Man, I mean I think some mystical stuff is pretty cool, like Wittgenstein's stuff in the last parts of Tractatus. It's when it becomes New Agey or "Divine Wisdom" that I find it annoying, like, all of a sudden this person has an experience and thinks they're being insightful. :roll:

Oh, be my guest. But making shite up is not philosophy. — Banno

There's more stuff in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy. Probably.

, , Yeah, sure. All that trite bullshit. Just not today.

I mean, if I see further, it's because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, is all I'm saying.

:snicker:

Yeah, sure. All that trite bullshit. Just not today. — Banno

:nerd:

:smirk:

I happened on this presentation about the 'Register Theory' of Jacques Lacan. In it, there is, I think, a particularly vivid depiction of 'the Real'. The accented voice-over might be a little grating, but I for one learned a lot from it, never having encountered Jacques Lacan previously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD9rMahFFHc

So what does that have to do with your phrase

@180 Proof

If you read my comment, you will understand their connection.

"Cognitive apparatus" and "reality" are completely different, unrelated, concepts.

@180 Proof

On what basis do you say that these concepts are unrelated?
Please refer to Kant.

Well then, carefully re-read what Spinoza wrote (re: Ethics, I "Of God") because that is his point.

@180 Proof

This is your understanding of Spinoza. According to Capleston's history of philosophy, Spinoza considered "thought" and "dimension" as attributes of substance. I have said in previous talks that "thought" is our inner reality, so my definition of reality is more It is similar to Spinoza's definition of the attributes of substance rather than substance itself.
Anyway, I respect your opinion and you are free to disagree with my opinion.

What's with this sudden concern of things beyond all possible experience or cognition? You do realize that it's literally beyond experience and cognition, so we can't say anything about it...

Yes, I try to say that we cannot say anything about it Except that it can be said that there is.

One can't "disagree" with another's (your) misconceptions, which are based on demonstrably insufficient study (e.g. Father Copelston's Thomistic misreading of Spinoza :roll:).

Father Copelston's Thomistic misreading of Spinoza

@180 Proof

This is your perception and your reality, my reality and perception is different from yours.

One can't "disagree" with another's (your) misconceptions, which are based on demonstrably insufficient study

@180 Proof

You are free to judge me as you wish, but accusing me of insufficient studies is not a philosophical argument, it is simply a fallacy!

Good luck.

Good luck. — Ali Hosein

Apparently, you did not profit from our discussion on your old thread Spinoza's Philosophy, Ali ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/785092

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/785169

Apparently, you did not profit from our discussion on your old thread Spinoza's Philosophy, Ali ...

@180 Proof

That your reality is that I have not benefited from your discussion in the said thread, is only your reality and not mine.
I used your words (even if you don't believe me,but that doesn't mean I completely agree with your words), thank you for them. :flower:

your reality — Ali Hosein

This must be one of the most oxymoronic, incoherent, word combos in common (sophistical) usage. I've no idea what "your reality" – like that other bit of pop nonsense "your truth" – even means. Pure effin' p0m0 Dada. :zip:

This must be one of most oxymoronic, incoherent, word combos in common (sophistical) usage. I've no idea what "your reality" – like that other bit of pop nonsense "your truth" – even means.

@180 Proof

That you don't know what it means is your reality and not my reality! :lol:

"When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
~Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass

That you don't know what it means is your reality and not my reality! — Ali Hosein

How patently psychoceramic ... :sparkle:

How psychoceramic ...

@180 Proof

That she thinks she is psychoceramic is your reality, not my reality! :rofl:

What is real? There is something in us that simply "is" - constant and unchanging. Other than that which "is," there are various abstractions.

are you talking about the actually real, the really actual, the really real, the truly real, the really true, the actually true, the truly true? Please clarify clearly or at least clearly clarify.

The term is inherently imprecise and any consensus regarding its meaning would render it useless.

Father Copelston's Thomistic misreading of Spinoza — 180 Proof

Copleston is a good example of why we should not rely on secondary texts or comprehensive stories of the history of philosophy.

In my opinion, anyone using Copleston as the primary text for a philosophy course, even for an introductory level course, is guilty of a dereliction of duty.

:up: :up:

:ok:

:clap:

we should not rely on secondary texts or comprehensive stories of the history of philosophy. — Fooloso4

And what is not THAT, always regurgitated? I love it.

Cogito ergo verum.

I think, therefore I am real.