So no subject/object dualism? — Mww
the world is only for or through such persons. (….) the world is independent of any particular individual subject, — plaque flag
Do these not contradict each other? Or, how do these not contradict each other? Can a thing be both for and through, and independent of that for which it is for and through? — Mww
To whose transcendental ego have you favored as your own? — Mww
What's weird about my view is its stubborn and intense anthropocentrism. — plaque flag
Feuerbach — plaque flag
I’m a firm supporter of the relation between the human intellect, and the method by which the world is understood by means of it. It’s not weird at all, it’s impossible that is could be otherwise. — Mww
YIKES!!! A Young Hegelian?!?! Schopenhaur’s favorite targets, and he t’weren’t proper gentlemanly about it, neither. — Mww
Positivism and phenomenology are 'basically' Kantian, seems to me. Perhaps all [ critical ] philosophy is. — plaque flag
Usually philosophy is critical of something, but Kantian philosophy on the other hand, is critical of philosophy itself. Or maybe the general metaphysical discipline specifically. — Mww
I take critical philosophy to be interested in articulating the limits of speculation — plaque flag
Cool. I’d go as far as to take it a step further, and call it the limits of reason. But then, I suppose speculation presupposes reason, so….close enough. — Mww
Feedback. It's very beautiful and difficult and 'foolish.' — plaque flag
The charitable expression of circularity, which is indeed foolish, yet at the same time, inescapable. — Mww
Sorry, I persist in giving you credit for more explanatory powers than your modest evasion would imply.I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. — Quixodian
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.