I am starting to find this Kantian/Hegelian view more and more incoherent day by day. — Agustino
180 Proof Ahh how I miss that man!I engaged in a discussion along these lines many years ago with a poster, a self-styled expert Spinozist and "entropist", on the old forum. — John
I'd be interested to see this discussion, if you could offer a link to PF via http://www.cachedpages.com/When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. What a cop out! — John
180 Proof would go further and argue that Spinoza is an acosmist - only Substance is real.I pointed out that Spinoza makes a distinction between natura naturans (the self-causing priniciple) and natura naturata (the causal nexus that is the natural world) and asserts that God is the former but not the latter (to which the other poster agreed) thus saving himself from pantheism. — John
Don't forget that according to Spinoza there also exist eternal modes (or infinite modes, can't remember how Spinoza calls them, it's been so long since I last read him). Before I say anything further, what arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings are you making reference to?When I pointed out that the self-causing principle cannot be anything in the world by Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings, and that from this it followed that God must be transcendent (as well as immanent, mind) the other poster became all huffy and accused me of 'refusing to learn', and would not, or more likely could not, explain himself further. — John
Many would disagree - Heidegger bridges the gap between realism/idealism or at least attempts to.Heidegger was an idealist — John
Why is the notion of substance flawed per your view? Material or immaterial describes the characteristic of substance. For example, for idealists, the underlying substance is mental. Now whether substance is material or non-material is besides the point of whether the notion of substance is flawed or not. So why do you think the notion is flawed? I'll get back to you in more detail, but I'll need some time to dig into Ethics again, and into the many Spinoza commentary books that I have.I think the very notion of substance is deeply flawed. But you obviously support it, so please explain to me exactly what a material substance is, and if you can successfully achieve that, then explain to me what an immaterial substance could be. — John
So is there no room for God in that picture as an Aristotelian Prime Mover? Also I don't understand why realism has to be materialistic...The only cogent alternative is materialistic realism (although it is certainly arguable that the independent reality of things cannot be truly coherently thought); but there is really no room for God on that picture. — John
Many would disagree - Heidegger bridges the gap between realism/idealism or at least attempts to. — Agustino
I'd be interested to see this discussion, if you could offer a link to PF via http://www.cachedpages.com/ — Agustino
In my opinion, the man was one of the few from whom I've learned A LOT from, even though most of the time I disagreed with him. I probably can't compare anyone else currently in this forum with him. He always brought the hardest arguments against me, and made me think. I always missed him because I don't feel as challenged without him. Most other people I can dispatch easily or see through them but 180 was hard, and he always fought back - and his responses - I could hardly predict what he will respond with, he always said something original. So I find here a few people I agree with - and I generally agree with on most important matters. And then a few that I disagree with, but those that I really disagree with, they're not that hard to deal with - I don't find their arguments plausible at all.Personally I don't much miss his cryptic dribblings. But as I remember it, he certainly did occasionally come up with some original insights. — John
180 Proof would go further and argue that Spinoza is an acosmist - only Substance is real. — Agustino
Okay let me teach you :PI'm not that computer savvy and I don't know how to find the stuff on the old PF; which is a pity because I would have downloaded my posts for future reference. — John
In my opinion, the man was one of the few from whom I've learned A LOT from, even though most of the time I disagreed with him. I probably can't compare anyone else currently in this forum with him. He always brought the hardest arguments against me, and made me think. I always missed him because I don't feel as challenged without him. Most other people I can dispatch easily or see through them but 180 was hard, and he always fought back - and his responses - I could hardly predict what he will respond with, he always said something original. — Agustino
I haven't said it is superior to all those on this forum (gosh who would even think about that). I've said that amongst people I disagree with here, most aren't challenging.To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. I believe 180 also had an exaggerated idea of his own philosophical abilities, I found he always withdrew when I challenged his assertions; so maybe you were good for supporting each other's self-delusions. — John
No, I actually said that in the context of referencing people I disagree with. People I disagree with don't make me question myself. Their arguments are flimsy and weak. 180 Proof made me question myself. There are some I agree with here, and I think they have good philosophical aptitudes, and have honed in on the truth to a large degree.You say you can "dispatch others easily" but I think you haven't considered the possibility that this perception is not of the reality but of your own little fantasy. — John
No, I actually said that in the context of referencing people I disagree with. — Agustino
Sometimes I think you don't even realise how small you're becoming :)LOL, who do think I am being jealous of? Not yourself, surely! To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. I certainly think you have good potential.
Note, I said "if you think your philosophical ability is superior". I didn't say you did think that but some of your comments do make it seem so, to me at least. — John
:-} Right... >:O It's easy to defame people when they can't defend themselves, and when others can't defend them because you refuse to give them the chance to do it. But whatever, you defame me and 180, we'll let other people say what they think about us. Maybe you got jealous you never got more than +2 likes on PF or whatever. I don't know what's up with this attitude of yours.Sorry man, It's really too much hassle for me. I have no recall even of what the thread was called where the exchange took place. — John
Right... >:O — Agustino
An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are?Of course! Anyone who expresses an honest opinion about you that you don't like must necessarily be small, right? This is a common ploy you commonly employ. :-} Better try some arguments instead if you want to impress people. — John
I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing.Is this meant to convey that you think I'm lying, or what?
Really, Agustino, I'm finding conversing with you less and less appealing. I'm really not interested in the kinds of bullshit games that you seem to be intent on playing.
Say what you really think and why, or just don't bother; otherwise it's a waste of time. :-d — John
It's easy to defame people when they can't defend themselves, and when others can't defend them because you refuse to give them the chance to do it. But whatever, you defame me and 180, we'll let other people say what they think about us. Maybe you got jealous you never got more than +2 likes on PF or whatever. I don't know what's up with this attitude of yours. — Agustino
Stop bitching. And I don't care if you're on your man period or not. — Heister Eggcart
What's a "man period" though? — John
To be honest if you think your philosophical ability is superior to all of those on this forum, then I would say you are woefully deluded. — John
I would not count you as being in the top twenty percent of thinkers on this forum — John
To be honest, your a young guy, and it shows; I see you as a philosophical pup, so to speak. — John
An argument to do what, to show what a fool you are? — Agustino
I did in fact write what I think and why. If you bother to read it. Really you're disappointing. — Agustino
I don't think you realize how infinitesimal you have become. — John
Maybe you're growing too old and senile John. — Agustino
If you had even one shred of the wisdom you claim you have, you would never have started any of this. I really think you should be ashamed of yourself. — Agustino
if you want to continue satisfying your jealousies, you can do so by yourself. — Agustino
which of those comments would you count as being merely honest expressions of the one's impressions of the other, and which would you count as being 'adhominous', as imputing something that one could not possibly know about the other, or as being deliberately insulting as opposed to attempting to be a corrective to a perceived lack of humility and generally obnoxious behavior ? — John
And please stop with the dopey gifs... — John
Because none of that claptrap is on-topic. — Heister Eggcart
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.