The point I've made, which indeed you haven't wrapped your head around, is that the world within which materialism is true, is one created by the brain/mind — Wayfarer

So what? Materialism and scientism are not the only premises of my personal philosophy. One of my other premises is realism. So, I don't need to take your word for it, or anyone's word for it, for that matter. I am free to believe whatever I want to believe, even if my beliefs are mistaken. What I am not allowed to do, is to utilize my mistaken beliefs as mere tools to be strategically and tactically deployed in any given context. Conversation simple does not follow those rules, it does not abide by them.

I'm saying materialism gets it backwards or upside down, in pursuit of so-called scientific certainty. — Wayfarer

And I'm saying that you get it backwards or upside down, in pursuit of so-called anti-scientific certainty.

↪Janus
Yep. The way we do integers is such that there is no largest integer. — Banno

Who cares? There's no set that contains all of the other sets, and no one in their right mind would say that "sets exists" in the same sense that you folks are discussing "do infinitesimals exist?"

The solution to this is to say that there are potentially infinitely many integers. Once the logic of iteration is in place, there are potentially infinitely many integers just because there is no inherent logical limit to iteration. — Janus

I don't know, maybe. But if so, then you're no longer doing mathematics, you're doing something else.

2/4 = 1/2 — Arcane Sandwich


That's an equivalence, not a reduction. — Banno

(spit to the side, now with a Yankee tone): That's an opinion, not a fact.

The sort of reduction in question occurs when one language game is thought of as a part of anther. In this case you are in effect claiming that mathematics is a game within biology, and not a distinct, seperate activity. — Banno

So are you an Australian Realist, yes or no? You speak Australian English, you don't exactly strike me as the sort of person that would be allowed to speak to King Charles himself. Sup' dawg.

Seems pretty plain to me that this is a mistake. Maths is no a variation of biology any more than Chess is a variation of Poker. They are very different activities. — Banno

False. You're comparing biology to Poker, and that's a fallacy.

The 'solution' on offer not only agrees with this but explains how it comes about. "Counts as..." illocutions set up new games to play. If you decide to move your Bishop along a row, you have ceased to play Chess, and your piece no longer "counts as ..." a Bishop. If you decide that 3+4=8, then you have ceased to do maths, and your "3" and "4" no longer count as 3's or 4's. — Banno

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. Math has to be objective and absolute. As in, it has to have rules, and if you break those rules, then you're not doing math. But that's trivial, because the only rules in math are syntactical, at the end of the day, anyways. For example, if I say:

= 7 2 + 9

That's not math. It uses mathematical signs, but that's not math. It's not a mathematical formula to begin with, from a purely syntactic point of view. Why not? Because the rule itself as a concept say so, just like the rules of Chess say that you can't move the bishop horizontally. It's a rule, in the sense of "regulation" (Reglamento). A correct formula in this case would be the following one:

7 + 2 = 9

Or the following one:

2 + 7 = 9

Or the following one:

9 = 2 + 7

Or the following one:

9 = 7 + 2

We then say that all of these expressions are, in turn, equivalent to each other. And so, and so forth, and welcome to the lovely world of the Foundations of Math. It is a barren landscape, much like a desert. So, are we just going to pretend that this is a "community thing?" No, because "community things" as you understand them, are not isolated from biology, as you seem to suggest. Like, if someone has severe brain damage, from blunt force trauma, in such a way that it causes a specific type of dementia, that person might not believe you when you tell that person that the formula 2 + 2 = 4 is mathematically correct. They "take your word for it", they "trust you" that this is indeed a mathematical formula, but they just don't believe you. Or perhaps in other cases, they try to convince you that 2 7 = + is a legitimate mathematical formula, it just so happens that it's not "Conventional Math", and that the "Community of Professional Mathematicians" have a bias, and that such a bias justifies their discriminatory practices towards people who think that 2 7 = + is a legitimate mathematical formula, and so forth.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Fluff. Let me lay it out for you. Bunge et al, the scientific materialists want to bring mind under the ambit of the neurosciences - firm, objective, and measurable. Thoughts are brain patterns - what could be more obvious? But their problem is, that try as you might, you will never find a thought in the neural data. It is just as Leibniz said - blow up a brain to the size of a mill and stroll through it. You will never find a thought inside it. — Wayfarer

And the usual scientistic, materialistic retort to that is that if you perform an autopsy, and you open a stomach, you won't find the feeling of "I'm hungry" anywhere, on your anatomy table. It does not follow from an assumption of that nature, that the mind should not be studied as biologically and as mathematically as possible. To say nothing of how it should be studied in a philosophical sense, including our beloved Phenomenology and, more generally, our beloved Continental Philosophy. Among other philosophical traditions, of course.

