apophatically as indeterminate existences or indeterminate aspects of things the aspects of the natures of which we can determine only via being sensorially affected by them. — Janus
No no no. You misunderstand, I promise! — I like sushi
You cannot imagine something you cannot imagine - by definition. — I like sushi
This is an assumption. I am unaware of our ability to think in an atemporal way and with complete disregard to space. — I like sushi
It seems rather it is you that misunderstood what I was saying; It should be obvious that I was not claiming that we can imagine the unimaginable, but we can certainly imagine that something unimaginable may exist — Janus
Thanks, yes no problem. I have picked up a few different languages in the schools when my father worked in different countries such as Japanese, Indonesian, English. German was my 2nd foreign language in the high school. My the other main language is Korean, but now English is my main language because all the people around me are English speakers, and I am most comfortable communicating with them in English. Reading Philosophy in English got quite comfortable too.If you care to say what languages you speak/understand, I may be able to give some suggestions. If you don't want to for privacy reasons or any other reason, that is fine. — Lionino
Yeah, most people think that way, but I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper, or ears hear the sounds asking by someone, or see some external objects such as 5x apples and 7x oranges, you don't carry out the math. Just to emphasise the sense input is important in all mental process.How so? ‘Sensible’ objects are those perceived by sense. Numbers are not perceived by sense. — Wayfarer
OK, I am not denying, but trying clarify your points. It is interesting to see different points from the traditional commentary book opinions.Solipsism has a varied history, so…best be careful with the concept generally employed.
———— — Mww
So, it was illusions on their part, when the vulgars were shouting jumping up and down saying why on earth you doubt and ask for proof of the world existence. According to you, the world doesn't exist. It has never existed. There was no reason to believe in existence of the world. Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct?The reconciliation of the illusion, is don’t say a thing exists when it is impossible to know what it is. — Mww
So, it was illusions on their part (…) Kant proved its non-existence 300 years ago in his CPR. Is that correct? — Corvus
…..given its ubiquity in human dialogue.
— Mww
So, it is a linguistic illusion. — Corvus
That is it to say the world cannot be thought. Obviously it can be thought, given its ubiquity in human dialogue. — Mww
To call it a linguistic illusion presupposes the actual nature or source of it. — Mww
It was a logical conclusion from the premises.So, it is a linguistic illusion. Languages are neither logical, nor rational of course. — Corvus
I agree with this. There is no blind mathematician from birth unless he has been taught by someone.We know of of nothing prior to experience. — I like sushi
:cool: :up:Just like that, yep. Although, technically, I suppose, the nature of these illusions is illicit judgement, whereby the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. But that depends on the nature of the judgement. A simple judgement, re: “the world exists”, is illicit on the one hand because existence adds nothing to the conception of world, and on the other, it is false insofar as world is not even a thing that exists. — Mww
I feel that you don't even think of 5+7 until your eyes see the numbers on the screen or paper — Corvus
I know what you are trying to say, and it is all over in the textbooks too. But that is the part I don't agree with. There are the tribe people who live in the jungle all their lives hunting and foraging for food, and never come across mathematics in their whole lives. They don't know what numbers mean, never mind math. Experience and education must synthesise with A priori to yield knowledge.One shouldn’t mistake rote classroom instruction, for innate human intelligence. — Mww
So what is the boundary of our imagination? How do you define the line between possibility and impossibility of imagination? Do we all have the same capability for imagination?We can imagine only what we are capable of imagining. Beyond that … well … you get the idea (or rather not!) which is the entire - obvious - point. — I like sushi
Wouldn't he only know there are too much fishes in the basket, when he tries to lift it first? :) Just by looking at the basket, he would only be able to guess. But most importantly before all that, he must see the basket with his eyes to know, it is the basket which belongs to him.Yeah, but ya know what? It is more than likely any one of those guys, upon experiencing the impossibility of lifting the basket off the ground, will know a priori, that there’s too much in it. And you’re right, in that he won’t care about the math, until he wants to know how much is too much. — Mww
Wouldn't he only know….. — Corvus
Peruse the section in CPR on pure/impure a priori knowledge, A2/B3. — Mww
….you get the answer 12…. — Corvus
So what is the boundary of our imagination? — Corvus
Philosophy is a tricky subject even with my 2x primary languages (English and Korean) due to the abstract concepts the subject employs. — Corvus
But how could the German language, even in the prose of Lessing, imitate the TEMPO of Machiavelli, who in his "Principe" makes us breathe the dry, fine air of Florence, and cannot help presenting the most serious events in a boisterous allegrissimo, perhaps not without a malicious artistic sense of the contrast he ventures to present—long, heavy, difficult, dangerous thoughts, and a TEMPO of the gallop, and of the best, wantonest humour?
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.