolis

This is a false dichotomy. Ceasing to think is not a choice for a sentient being. Think about it even if you lack the experience (you cannot do otherwise)! And no, I am not an idealist. the ultimate false dichotomy is ideal/real. :-)

There are others in this discussion who seem to think that ‘free will’ must be defined as a concept, but I disagree with this, and regret not making this clearer at the outset. I think you need to define ‘will’ and ‘free’ separately first and foremost, and then discuss whether or not the will IS free. — Possibility

This is a good post and I agree with you. though I am still skeptical that this is an issue amenable to philosophical resolution. Still, it does force partcicipants to "think" and that is always good. Keep the faith and keep up the good work.

this is a good post.

so it has gotten to the point that people are arguing:

1. we define free will as A;
2. we have A.
Therefore, we have free will.

And to think people spent the last 2000 years arguing over the issue.

How silly of them.

We defined it, recently, here, for example, that the will makes choices, and, thus, so defined, we have free will — PoeticUniverse

how convenient that must be. and that is what is known as garbage in and garbage out. I hereby define the greatest philosopher of all time as Arne and therefore Arne must be the greatest philosopher of all time, since I have already defined it.

no matter how you define it, either you have it or you do not and arguing settles not the issue. it is philosophy as industry and you are only proving my point in that regard.

what I am saying is the explanatory framework is not within the mechanistic paradigm that accounts for the being there of being in the world. And until you can grasp that concept, you will be forever lost within the framework of your always present yet necessarily hidden nihilism. And that is no way to live a life. Just saying.

seriously, moot discussions take place all the time. there is no necessary connection between the mootness of a discussion and whether the discussion can take place.
all of these claims and no argument for any of them. Oh my.

Either you have free will or you do not. Discussing the issue is not going to decide the issue. If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise. If you believe you do not have free will and you do, then you have missed your opportunity to live your life according to your will. There is no in between. There is no way out. Arguing about it will make no difference. Think about it.

If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise.

If you believe you do not have free will and you do, then that is just tragic.

So I live my life as if I have free will.

Either engage meaningfully in the discussion, or find something useful to do elsewhere. — Possibility

now look who is venting their frustrations.

an either or command.

relax, dude.

But don’t expect me to respond to you venting your frustrations. — Possibility

or you could look to getting a sense of humor.

What laws of physics are involved here? — Glenn Turner

7 and 8 and in particular 9, paragraph B, clause II.

And you are welcome.

though that is consistent with socialism, that does not establish socialism as its foundation.

when you start down the road of philosophy by reading The Republic. . .

I choose to be aware

I choose to connect

I choose to collaborate — Possibility

Only after I have had my coffee.

This is the first discussion topic I have started, so go easy on me. — Possibility

No.

It is inconsistent to post as your first discussion a discussion that has been done to death and then expect people to go easy on you.

I always were my helmet. :-)

I’m trying not to complicate it unnecessarily. — Possibility

then why don't you just say "I'm trying not to complicate it."?

Philosophy as industry.

Given that I cannot choose to consciously exist in this situation: — Possibility

what does that even mean?

Zeno's paradox, like your paradox, presumes the universe to be analog. However, if the universe is digital, then there is a discrete (finite) number of states between Achilles and the tortoise. So long as Achilles can "jump" discrete states faster that the tortoise, he will catch the tortoise.

so we only matter if the universe depends upon us? Could you be more anthropocentric?

then I suggest you give it some more thought.

There is no Real you because your personality is simply a compilation of your tastes with your experiences and both of those things are beyond any type of reasonable control. — Filipe

You are just begging the question. If I define the real me as "a compilation of my tastes and experiences", then according to you there is a real me/there is no real me.

you are trapped within the "in time" paradigm. Forever is by definition not "in time." Similarly, most religions consider God to not be "in time."

We make things, like computers, from stuff out there and they work out there, for one, and two, we have senses also as to be able to take things in from out there, so, welcome to the real 'our there'! — PoeticUniverse

We make things, like computers, from entities within the world that we are in and they work within the world that we are in, for one, and two, we have senses also as to be able to understand entities within the world that we are in, so, welcome to the world that you are in.