What did you mean by "future" when you said:
I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future,
— Corvus
? — Relativist
No hay de qué, caballero. Lea José Ortega y Gasset. — Arcane Sandwich
Es un nombre nuevo para mí en filosofía, pero parece ser un gran filósofo, especialmente para los estudios de Heidegger. Gracias de nuevo mi amigo. — Corvus
So reflecting on past and future doesn't have bearing on their having actually been a past, nor in there eventually being a future. Right?But when you are reflecting the events in past, present and future, they don't need to always in the order of the past -> present -> future. You could think about the future on what will happen to your project or the world in next year, and then you could go back to the past, when you have started the project, and then think about the present state of the world economy — Corvus
Aun mejor es Carlos Astrada, buen hombre. — Arcane Sandwich
I assume you agree that our imaginings of future and past are not the same as the future and the past. — Relativist
Es bueno saber que hay muchos grandes filósofos en los países de habla hispana. Leer y estudiar sus obras nos brindará perspectivas interesantes y alternativas sobre muchos temas filosóficos difíciles. — Corvus
It comes down to the juxtaposition of idealism and realism — Banno
It's well known that Aristotle coined the terms "matter" and "energy". The former, hyle, is potentiality, and this is what Meillassoux is referring to when he speaks of "the capacity-to-be-other". The latter, energeia, is what Aristotle called "actuality", which is form-in-motion. By the same token, potentiality would be matter-in-motion.
Bunge would disagree. He defines energy, not matter, as the capacity to change. Matter itself is that which has this capacity, instead of being that capacity. That's why it's false to say that matter is identical to energy. It isn't. Energy is a property of matter, in Bunge's view. And this doesn't contradict Einstein's famous formula, E = mc2, because in that formula, "m" doesn't mean "matter", it means mass. Matter is not identical to mass. Matter has mass, because mass is a property. — Arcane Sandwich
So what I am offering is not too far from the Wittgensteinian suggestion that A-series and B-series are different language games. — Banno
Why not both.Sure, but the question is which of the two is used to speak the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
well,the truth of the B-series would render the A-series impossible, and vise versa — Metaphysician Undercover
i'll leave it to @Sime to fill this in....but he believed that the A series when taken together with some hypothetical C series that he only partially explicated, could reconstruct the so-called B-series in a non-contradictory fashion. — sime
↪Wayfarer
If you like.
It comes down to the juxtaposition of idealismand realismagainst physicalism, realism against antirealism, in which you tend to the idealist persuasion. It might be possible to give an account of the debate in which both are correct. ↪sime
's mentioned of McTaggart went ignored.
Edited for ↪Arcane Sandwich — Banno
Physicalism is not the same thing as materialism — Arcane Sandwich
Physicalism is not the same thing as materialism — Arcane Sandwich
But isn't it a difference only meaningful within academic philosophy? I mean to all intents and purposes, they're synonyms, or rather, physicalism is rather more sophisticated term for materialism. — Wayfarer
I am a materialist but not a physicalist because, as a physicist, I learned that physics can explain neither life nor mind nor society. Physics cannot even explain phenomena (appearances), because these occur in brains, which are supraphysical things; nor can it fully explain machines, as these embody ideas, such as those of value, goal, and safety, that are nonphysical. Physics can only account for matter at the lowest level of organization, the only one that existed before the emergence of the earliest organisms some 3,500 million years ago. Hence physicalism, the earliest and simplest version of materialism, cannot cope with chemical reactions, metabolism, color, mentality, sociality, or artifact. — Bunge (2010: vii)
These recent developments have vindicated the original goal of the quantum program, namely the derivation of classical physics from the quantum theory. Does this entail that we will eventually be able to dispense with such classical concepts as those of friction, heat, temperature, viscosity, vorticity, elasticity, magnetization, surface tension, or wetting? These concepts will continue to be needed because they stand for objective bulk properties and processes that emerge from myriads of quantum facts. Likewise, the neuroscientific explanation of cognitive and affective processes does not allow us to dispense with such words as “fear”, “imagination” and “love”. Explained emergence is still emergence. — Bunge (2010: 77)
True, the proponents of the thesis that the quantum theory is universal write symbols said to designate state functions for cats, observers, measuring instruments, and even the universe. But I submit that these symbols are fake, for they are not solutions of any equations containing Hamiltonians: they are just squiggles. — Bunge (2010: 77)
Well, not in my experience either....ecstatic... — Wayfarer
I'll use materialism for newtonian philosophies and physicalism for the doctrine that physics is the only ontology... — Banno
Thanks for the explanation, although I'm hard pressed to understand how he can maintain that position viz a viz physics, and still claim to be a materialist. — Wayfarer
I looked at the book abstract, and it says 'Most of the thinkers who espouse a materialist view of mind have obsolete ideas about matter, whereas those who claim that science supports idealism have not explained how the universe could have existed before humans emerged.' I do address that problem in The Mind Created World, although if you would like to discuss it further, that would probably a better thread for it. — Wayfarer
I'd sort of agree, although Marxist materialism is a different kettle of fish. — Wayfarer
↪Arcane Sandwich
I don't much care. Physicalism suits my purposes. You can phrase it how you wish. — Banno
I'll use materialism for newtonian philosophies and physicalism for the doctrine that physics is the only ontology, others may do as they please. — Banno
well, it's not difficult to translate left and right into north and south. For the rest, I'll leave you to it. — Banno
I'm afraid it doesn't really work that way, there's too many glitches. At the north pole for example, every direction is south. Adding dimensions into your representation is not a simple translation. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.