But you care about ontology only if it's irrelevant? — Terrapin Station
Saying you don't care about ontology if it isn't presupposed or irrelevant suggests that you do care what it is if it is presupposed or irrelevant. — Terrapin Station
Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part) — Terrapin Station
I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way... — Terrapin Station
You’re either really super smart or just plain bad at writing. I don’t understand a third to half of what you say in any given post. — Noah Te Stroete
Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. — S
Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and especially that we're only interested in something if we do that.
"Either we accept this assumption without question, or it's irrelevant, or I'm not interested."
Ohhhhhhkay. :razz: — Terrapin Station
Consider this for a moment. (...) If thinking about thought/belief does not include thinking about the emotional aspects, then such considerations are not taking proper account of that which existed in it's entirety prior to the account.
— creativesoul
If I’m considering what color to paint the bedroom, if I fail to think about the starving children in Somalia, then it follows I’ll never decide what color to paint the bedroom because of it? Even if I’m a naturally emotional kinda guy, I don’t need to think an emotional aspect if what I’m thinking about has no emotional content. — Mww
A theory predicated on logic, internally consistent, and non-contradictory....can be wrong?
— Mww
Of course it can be. Coherency is insufficient for truth.
— creativesoul
True enough, but it doesn’t have to be; that’s logic’s job. — Mww
I don’t agree with direct apprehension of external phenomena.
— Noah Te Stroete
Nor do I. Direct perception, sure. No apprehension of external things is direct — Mww
The discussion is about so-called 'pure reason', which is called "pure" because it is supposedly empty of emotional content. — creativesoul
That which pure reason is thinking about always has emotional content. — creativesoul
The discussion is about so-called 'pure reason', which is called "pure" because it is supposedly empty of emotional content.
— creativesoul
No. Pure reason is empty of empirical content. — Mww
If not this, then I have no more interest in it. — Mww
All rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are first adopted via language acquisition. — creativesoul
What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of? — creativesoul
where the creature has no language, such as when a cat — creativesoul
Thought/belief without empirical content? What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of? — creativesoul
A theory predicated on logic, internally consistent, and non-contradictory....can be wrong?
— Mww
Of course it can be. Coherency is insufficient for truth.
— creativesoul
True enough, but it doesn’t have to be; that’s logic’s job.
— Mww
No, it's not. That is a huge mistake. The job of logic is to preserve truth(correspondence) — creativesoul
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.