Obviously because by the principle of contradiction, nothing can be eliminated, and every A has a ~A. But again that's saying nothing significant. It's lazy. Every fact has a counter-fact. So? Do I need to postulate an infinity of possible worlds in order to describe reality? That's nonsense.'Everything is possible' means 'everything has its counterparts'. Have you ever read his counterpart theory? I think that your accusation is not justified. — mosesquine
>:O The problem with Descartes is that he got almost nothing right. His ideas are the absolute worst that probably any philosopher has had. Cartesian doubt, the homunculus, substance dualism, mind-body problems, etc. Absolute disaster! Philosophy would have been better off if it had been spared of the tragedy that was Descartes. That's why philosophers after Descartes, like Spinoza, tried to dress Aristotelianism as it was passed through Averroes into the clothes of Cartesianism which was gaining popularity, merely to save philosophy from a great sophistry. And after the likes of Spinoza, Hume et al. laughed at Descartes!Meh. I'd say all of Western metaphysics is in trying to explain how Descartes must have gotten it wrong. — Hanover
Unfortunately, even taking into account my meagre intelligence, I doubt that's the case >:OHowever, Descartes is smarter than you. — mosesquine
Yes, or maybe what Lewis says is useless bullshit.Your interpretation of Lewis is not standard. Maybe you don't understand Lewis. — mosesquine
Why does Lewis' metaphysics matter? He has no way to prove there exists even another single possible world. All his framework is empty sophistry, and it is completely useless. Who, in their right mind, would create an infinity of possible worlds in order to explain this single reality that we experience... that's nuts - it is crazy! Has he forgotten to shave with Occam's Razor?What you criticize Lewis are all that Lewisian philosophers respond like "what the fuck is that guy talking about?" — mosesquine
Yeah in some possible world, I'm sure it does >:OThe head of Agustino has 100 holes. — mosesquine
In this world, Lewis is dead, so he can't do anything. He can only do stuff in the possible worlds in which he still exists... >:OLewis can cut holes in your head. — mosesquine
Then present the correct view, stop sitting there doing nothing except pointing fingers.Your information about Lewis is 100% incorrect. What are you attacking? — mosesquine
Let's see:Even Wikipedia entry is better than you. — mosesquine
Good for him! >:OYou merely show that you hate Lewis. Lewis is smarter than you, anyway. — mosesquine
Yeah, a small picayune and insignificant contribution to metaphysics, I too agree.Very few philosophers accept modal realism, not because it is useless, but because it is extreme. Many philosophers endorse that modal realism contributes to metaphysics. — mosesquine
Actually I gave quite specific criticism.Your attack on Lewisian modal realism has no specific content. You're just saying it is useless. You're just saying it is insignificant. I don't think that it is useless. I don't think that it is insignificant. You just hate Lewis because you don't understand him. — mosesquine
Which is fair - because modal realism wants to create an infinity of unnecessary entities - the possible worlds - which it actually claims exist.Who, in their right mind, would create an infinity of possible worlds in order to explain this single reality that we experience... that's nuts - it is crazy! Has he forgotten to shave with Occam's Razor? — Agustino
The fundamental distinction that Lewisian modal realism relies on is empty of content - it doesn't state anything about reality precisely because it states everything.Obviously because by the principle of contradiction, nothing can be eliminated, and every A has a ~A. But again that's saying nothing significant. It's lazy. Every fact has a counter-fact. So? Do I need to postulate an infinity of possible worlds in order to describe reality? That's nonsense. — Agustino
Okay.We can think about the way things could have been — mosesquine
How do you know this?Anything thinkable can exist — mosesquine
Okay.Possible worlds (= the ways things could have been) are thinkable. — mosesquine
Okay.Therefore, possible worlds can exist. — mosesquine
In what sense is this realism? From "they can exist" to they DO exist is a long way.This is a summary of the reason for modal realism. — mosesquine
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.