it. I'm not inclined to assume non-physical things exist if the relevant phenomena can be adequately accounted for in physicalist terms — Relativist
The OP wants to know if causality is synthetic a priori (or not). — Agent Smith
There's obviously a connection. I think the whole question of what constitutes a synthetic a priori judgement is still wide open. — Wayfarer
No. I was referring to physical phenomena, not to perception. If you choose not to trust your perceptions, that's an entirely different issue.But notice that 'phenomena' means 'what appears'. — Wayfarer
I agree they exist in nature, within the objects that exhibit them. I have a problem with assuming they have independent existence, because that raises more unanswered questions. — Relativist
No. I was referring to physical phenomena, not to perception. — Relativist
My view is, all of these primitive or basic intellectual operations such as number and logical principles underpin the process of rational thought and language — Wayfarer
.at least as far as our kind of intelligence...
— Mww
What other kind is there? — Wayfarer
The question is how? — Agent Smith
Without causality, no life. Only if causality exists, life can exist. Life exists. So causality is an a priori logical necessity. — Hillary
I'm beginning to suspect that the very existence of reason is actually an inconvenient truth for a lot of analytical philosophy. — Wayfarer
But they meet all the time.. — Wayfarer
Physical causality is a logical necessity for life to exist. It's not a sufficient logical necessity though. But without it, life can't evolve in the first place. — Hillary
Sure, giving reasons for reasons is superfluous — Banno
rationality is a group enterprise; since it is dependent on language, it is an aspect of our institutional world. — Banno
Physical cause is not logical necessity. — Banno
Hands up – who actually read Anscombe's article? — Banno
‘Why do some individuals have hypertension?’ is a quite different question from ‘Why do some populations have much hypertension, whilst in others it is rare?’ — G Rose
There are possible worlds in which the quantity of matter changes, in which action and reaction are not opposites. — Banno
Hand up. At a slight tangent…. — Cuthbert
...but posted it anyway.Didn’t find it particularly illuminating... — Wayfarer
I'm not necessarily endorsing or arguing for causal determinism. — Wayfarer
I have a deep confusion about why philosophy sees this disconnection between logical necessity and physical causation. — Wayfarer
Ah, Ok, so to the deeper issue. Isn't this a bit like trying to rationalise rationality? How to put into words the very act of putting things into words? Looks to me like something we show but not say; something at the very edge of language use. Something like that seems to be implicit in the last few paragraphs of Anscombe's article. I suspect that she has some Thomistic solution she is hinting at but not setting out, that might well be more in line with your approach than with mine.I think I'm trying to articulate the nature of the relation between ideas and reality. — Wayfarer
But to 'explain reason' is to invariably sell it short! As soon as you account for it in anything other than it's own terms, then you're denying the sovereignty of reason. I'm beginning to suspect that the very existence of reason is actually an inconvenient truth for a lot of analytical philosophy. — Wayfarer
How this intuition of time, manifesting as order, is itself grounded, whether it is grounded in experience, or something more fundamental than experience, as prior to experience, and a condition for the possibility of experience, is probably an issue of how we define the terms. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.