You’re making things up in your head. — aRealidealist
Substance isn’t a conception... — aRealidealist
I’ve already addressed you, over & over, you just ignore my response; in Spinoza’s philosophy, “substance” isn’t a conception... — aRealidealist
...substance isn’t a conception. — aRealidealist
Being conceived counts as conception, but the thing of which one has a conception doesn’t. Very simple — aRealidealist
Anything besides direct quotes from Spinoza, for fuck’s sake, is irrelevant. You thinking otherwise is quite telling. — aRealidealist
How is distinguishing between the thing of which one conceives, &, the conception itself, e.g, the sun is different from my conception of it, equivocating? — aRealidealist
Being conceived counts as conception, but the thing of which one has a conception doesn’t. — aRealidealist
By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself [emphasis mine]: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception. — Spinoza, Ethics Part 1, Prop III.
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.