analytic a posteriori truths. His famous example is the claim that 'water is H2O', which can't be known a priori but is analytic in the sense that what we mean by the conventional term "water" - what water is - is just the material identified scientifically as H20 and not any of the numerous possible descriptions of water (such as being "wet" or "clear" etc.) — Mentalusion

An analytic truth is a necessary truth knowable a priori. Kripke talked of necessary truths knowable a posteriori. For example, it is necessarily true that water is H20 in that in no possible world could water be anything but H20. It is knowable a posteriori because it is knowable through experience, i.e. you have to do tests on water to determine that it is indeed H20 and not something else.

As far as majoring in philosophy, it may or may not be a waste of money. If you double major in something "useful" as Mentalusion suggested, then it can enhance your education. Also, beware of student loans.

Naming and Necessity also deals with the contingent a priori, but those weren't the parts I was referring to. I was referring to the parts where he deals with the referential theory of language, namely the historical/causal relationship between names and their referants.

Thanks for the insight on "substance". Interesting stuff! :)

These are some interesting thoughts, macrosoft. I will have to give it more thought myself. Thanks for contributing. :)

I've dealt with apathy and anhedonia for years. It was just a matter of getting on medication that my body could metabolize (my doctor gave me a genetic test for favorable medications), and changing my perspective on life.

PM me if you want to talk further. I can relate.

It's really not a long book. Just a series of lectures. Weren't you considering majoring in philosophy?

It's been years since I've read it myself, and I don't remember his arguments any more, but I DO know that you would be well-served reading Kripke if you truly want an understanding of the topic.

I will jump in without reading the entire thread. Sorry for being lazy and sorry if someone else mentioned this.

You should read "Naming and Necessity" by Saul Kripke. He is widely recognized as the preeminent authority on this topic.

I haven’t read the entire thread, so I apologize if someone else talked about this. I recommend reading “Naming and Necessity” by Saul Kripke. He is seen as the preeminent authority on this subject.

Yes, of course! Perhaps I also took "great" to mean "setting a precedent" as well.

Perhaps it's more a poverty in the education system than anything. Contemporaries rarely get their due in secondary and post-secondary institutions.

It makes the functioning, actual ground imperfectly but sufficiently visible to make a nit-picking theory of knowledge look like the construction of tiny ships in a bottle that will never sail.

God bless you, macrosoft. You said it, bub!

I may have misinterpreted Brian's original request for "the last great ones." Certainly there are great works of art that are being produced right now as we speak. However, I chose to give my personal favorites instead, taking "great" to be a subjective term.

I also apologize for my list containing only white men. Certainly there are great women and members of other ethnicities. Unfortunately, my experience has been dominated by white men. That is probably the fault of both society and myself. Having said that, you might forgive me for looking up to particular men, being a man myself.

I don't believe clarity is always necessary even for philosophy. I think being poetic is quite okay for some areas of philosophy, especially ontology, where being is subjective.

Take for example what Einstein said about reality. It's stranger than our language can even get at. Furthermore, physicists say that logic appears to break down when looking at the very small. (Perhaps that's why one of my physics professors at NYIT wrote poetry.)

I think poetry is often more informative than Anglo-American analytic philosophy in getting at some aspects of reality, so, no, being clear is not always appropriate imho.

A third possibility besides consciousness being (1) an epiphenomenon or (2) a primary substance is (3) consciousness is a substance on par with matter. But how could matter and mind interact, you ask? Well, I will be so presumptuous as to proffer a suggestion:

Consciousness is universal, and our material brains, through the pineal gland, act as a kind of antenna to facilitate the universal consciousness. Our differences being determined by matter. Our commonality being determined by a shared universal consciousness.

I don’t see how this is falsifiable.

Well, I always liked Copland's "Rodeo"

But I also like Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor. Eery sh*t!

Well, okay. However, if the patterns follow physical and mathematical laws as in Turing's fractals, then they aren't just in my mind as the rock formation elephant is.

Musical piece:

Can't go wrong with Bohemian Rhapsody for the virgin ear! Freddy Mercury's command and presence, the different styles all in one song, the emotion, and the Kafka-esque storyline.

Visual art:

I like Gaugin. Just do. The colors. The simplistic styling of the characters. The form. Just like him.

Literature:

Kurt Vonnegut. I've read 11 of his novels. Never a bad suggestion for a good, hearty, angst-driven laugh

Philosophy:

Be your own favorite philosopher. Everyone can and should develop this art/science

Leadership:

Octavius? He was good at what he did, anyway, and the Roman Empire was no small principality

I was just saying that nature tends to repeat patterns on different size scales.

Good points, Herg. Perhaps neurons coelesce around consciousness? Consciousness is the glue? If so, then consciousness would be the primary substance. Yes, it appears that consciousness stops when the brain dies, but what if consiousness just disperses into the cosmos? The cosmos being conscious as well (as I intimated to Terrapin Station).

That analogy doesn't fit with Turing's fractals in the same way that my analogy does. I don't find any aesthetic beauty in your analogy, but more consequentially, is the hypothesis that matter adheres to consciousness falsifiable?

It has been observed that the cosmos when viewed from a sufficiently far distance is structured very similarly to the neuronal structure of brains. Perhaps some would argue that the universe itself is conscious.

Perhaps then matter is dependent on consciousness?

Does this metaphysic imply that libertarian free will is possible? Can neuroscience even falsify it?

I also take "light" to mean "knowledge." So, to be "in the light" would be to know God.

Edit:

OOPs. posted in the wrong thread

Herg:

I think the commandment should be read as, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you (by others)," not "do to others what you do to yourself." Now, you know you shouldn't eat lots of ice cream and lie on the couch too much, but Jesus wasn't saying that if you do this, then you should wish others to do this as well. He would most likelly say, "Life is hard. It's very easy to lie on the couch and eat ice cream given the temptation to do so. Now, you wouldn't want others to judge you too harshly for this because life is really hard, so don't judge other people's souls for their sins."

Much of the Bible deals with turning away from God who is also personified light, as in the light of the Spirit. For someone who has turned away from God, His light will not be comprehended by the person's soul's "darkness." Also, his or her darkness will not overcome the Light, which to me means that God's Light will always prevail.

Just my interpretation.

It is also my belief that the referential theory of language is inadequate regarding God. Language and rational thought do not and cannot refer to God. Only faith and feeling, specifically the feeling of love, refer to God.

As far as the arguments against an Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Creator God, or the arguments for one for that matter, it is my belief that they will always miss the mark. God is ineffable and His (or Her) Grace must be experienced.

I welcome any counter-arguments. However, I will leave it to you all to argue amongst yourselves. I have said my piece.