I haven't seen any way the normative question can be foreclosed on. And indeed, if it was foreclosed on entirely, and we said there were absolutely no better or worse epistemic methods, that seems to me to be courting a sort of nihilism. But neither does the existence of the normative question require "contextlessness" to address. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yeah, I think we're falling into Enlightenment categories. I don't think anyone here favors Enlightenment rationality (except perhaps when @J channels Nagel).
many roads to the same location — Count Timothy von Icarus
Assuming this is honest, it shows how very, very far Tim is from understanding what I have been suggesting. It would be somewhat extraordinary for someone to suppose that I would argue that "no one is ever wrong", given that almost all my posts are about how folk are wrong! I think many would see it as my modus operandi!Are you seriously advancing the epistemic position that no one is ever wrong but that the two options would be: "yes I agree," and "I don't know?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
From this perspective, he does not occupy a standpoint but has relinquished all standpoint. — Wayfarer
To be disinterested in the suffering of others doesn't appear all that admirable.They hold that the Buddha is perfectly disinterested: having eradicated every trace of craving, aversion, and delusion, he sees without distortion or agenda. — Wayfarer
I don't think anyone here favors Enlightenment rationality…. — Leontiskos
The moving cities analogy is interesting. I think we can take it a bit further. Let's consider the question, "What's it like to live in Kansas City?" — Banno
They hold that the Buddha is perfectly disinterested: having eradicated every trace of craving, aversion, and delusion, he sees without distortion or agenda.
— Wayfarer
To be disinterested in the suffering of others doesn't appear all that admirable. — Banno
The difficulty with the strictly objectivist approach is that it leaves no room at all for the subject— for us, in fact, as human beings. Viewed objectively, instead, h.sapiens is a fortuitous by–product of the same essentially mindless process that causes the movements of the planets; we’re one species amongst many others.
In fact, the Pāli texts repeatedly describe the Buddha as having abandoned all views — Wayfarer
From this perspective, he does not occupy a standpoint but has relinquished all standpoint. — Wayfarer
To care is to adopt a view.Disinterested doesn't mean not caring. — Wayfarer
Perhaps I see things as they truly are, now, without the years of meditation - who's to say? SHould i take your word for it?“things as they truly are.” — Wayfarer
Nice. This remains unaddressed.if I live in St Louis, should I move or stick? And the same if I live in Kansas City. — Srap Tasmaner
This seems to be the key. — Banno
the Buddha's view then, still subjective? — Banno
Assuming this is honest, it shows how very, very far Tim is from understanding what I have been suggesting. It would be somewhat extraordinary for someone to suppose that I would argue that "no one is ever wrong", given that almost all my posts are about how folk are wrong! I think many would see it as my modus operandi!
How can Tim be so thoroughly mistaken? Do we supose his case is different to others here, who display less intelligence but more ill-will and aggression? Is Tim in the position of someone in St. Louis trying to describe what it is like to live in Kansas City? Is he just saying that there are better Jazz clubs in St Louis? (Never having been to either, I'm guessing...)
The moving cities analogy is interesting. I think we can take it a bit further. Let's consider the question, "What's it like to live in Kansas City?" This frames the issue as if there were only one way to live in Kansas City. but of course what it is like to live in Kansas City is not a thing, but a series of choices and interactions - do you stay in your flat, or do you go out and explore the parks? Do you join a choir, or a bike club? Do you get to know your neighbours, or keep to your old relationships?
The analogy holds when we consider changes in fundamental beliefs. it's not about what is the case, so much as what you do next. As such there is no answer to "What's it like to live in Kansas City?" apart from what one choses to do in Kansas City. — Banno
Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city. — Banno
Is the framework that supports the realism of other minds and their contents context-de/independent?Why do you think that? The problem is that the "contextualists" presumably do not see their position as precluding realism. — Leontiskos
Is there a difference between what something is like and what something is?Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city. — Banno
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.