Basically what you're doing is pointing to your head and talking about the rich inner mental world that you can never describe. Why bother? — Zophie
How is it that the ocean can have many waves? How is it that the sky can have many weather-events? How is it that a cloud can have many shapes? How is it that a face can have many expressions? How is that the territory can have – be described by – many maps? ...My biggest question of his metaphysics right now is how is it that Will can have many "wills"? — schopenhauer1
Why is it also that there is wave-perspective in the first place, if every wave is ultimately ocean?Why is it also that there is representation in the first place, if all is ultimately Will?
That is to say that the structure of the mind is logical, and can be known, logically. — TheGreatArcanum
And what is to be done with the intrinsic circularity of such a system? — Mww
Specifically, I’m looking for my information on the immateriality of subjectivity because I find both Kants philosophy to be primitive in this sense. — TheGreatArcanum
Have you checked-out Kant's Metaphysics? For instance: How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
Systems. Antecedent to propositions constructed by it. — Mww
Kant's Metaphysics — 3017amen
Mentioned. — Mww
Have you checked-out Kant's Metaphysics? For instance: How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
Yes, and I think that I have successfully answered this question. — TheGreatArcanum
How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
the logical form and process of thought and its relationship to the logical form of the mind considered in itself — TheGreatArcanum
a synthetic a priori proposition is a proposition which is not true by definition and does not have its origin in perception. — TheGreatArcanum
a priori propositions are possible because the mind in itself is immaterial and possess the inherent ability to know itself, meaning, of course, that the mind, in using propositions to conceive of its own structure or essence, is formulating a priori propositions. they cannot originate in the perception because that which is immaterial is necessarily transcendent of perception, which necessitates space. — TheGreatArcanum
synthetic a priori propositions are possible because the subject in itself is immaterial, and also, free (in the sense that a subject, by its very nature, has free will). — TheGreatArcanum
This is the what a system of thought does, considered in itself. There are no propositions, hence no circular reasoning involved therein, but are deriveable from it by means of it.
When I asked about the intrinsic circularity contained in the system, you answered with the circularity possible from the illogical employment of the system.
Can’t mix the two, in building a new philosophy. — Mww
This is the what a system of thought does, considered in itself. — Mww
There are no propositions — Mww
There are no propositions, hence no circular reasoning involved therein, but are deriveable from it by means of it. — Mww
When I asked about the intrinsic circularity contained in the system, you answered with the circularity possible from the illogical employment of the system.
Can’t mix the two, in building a new philosophy. — Mww
Exception taken as note: Is 'perception' tantamount to self-awareness? And of so, what is self-awareness, a metaphysical, or as so well articulated, an immaterial entity? — 3017amen
No exceptions taken there. However, what about the proposition : All events must have a cause. Assuming that is a classic synthetic a priori proposition, can you put that into context? — 3017amen
And, what are you thinking is transcendent of perception? — 3017amen
If I could paraphrase, is that another way of saying that each individual has volitional existence and/or their own sense of same (subjective truth)? — 3017amen
the logical form and process of thought and its relationship to the logical form of the mind considered in itself — TheGreatArcanum
meaning that the essence of the subject involves the formulation of thoughts; — TheGreatArcanum
The subject is that to which the thoughts belong, the subject is not itself the process. — Mww
The essence of the subject, though, is merely the manifold of his representations. — Mww
But hey........it’s your philosophy, do with it as you wish. Who knows; we might be witnessing another paradigm shift. — Mww
the process is contained within the essence of the subject and does not exist independently of it. — TheGreatArcanum
The subject never even arises until or unless the system thinks about itself, insofar as the subject merely represents the first person nature of the system, by means of propositions the system constructs in accordance with its own rules. — Mww
how can we say that knowledge is reducible to propositional knowledge? — TheGreatArcanum
How is it that the ocean can have many waves? How is it that the sky can have many weather-events? How is it that a cloud can have many shapes? How is it that a face can have many expressions? How is that the territory can have – be described by – many maps? ... — 180 Proof
there is a passive state of subjectivity (when thought is not active) — TheGreatArcanum
and an active state of subjectivity (when thought is active) — TheGreatArcanum
that is to say that the subject has a quasi-unconscious non-representational a priori knowledge of its potential to create change within itself through thought. — TheGreatArcanum
subject doesn't need to represent itself using propositions to know that it exists, — TheGreatArcanum
the subject, while the active state is not instantiated, is not non-existent, but existent in a state of potentiality, in which every aspect of its essence (with the exception of a few; I'm sure you can guess which ones are active and which are not) are still existent. — TheGreatArcanum
even people who disagree with my philosophy are going to love my philosophy simply because of its poeticness and its originality. — TheGreatArcanum
No exceptions taken there. However, what about the proposition : All events must have a cause. Assuming that is a classic synthetic a priori proposition, can you put that into context? — 3017amen
I do not like defining things in terms of causes because the term is ambiguous, and one must also distinguish between physical causes and mental causes, because they are not the same, for one involves spatial relations and the other does not. The mere existence of physical causation is an assumption, yet hitherto, philosophers have thought it reasonable to ground their philosophies in the supposed truth that "all events must have a (physical) cause." According to my understanding, this proposition must be changed to "all events must have a mental cause," and this is because subjectivity in itself is transcendent of space. This means that all physical causes are mental causes in disguise. — TheGreatArcanum
And, what are you thinking is transcendent of perception? — 3017amen
the essence of subjectivity in itself is transcendent of perception. — TheGreatArcanum
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.