I can't tell whether you find Heidegger convincing or not. Are you pointing out his absurdity or defending him? I would personally give him grief over the implicit distinction between "thinking" and "reason." — R-13
Well, I am pretty much against most metaphysics by default. — Question
It's missing a premise :P"Here is one hand, and here is another, therefore there are at least two external objects, therefore an external world exists." — darthbarracuda
"Here is one hand, and here is another, therefore there are at least two external objects, therefore an external world exists."
How the hell is this even an argument?! — darthbarracuda
How the hell is this even an argument?! — darthbarracuda
Berkeley was defeated by G. E. Moore. Many people hate idealism. — mosesquine
Perhaps we make a basic "existential" choice whether or not take radical skepticism seriously. It's like Samuel Johnson kicking the rock. — R-13
I can't tell whether you find Heidegger convincing or not. Are you pointing out his absurdity or defending him? I would personally give him grief over the implicit distinction between "thinking" and "reason." I'm somewhat aware of what he was getting at, but I still think this "sexy" line just begs for trouble. "Hey, guys. I just invented a stronger type of thinking than reason. Seriously."
We can certainly talk about the limitations of a style or a concept of reasoning, but that doesn't sound as exciting and revolutionary. I do really think the line quoted is "sexy." But I also associate critical thinking with an ability to resist seduction... — R-13
Moore claims that Berkeley did not distinguish perceptions of objects from objects. See 'The Refutation of Idealism'.
Berkeley is confused between 'a cup on the table' and 'an idea of a cup on the table'.
Okay??? — mosesquine
Didn't Berkeley say "esse est percipi"? — mosesquine
Your version of Berkeley is weird.
Whom do you defend?
It's silly. I'm criticizing Berkeley, and you are defending Putnam. It's like I'm doing kick boxing, and you're doing figure skating. — mosesquine
Suppose that your mother put some gift on your bed in Christmas eve night. You found the gift in Christmas morning. You might respond like either:
(1) The mother put some gift last night.
(2) The non-existent Santa Claus put it last night.
(1) is a rational choice, (2) is not so.
Now Berkeley found that things exist without perceiving them. The options are:
(3) This is evidence of the existence of external objects.
(4) This is because god still perceives them.
(3) is rational, (4) is absurd, and Berkeley chooses (4).
Berkeley is the same as children like believing Santa Claus. — 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.