Hang on, you will say. What about those amazing devices which allow science to reconstruct images from neural data? Subject thinks 'yacht', and lo, a yacht appears on the monitor. — Wayfarer

I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think that's possible, I would have heard of it, since I follow the latest developments in the field of cognitive neuroscience, as Bunge did himself.

What has actually happened is the cognitive science, not neuroscience as such, — Wayfarer

Why are you against the very concept of cognitive neuroscience to begin with? That's the part that I can't seem to wrap my head around. Like, it's not that crazy as you make it sound, man. Bunge himself said that one of the cutting edge sciences of today is cognitive neuroscience. Gosh man, it's not that hard to explain it to people: you take Cognitive science, you take Neuroscience, and you combine them into a single, new academic discipline called cognitive neuroscience. Why are you even opposing those two concepts to begin with, @Wayfarer. Why don't you believe in their "Dialectical Synthesis", so to speak? You can be a Dialectical Idealist, like Hegel, if you want. No one's stoppin' ya. I'm not the "Philosophy Police".

. Of course, one of Bunge's nemeses, Arthur Schopenhauer — Wayfarer

He's not one of my nemesis, Wayfarer. Why are you throwing around crazy implications like that? I'm not Bunge. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Bunge has been dead for several years. And I don't know about you, but I can't speak with ghosts. I love Schopenhauer by the way, extremely funny and witty.

↪Wayfarer
That by way of agreement? Can we cure Arcane Sandwich of his reductionism? :wink: — Banno

Alright, let me phrase it like this then: consider a fraction, any fraction, I don't know, two fourths, for example: 2/4.

You with me? Good, don't get lost. One must be very concentrated for this. Now, picture another fraction, like 1/2.

OK? Now, Imagine that I said that 2/4 is reducible to 1/2.

Why? Well, take a look:

2/4 = 1/2

And here is where I say "right"?

And you say "I don't agree with you, that looks like nonsense to me. You shouldn't be a reductionist. Why would you reduce two fourths into one half. What happened to the other half? Did you lose it? Is it lost in the world, somewhere? Poor thing, it must be very hungry, especially without the other half."

That's what you sound like to me. Now, you're free to believe whatever you want, but that's just my honest impression of your beliefs in the Philosophy of Mathematics.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. — Jack Cummins

I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean or rude to you in any way, but, does this somehow surprise you? At what point in the history of warfare was that not the case?

If a species evolves to the point where it can recognise 'the law of the excluded middle', does that entail that 'the law of the included middle' can be understood as a product of biology? — Wayfarer

Hmmm... what a clever question. Are you sure that this isn't your first rodeo, partner? Let's see.

(spit to the side) The question that you're asking, Sir, is the question that John Dewey asked of the philosophies of both Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. The three of them were Pragmatists, you see, and today they are something like "The Holy Trinity of Classical Pragmatism". Make of that what you will, I just made it up because it sounded pleasing to my ear before I even said such a thing. Not that I take it back, though. Because I do not.

Right, so what did Dewey himself answer? Well, Dewey was of the opinion that, yes, effectively so. If a species evolves to the point where it can "recognize" what we, humans, call "the law of excluded middle", that does indeed effectively entail that "the law of the included middle", as you so cleverly call it in opposition to "excluded", can be understood as a product of biology. And if you simply made a mistake there, intending to say "excluded" instead of "included", that too, dear Sir, can also be understood as the product of biology.

And Dewey held that opinion. What was Bunge's opinion on that matter? I would not know. I'm afraid that no one would, apparently. It seems to be an issue that Bunge himself struggled with as a philosopher and as a scientist, so he was somewhat "silent" or "agnostic" about it.

↪Arcane Sandwich
So you are now saying that there are not infinity many integers?

