this would raise questions about what is meant by "feeling" in this context and how it is related to the physical processes that occur in the universe. — schopenhauer1
Yes. And if someone methodically designates an elusive entity that cannot, even in principle, be plugged into the rest of the causal nexus, then it's no surprise that science can't help us with it. It's been defined as exactly what concepts can't address, as a surplus or remainder of public inquiry. — green flag
:up:The thing that provides the very foundations of knowing, seems to be itself elusive. — schopenhauer1
then there's something wrong with firstperson experience as a metaphysical concept. It's as elusive as the meaning of being. — green flag
I wouldn’t say it’s elusive. I’d say that my first person experience is the most self-evident thing there is to me. And I have no reason to believe I’m special, so I assume others have it too. — Michael
Is this synthetic or analytic knowledge ? A discovery or a paraphrase ? What is the nature of this self-given self ? Is this person itself given ? Are you a 'pure witness' before which there stands an empirical ego which is transparent to itself ?I’d say that my first person experience is the most self-evident thing there is to me. — Michael
But who will doubt that he lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges? For even if he doubts, he lives. If he doubts where his doubts come from, he remembers. If he doubts, he understands that he doubts. If he doubts, he wants to be certain. If he doubts, he thinks. If he doubts, he knows that he does not know. If he doubts, he judges that he ougth not rashly to give assent. So whoever acquires a doubt from any source ought not to doubt any of these things whose non-existence would mean that he could not entertain doubt about anything. — Augustine, On the Trinity 10.10.14 quoted in Richard Sorabji, Self, 2006, p.219
*5. Punted: To Give Up
But as an idiom, “to punt” means to give up, to defer action, or to pass responsibility off to someone else. — Gnomon
Yeah, I'll get pilloried for being too direct. Philosophy is hard. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I might be wrong, yours might be a brilliant and correct approach. But I'm not seeing it. — Banno
Husserl also criticized Descartes for relying on the language of subject and object, which he believed reinforced a dualistic view of the world. — Wayfarer
More generally, it looks like the rhetorical crowbar of fancy math is used against the boundary of science and metaphysics / religion. — plaque flag
Can you clarify? — Tom Storm
The schools of enactivism and embodied cognition draw a great deal from phenomenology. (All these sources I've only become familiar with through the Forums in the last decade or so and am trying to get up to speed on.) — Wayfarer
The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. — James Jeans
The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory. — Arthur Eddington
The physical world is entirely abstract and without actuality apart from its linkage to consciousness. — Arthur Eddington
The self as subject of experience is never the object of cognition but that to whom they appear. — Wayfarer
Husserl also criticized Descartes for relying on the language of subject and object, which he believed reinforced a dualistic view of the world. — Wayfarer
This is flat earth semantics, in that makes sense at first but turns out to be more wrong than right. — plaque flag
You keep saying that the idea that meaning can be divorced from use is like believing in a flat Earth. — Janus
you haven't even offered any argument for why you think meaning cannot be divorced from use, but just repeated claims that it's wrong, whatever that might mean. — Janus
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.