The things which are responsible for your mind having something to assimilate. — Marchesk
Should we bring Meillassoux and fossils into the discussion? Evolution has already been mentioned. — Marchesk
Then you learn a trade — Bartricks
Do you have an explanation why there are philosophers who disagreed with Berkeley's arguments to this day? — Marchesk
Kant intends to refute what he calls problematic idealism, according to which the existence of objects outside us in space is “doubtful and indemonstrable” (B274). His strategy is to derive the claim that such objects exist from my awareness that my representations have a specific temporal order. At the present time I am aware of the specific temporal order of many of my past experiences, an awareness produced by memory. But what is it about what I remember that allows me to determine the temporal order of my experiences? There must be something by reference to which I can correlate the remembered experiences that allows me to determine their temporal order.
It is dangerous to desire knowledge too strongly. — Gregory
To say the reality consists merely in our thinking is fantastic poetry because it is so fantastical. — Gregory
To doubt or deny the existence of an external world is to be stuck continually reminding oneself of this. — Gregory
It creates one of those annoying subjective itches — Gregory
Now, if you want to do philosophy, try and reject one of Berkeley's premises without assuming that materialism is true. — Bartricks
He's known as one of the great British empiricists. — Bartricks
Berkeley is most decidedly not an empiricist. — Bartricks
But any object that is extended in space will be infinitely divisible. Yet nothing can be infinitely divisible, for that would involve it having infinite parts - which is to posit an actual infinity. There are no actual infinities in reality, thus there are no extended things. — Bartricks
Here you go – from old thread:try and reject one of Berkeley's premises without assuming that materialism is true. — Bartricks
"To be, is to be perceived"
— chiknsld
If so and if, however, it doesn't make sense to say "perceiving is perceived", then "perceiving" cannot be; therefore "to be" has to be other (more) than "to be perceived" ... — 180 Proof
I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny, is that which philosophers call matter or corporeal substance.’ — Wayfarer
I don’t regard his system as a satisfactory form of idealism, mainly because of his nominalism. — Wayfarer
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.