We can quantify over things that are not physical. You appeared to understand this, a few days ago. But it's late in your party of the world. — Banno

Alright, let me phrase it in communitarian terms, then, to speak your dialect for a moment. The only person (to my eyes, at least) that has attempted, in the last few days, to solve the question presented in the OP, is you. And the only person that you managed to convince, was me. These other fine people here with us in this Thread, are working on their own solution to the problem presented in the OP. As in, you have not convinced them of your solution in that sense, you've only convinced me. So, simply as an act of courtesy towards you, I'm now disagreeing with you. But I do it for two reasons:

1) Firstly, because no one is even challenging your solution to the question of the OP in the manner that I am, and;
2) Secondly, because in that specific sense, my solution is better than yours, because my solution is technically Bunge's solution to the problem. If this is reduced to community terms, I prefer to agree with Bunge than with you on that point. So, you see why there's a problem with the very notion of "community Math" to begin with as a concept. Math has to be absolute, in the formal sense that "it's not up for debate", it's not for the community of mathematicians to decide. Whatever is said in formal languages, such as Logic and Math, has to be said in such a way as to be objective and unambiguous as possible. That cannot be done in ordinary talk, no matter how sophisticated. It must be done formally, in a purely formal language, such as the language of first order predicate logic, or set theory, or some other sort of formal language.

Now, what is the explanation for that? What is the "underpinning" of it, so to speak? It is biology, apparently. As in, it is the biology of the brain of a member of the human species.

So, do numbers exist out there in the world? What exists, at most, is a visual sign, such as this two-stick looking thing that we call "seven": 7

Is that meaningless sign a number? I would say no. That's not a number, that's a numeral. And there are no numbers when you count ordinary objects: there are ordinary objects, and each of them has a "oneness" that makes it an individual object. But that is not Math, and it is not Logic, it is Ontology.

We don't pretend that there are infinitely many integers, because there are infinitely many integers. — Banno

Where are they, then? Are they under my table? Maybe some of them are there, I should check. Are they inside a box in my living room? Are they growing in the tree in my back yard, as if they were fruits? You say there are, emphatically. So, I ask you: where are they?

I'll repeat a simple argument against this.

If π is a brain process in your brain, and also a brain process in my brain, then it is two different things.

But if that were so, when I talk about π I am talking about a quite different thing to you, when you talk about π.

When we each talk about π, we are talking about the same thing.

Therefore π is not a brain process in your brain — Banno

And here is the Bungean retort to your argument:

Ideas, then, do not exist by themselves any more than pleasures and pains, memories and flashes of insight. All these are brain processes. However, nothing prevents us from feigning that there are ideas, that they are "there" up for grabs - which is what we do when saying that someone "discovered" such and such an idea. We pretend that there are infinitely many integers even though we can think of only finitely many of them - and this because we assign the set of all integers definite properties, such as that of being included in the set of rational numbers. — Bunge, Ontology II: A World Of Systems, page 169)

Hello @ucarr and @Metaphysician Undercover, how are you? Mind if I jump in at this point? I'll just go for it, since I seem to be having the same problem that you two are having. Let me see if I can look at this from a different angle:

qualification | ˌkwäləfəˈkāSH(ə)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary — ucarr

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint.

I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics. — ucarr

I agree with this. A broadly inclusive, intricately detailed theory of physics, would include a theory of the timeline of time. But the former cannot be reduced to the latter, and this is also presumably by definition.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. — ucarr

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time. He says the following:

So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics, in that (a) it assumes the structure of spacetime to depend upon its furniture, and (b) it does not postulate a global structure. However, the theory is not relativistic: it does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. The relational theory of spacetime sketched above is just a component of the background of any general-relativistic theory- if one cares to add such an ontological background. Physicists usually don't: they are in the habit of postulating the four-manifold without inquiring into its roots in events. — (Bunge, 1977: 308)

What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control. — Jack Cummins

Well, look at it like this: there are people that believe that the Earth is flat. I find that far more surprising, if we're comparing what surprises us about other people's beliefs.

as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich


Now you've got me curious! Would you be willing to share a link to one of them with us? — J

Hmmm... I don't know. However, I will say this: I've left enough "clues" throughout this Forum, since I joined a few days ago. If you look for them, you'll be able to piece everything together, in such a way that you will arrive at my publications. If this is too much of a hassle, then just send me a Private Message, and I'll happily share some links. Sound fair?

Do you see what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, of course. I've been seeing it ever since you joined this Thread (without even saying hello, as I've already pointed out. You see, you are rude, objectively speaking. I mean that simply as an objective description of your moral character (which I do not claim to know) from the point of view of mere etiquette. And this, what I just said in this paragraph, is what I call "rambly talk". I prefer to avoid it, but sometimes that is not the wisest course of action. So, let us "carry on", so to speak.

A motion of order.

