I'm not talking about formal logic. I'm talking about largely tacit norms that govern what follows from what as a way to understand meaning. — plaque flag
he master-idea of semantic inferentialism is to look instead to inference, rather than representation, as the basic concept of semantics. — plaque flag
That to me is an unclear and uncertain concept. Selves are normative entities. I'll give you that. We are held responsible. But that's all the 'freedom' I'm confident about at the moment. — plaque flag
And since there is no substance to the non-dimensional boundary which separates past from future, all substance is either of the past or of the future. Because the substance of the past is radically different from the substance of the future, substance dualism is justified, and it is the best option for understanding the nature of reality.
I compared naturalism to idealism, not "dualism". — 180 Proof
Also, I did not mention "common sense as a factor in theory creation". — 180 Proof
I think naturalism is more cogent because, as a speculative paradigm, it is more consistent with common sense (i.e. practical, or embodied, participation in nature) than idealism. I find naturalism parsimonious because it does not additionally assume that 'ideas transcend (i.e. constitute) nature' as idealism (re: ideality) does — 180 Proof
"Personally, I advocate for using the standard definitions. If the above paragraph is a correct description of your views, I would then refer to your view as epistemologically motivated ontological idealism. One must separate the contents of an axiom from its motivation, lest they be confused."
I have never heard of that term, but, yes, that seems to fit nicely! — Bob Ross
Oh, I see. Have you looked into a priori knowledge? — Bob Ross
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but to me “causality” has been reserved for ‘interaction’ in a physical sense in the literature; (...) — Bob Ross
How is randomness incompatible with an idealistic reality?How are there any random events in an idealistic reality? — RogueAI
How is randomness incompatible with an idealistic reality? — Ø implies everything
In an idealistic reality, isn't everything a dream? A creation of one super-mind, or a collection of minds? Are there random events in dreams? How would that work? — RogueAI
But I can respond to your comment with another question: how is physicalism any more welcoming of randomness than idealism? — Ø implies everything
Depends on what you call uncaused. Is the potential for something a cause? — Ø implies everything
Interesting. I've never heard the argument that past and future are different substances. Substance is generally supposed to be able to undergo change though, so doesn't that presuppose that it exists through time? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes. Aristotle studied both Physics and Metaphysics as different aspects of comprehensive "Nature". Today, empirical scientists claim the royal realm of Reality, and leave the plebeian domain of Ideality to feckless philosophers & "soft" scientists. IMHO though, theoretical scientists, like Einstein, are actually philosophers, who serve the needs of noble empiricists by converting their sensory swine into savory pork for the plate. (Please pardon the tongue-in-cheek metaphors)The contents of human minds are Ideal (in the sense of subjective concepts), and everything else is more or less Real. From that perspective Universals are merely memes in human minds. Whether they exist elsewhere is debatable. But we like to think that mathematical Principles and physical Laws are somehow Real, since evidence for them is found consistently in Nature. :smile: — Gnomon
To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer
Empiricism and naturalism have an innate bias against the idea of innate knowledge (irony alert! — Wayfarer
Whereas, I believe that the a priori reflects innate structures within the mind that are operative in the exercise of reason. — Wayfarer
I also idly speculate that the realm of necessary facts is somehow connected to an intuitive understanding of what must always be the case, in order for the world to be as it is. — Wayfarer
In physical Reality, everything is Particular, except that rational minds somehow "see" General (holistic) patterns, known as "Universals" & "Principles". — Gnomon
But where did those rules-for-Reason come from? — Gnomon
I believe it was Quine who called the whole notion into question, saying that there is no clear boundary between what we can know a priori and what we can know based on experience. Rather, all of our knowledge is interconnected, and any belief can potentially be revised in light of new evidence. — Wayfarer
My problem with that is, well, pure maths, for starters. — Wayfarer
knowledge of the divine? — Tom Storm
I also idly speculate that the realm of necessary facts is somehow connected to an intuitive understanding of what must always be the case, in order for the world to be as it is.
— Wayfarer
Interesting, can you say some more to clarify this point? Are you saying, for instance, that space/time is part of human's innate cognitive apparatus - it constructs our understanding of reality? — Tom Storm
Platonism sometimes seem to merely assume its own conclusion. — plaque flag
Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to deny that knowledge of mathematical objects is possible.
human beings [are] physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.
Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought.
The indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics is an attempt to justify our mathematical beliefs about abstract objects, while avoiding any appeal to rational insight. Its most significant proponent was Willard van Orman Quine.
Why would it be that one of the purportedly major 20th c philosophers wants to 'avoid any appeal to rational insight?' — Wayfarer
The issue becomes clarifying how they exist. — plaque flag
That's right. But in the current lexicon, 'existence' is a univocal term - something either exists or it doesn't. — Wayfarer
But don't you think the requirement for there to be an argument for the indispensability mathematics says something? What makes it necessary to defend mathematical insight? Don't you think this is an ideological argument? — Wayfarer
That 'existence' is not univocal is stressed in the intro of Being and Time. — plaque flag
(Still feel as though the point I was labouring has somewhat slipped the net here.) — Wayfarer
Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to deny that knowledge of mathematical objects is possible.
Why is this? Because apparently our 'best epistemic theories' include the assumption that
human beings [are] physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.
Whereas,
Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought.
The basic drift of the remainder of the article is this:
The indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics is an attempt to justify our mathematical beliefs about abstract objects, while avoiding any appeal to rational insight. Its most significant proponent was Willard van Orman Quine. — Wayfarer
Obviously different kinds of existence are considered in philosophy, but on the whole, naturalism and popular philosophy tends towards a flat ontological structure, rejecting the kind of Aristotelian distinctions between different kinds of being, doesn't it? — Wayfarer
On the same theme - what is your take on the notion that reason requires some kind of guarantor for it to operate. The logical absolutes; identify, non-contraction and excluded middle seem to make reason and math and this conversation possible. — Tom Storm
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.