#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

good question and of course, the answer is that one cannot. in that sense, truth is that on the basis of which truth is already understood.

a sense of truth is constitutive of our nature (which does not make us necessarily truthful). we could not make our way about in the world without a sense of truth.

What is art is decided by the artist. A group of people who are difficult to pin down. — Punshhh

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is.

Really. What do you follow that has you putting the highest authority in another, without you absorbing and embracing the ideology and making it your own? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I know that words have meaning and no reasonable person would subscribe to an ideology where they would refer to their self as the "highest authority" while referring to someone else as the "highest authority."

Just saying.

You have more than one process when judging? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

the question was not about the process I use in making a judgment.

Instead, the question was whether I am the "highest authority" regarding my judgments.

And again, that depends upon the issue.

If I have medical issues, I am going to find a doctor worthy of being the "higher authority" on the issues.

And please do not confuse final authority with highest authority and please do not respond in such a way as to make your own vacuous.

I understand art as an expression of human consciousness, and art work as information about the artists consciousness. Art as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all art ever made - cave paintings to present. — Pop

I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness.

Just saying.

How is the physical body not self-sufficient for Plato? — Pantagruel

I was not as clear as I could have been. The issue is not that of how self-sufficient forms (such as soul and body) interact. Instead, the issue is how do distinct substances interact.

For Plato, the real is reducible to the single non-material substance of ideal form. So even if the Platonic body is self-sufficient, it is ultimately reducible to a non-material ideal form. Consequently, Plato never has to explain how the non-material interacts with the material.

For Descartes, the real is reducible to one of two distinct substances, i.e., res cogitans (a thinking substance) and res extensa (a material substance.). And the Cartesians have spent half a millennium trying to answer the reasonable question of “how do two ‘distinct’ substances interact?”

And to date, every Cartesian answer is ultimately reducible to some form of parallelism, magic (transcendence) or “They just do. Isn’t it wonderful?”

Perhaps I could have been more clear. I am thinking of substance ontology in the sense of a substance being "self sufficient." Though Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would speak in terms of "souls" being different from physical forms, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that any of them considered "physical" forms to be self sufficient. As a result, they are able to avoid the issue of how distinct and self sufficient substances can interact. For Plato only the forms are truly self sufficient and for Aquinas only the creator is truly self sufficient. So they avoid the cartesian mind body issue by the simple reduction of all to forms or to God. For them, there is no true dualism.

thank you. I am definitely interested. However and as a technical matter, Fichte himself is certainly post-Cartesian and his own comments beg the issue of whether he himself would have thought in terms of mind/body if he were not post-Cartesian. So in that sense, I am looking for pre-Cartesian framings of the issue as mind/body. But I will certainly check out your recommendations.

The mind-body problem is a feature of the universe and has been debated since time immemorial. — Pantagruel

Please cite any pre-Cartesian debate regarding the "mind-body problem."

I feel no obligation to accept your definition of anti-realist. I am unaware that there is any consensus on a definition of an anti-realist.

I question whether our (human) modes of access to being necessarily exhaust all modes of access to being.

I would be surprised if they did.

I do not see why "physical reality" being three dimensional means that "physical reality" has a monopoly on three dimensional realities.

It is either that your using God to help you judge, or by your Gnostic Christian religion, you are not someone who fits that description. — Qwex

This is a good point. To ask:

Do you follow 1 Thessalonians 5:21, or do you let someone else do your judging for you? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

is perplexing.

Resting a claim to be one's own "highest authority" upon the authority of Thessalonians 5:21 is nonsensical.

do you see the world in some other way? what other way would there be to see the world? — tim wood

I think its called "monism" as opposed to dualism.

depends on the issue.

It can't matter (much) what they think of those of us who 'think about thinking' if they themselves don't also 'think about thinking'. — 180 Proof

I like that.

I suspect most people don't.

we are trapped within cartesian substance ontology in a very perverse way. the very process (thinking) upon which Descartes premised the certainty of his existence is now rated as less real than the res extensa, the questionable existence of which gave rise to the original cartesian doubt.

Oh well.

I seriously doubt that qualia of conscious experience of you as “I” can happen without resonating with other external embodiments/minds. — Sir Philo Sophia

I seriously doubt that qualia of conscious experience of you as “I” can happen without THE APPEARANCE OF resonating with other external embodiments/minds.

I fixed that for ya.

because they keep trying to sell me extended warranties for my auto

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.