@Bob Ross has suggested that the title of this Thread should be changed. The new title will be:

an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

Moving on, you then say:

For example, right now, your OP asks a question which doesn’t reference “factiality”: it just asks about “factual properties” as it relates to the identity of yourself. With the clarification above, my response that “factual properties” make no sense may be misguided since I have no clue how “factiality” is being understood and used in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

I have already addressed this point, Bob. See above. For reference:

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality? — Arcane Sandwich

Carrying on, you say:

“What is factiality?” would be a superb discussion board title for this OP. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... But you seemed to suggest another title: "an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude.". That would be the title. Instead, "What is factiality" is the question of the OP. I am using the Forum suggestion for this format, Bob, specifically the Thread titled How to Write an OP.

So, although you could mention why it matters, I would say that, first and foremost, an elaboration on what you mean by “factiality” and what you want to know about it would be essential to the OP. When someone reads “What is factiality?”—as the title—they get an inkling into something about “factiality” but since is a coined term—I am presuming—by the author of After Finitude it is critical to elaborate (at least briefly) on what the term refers to. It could be as brief as “I would like to get everyone’s take on “factiality” as understood in <author’s-name>’s After Finitude’. — Bob Ross

Yes, I think you're exactly right about that. I will write such things afterwards, in this discussion, and if they "look good" to you, then (and only then) I will edit the original OP, so as to incorporate all of the changes (such as the change of title, the change of question, etc.)

Then, I would suggest elaborating on what exactly about it you would like to discuss. I can’t offer help meaningfully on this part because I have no clue what “factiality” means in that book because I have no read it nor am I acquainted with it in any significant sense. — Bob Ross

This part will be incorporated as well into the original OP once we approve the suggested changes throughout this discussion. And by that point, you will have a full understanding of the concept of "factiality". And once you do, we can begin the "real talk", so to speak.

Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, though a lot of people would say that Jesus would be a better example, or perhaps the samurai that dies by his own hand due to his dishonor, would be an even greater example.

It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what it is. It is more complicated than that, in "how it works", but that is essentially it, what you just said there.

I mean “explain” in the basic, common use of the term. If you can’t describe it, then that’s a huge issue which begs why you even believe it in the first place; and, no, I am not denying the idea of ineffability. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... Fair enough, what do you want me to explain, then? Do you want me to explain why I believe that the Ultimate Truth about Reality Itself is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit?

Or are you asking me to explain why I, Arcane Sandwich, truly believe that Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit really exists?

It is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit.


Again, which is what exactly? Can you explain it? — Bob Ross

That's a difficult question to answer, really, because it presupposes that the very concept of Hegel's Absolute Spirit is something that could be explained, that "someone can explain it", and all I'm saying is that I'm not so sure about that. In other words, I can tell you what it is, but I'm not so sure that I can explain it. What do you mean by "explaining"? Let's start with that if you don't mind.

And please try to pay little if any attention to the sort of Mind-Flayer-ish tone that my words seem to adopt from time to time, for no particular reason, apparently. Frustratingly so, one might add.

. I am still as of yet not entirely sure what you believe, which is fine—it takes time. — Bob Ross

My belief about what? About the Absolute Spirit, in the Hegelian sense? I believe that it is real, and that it exists. For those two notions, to wit, reality and existence, are not the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. However, the Absolute Spirit happens to have both: it is real, and it exists.

There is, of course, another possibility: that I am deluded.

Hello again to everyone,

Since it seems that no one other than myself is voting for the answer that @Banno offered as a response to the question of the OP, please allow me to attempt to answer it in my own way. I have already suggested my answer in the preceding pages, but now I will express it in a clearer way.

Do infinitesimals exist (in the platonistic sense)? — Michael

No, they do not. Nothing exists in the platonistic sense, if by "platonistic sense" you mean ideal existence. It can be argued (as Mario Bunge has argued in print) that all numbers, including infinitesimals, are really just brain processes occurring in the brains of living humans. That goes for infinitesimal as well as for the set of the natural numbers. It goes for every mathematical object in general, including the objects of geometry, algebra, arithmetic, number theory, mathematical analysis, logic, and the very foundations of mathematics as such. It's not just a "Do numbers exist?" sort of question.

1. If they don't exist then any number system that includes them is "wrong". — Michael

False. For one can declare that mathematical objects in general, and infinitesimals in particular, have "conceptual existence", as opposed to "real existence", which is precisely what Mario Bunge argues in his book from 1977 called "Ontology I: The Furniture of the World".

