Not at all. There are now in your world, some things you can doubt and some things that it is silly to doubt. I'll count that as progress. — Banno
So now the question arrises, what to doubt and what to believe? — Banno
Isnt it precisely the intention to objectivity that lends itself
to skepticism? Since Descartes the modern formulation of the subject-object relation depends on a gap that courts doubt. — Joshs
The two theories of truth: correspondence deals with sensations and coherence deals with abstractions. AKA the synthetic versus analytic divide. — PL Olcott
Coherent versus incoherent.Do you think a further distinction can be made between real and unreal abstractions? — Wayfarer
Good example now I know exactly what you mean.there are also abstractions that are unreal, meaning they don't refer to anything over and above the content of speech or thought - for example, fictional characters or imaginary numbers. — Wayfarer
The way that I address this is that the value of PI was entailed by the concept of round at least at the point in time that the first caveman looked up and saw a round full Moon.I resist the idea that abstractions are the constructions of the mind. — Wayfarer
The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi
Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.
Present what you mean by the terms you use. I can wait.
Until then bye bye :) — I like sushi
:up: :cool:I might start some discussion threads about some common misconceptions about his philosophy and psychology. — Vaskane
In fact this aphorism was in part how I knew English wasn't your primary language, which I commend you with great admiration that you're capable of diversifying your mind to the point it can pull from many different languages. It provides an interesting scope in perspective, a certain overcoming of objectivity in a sense. — Vaskane
It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael
The skepticism that questions the "external" world (as if we were not already world) would be, in a certain sense, the closure feigned by the subject in the absolutely immanent monad. A subject who believes he can distinguish himself absolutely from something else that he calls the "external world." — JuanZu
Doubting is not thoughtless action. Doubting starts with observation and investigation, then reasoning, and then conclusion for either action or non-action.Doesn't it necessarily fall into the liar's paradox? Doubting the world would be like cutting the branch on which I am sitting, waiting for the tree to fall and not the branch. — JuanZu
Present what you mean by ‘world’ and ‘exist’ in some kind of context to your position/s.
Until then nothing I have said has any relevance because I have literally no idea what the OP is saying.
Last time I am asking.
Give an account of PRECISELY what you are asking for. — I like sushi
I don't think this is right: the statement is valid, but in that abstract generic form is not truth apt. — Janus
If we accept the definition that every knowledge is justified belief, then scepticism is a methodology to obtain the justifications. If one rejects scepticism, then one is rejecting the methodology for justification allowing possibility for mistaking groundless beliefs, superstitions and dogmas for knowledge. — Corvus
I think I made it pretty clear what I was asking for.
The World meaning what?
‘Exist’ meaning what? — I like sushi
The skepticism that questions the "external" world (as if we were not already world) would be, in a certain sense, the closure feigned by the subject in the absolutely immanent monad. A subject who believes he can distinguish himself absolutely from something else that he calls the "external world."… I claim a meaning of "objectivity" that is discovered by the impossibility of closure of the subject in the monad. This impossibility is what grounds the theoretical activity of the subject and forces him to be oriented to an other (which is also the world), including himself as another in the case of self-knowledge. — JuanZu
Could you tell us what is your criterion for being conscious and unconscious? What do you mean by you are conscious? and unconscious?If we are fully conscious and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., I cannot call an illusion my view of the world in that state. — Alkis Piskas
Isn't the point of philosophy to get you out from the illusions by adopting and applying the rational sceptical methodology in perceiving truths?This is my reality. I live with it. (Well, most of the time.) Otherwise, we have to call everything that exists for us an illusion. — Alkis Piskas
Thank you for your opinions and interactions. But our journey for the truths is never over. Because according to Heidegger, we are all "auf dem weg sein." - existence on the road.This is basically true. But it's you who have insisted to go on! :smile:
And I don't complain. I enjoyed the trip. — Alkis Piskas
Due to this view, Kant believes that the proposition "The world exists." is a form of subreption{1} caused by hypostatisation{2}. — Corvus
But in that case, are you not committing yourself into the dark chamber of solipsism? If you say, the world is not an object, but a concept, and the predicate 'exist' is logical rather than real, then wouldn't Kant say you are an idealist with extreme solipsism? If the world is a concept, and it resides in your mind only, then it suddenly transforms into a mental dildo, rather than presenting into you from outside as a physical existence, where all the livings and objects co-exist struggling and enduring.A logical predicate may be what you please, even the subject may be predicated of itself; for logic pays no regard to the content of a judgement. But the determination of a conception is a predicate, which adds to and enlarges the conception. It must not, therefore, be contained in the conception….” — Mww
Didn't Kant revolt against the rationalist crowds such as Leibniz, Wolf, Spinoza opposing to their innate ideas only knowledge, trying to establish a new system of Metaphysics adopting Hume's empiricism thanking him for awakening Kant from dogmatic slumber?One man’s mental masturbations, re: Leibniz, et al, ca1712-14, is another’s epiphanic paradigm shift. — Mww
are you not committing yourself into the dark chamber of solipsism? — Corvus
If you say, the world is not an object, but a concept, and the predicate 'exist' is logical rather than real, then wouldn't Kant say to you, that you are an idealist with extreme solipsism? — Corvus
I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus
The task Kant set himself was to ask ‘What can we know before experience? — I like sushi
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.