2. If they do exist then any number system that excludes them is "incomplete" (not to be confused with incompleteness in the sense of Gödel). — Michael

False. They exist only in a conceptual sense, not in a real sense, as I have just said. They have "conceptual existence", and what that means is that they are just useful fictions in a quasi-Nietzschean sense. This is precisely what Bunge argues. What infinitesimals really are, is a series of processes occurring in the brain of a living human. If you ask Bunge if "there is a number right there" and you point to a visual sign like "3", which you can physically see with your eyes, Bunge would say no, that's not "a number", that's simply a numeral. It's a meaningless visual shape, and we, humans, have agreed to give it a meaning. It means "three". Three what? Three x, whatever x may be. But all of this is conceptual existence. Numbers, understood "like that", as in realistically, are just a series of brain processes, as I've pointed out earlier.

3. Infinitesimals exist according to some number systems but not others. This would be fictionalism, — Michael

False. This is because the entire explanation that I gave before, which is Bunge's explanation, can be accurately characterized as adhering to mathematical fictionalism. Bunge himself sees it that way, and he has manifested that belief in print, in an unequivocal way.

Thank you very much @javi2541997.

Mostly I'm needling {what I see as} Count Timothy von Icarus''s insistence on a single way of doing philosophy as clearly, but unstatedly, Christian. And I'm needling with that phrase as it's sometimes used as biblical support for Christian religious pluralism. Considering the underlying dispute between our dear Count and I in this thread, as I see it, is between an expansive form of pluralism in metaphysics and epistemology {me} and a thoroughly singular Aristotelian+Christian worldview {the Count}, it seemed appropriate. — fdrake

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response, @fdrake.

Thank you sir. I am grateful to be able to discuss these topics with the renowned professional Metaphysician. :pray: — Corvus

Well, I'm not renowned, but I'm actively working in the area of the Metaphysics of Ordinary Objects, so that must count for something (I hope!).

The father's house has many rooms. — fdrake

Hi, @fdrake, can I ask for some clarification here, please? That's a biblical phrase (it's John 14:2), specifically. What did you mean by that, when you used that phrase in the context of your latest post? Thanks in advance, and please feel free to ignore this comment if what I'm asking is trivial.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Warrior gene? That sounds to me like stuff that people with absolutely no knowledge of war and warfighting and a very negative view of "warriorhood" would give a name to something that is basically about higher levels of behavioral aggression in response to provocation. — ssu

I don't know if I would describe myself as Pacifist, since I practice a sport that is technically considered a martial art (I do brazilian jiu jitsu, I'm a blue belt, not that such things have any sort of opinion-swaying authority). My point is that I practice a martial art (i.e., something that has to do with physical "conflict resolution", if that makes any sense). The very expression "martial art" is connected, etymologically, to the word "martial", which is itself etymologically connected to Mars, the Roman God of War, which is basically a watered-down copy of Ares, the Greek God of War.

And so, in my humble opinion, there is a spectrum, a "line", if you will, that runs from War to Peace, and consequently from Martialism to Pacifism. It's not an "all or nothing deal". Metaphorically speaking, there is always some peace inside of War, and there is always some war inside of Peace.

Yes, this is true. Existence is an interesting topic. We could further analyse and discuss on the nature of Existence. If you would open an OP, I would follow, read and try to contribute if I have any relating ideas cropping up in my head. — Corvus

Thanks, but I already have 3 Threads that I started, and I don't want to monopolize the main page with my presence. Perhaps if you began the Thread about Existence yourself, I could contribute to it, to the best of my ability.

I would just get right to Practical Ethics, although it isn't an easy read in some sections (both in terms of being comprehended and being uncomfortable to read). That book is probably the main reason I ever tried to go vegan (something I'm doing again). I should say that Peter Singer is definitely not reductionist; I was just speaking to that some people who like Peter Singer or what he has to say might think in reductionist terms. Although that might be difficult now that I think about it, as he speaks on so many important things. — ToothyMaw

I'm looking at the wiki for Practical Ethics (1979), but I've noticed that Singer published another book before that one, titled Animal Liberation (1975). Why do you think that Practical Ethics would be the more approachable of the two?

It seems to me that in order to galvanize people to create positive change, it will always be useful to prescribe actions or directives to people in general (in fact, we have to), but we cannot forget that every person is different; one not only needs to appeal to a common understanding and humanity when attempting to influence people to act towards preserving the environment, adopting ethical veganism, etc. but must also provide a personal context that makes acting make sense. That is done by appealing to the individual in each of us. — ToothyMaw

Yes, I agree. It's a complicated point. Because it's as if one would be speaking in a sort of "double way", one would be "speaking in general" and "speaking to each person individually". It's a bit of a tall order, in merely communicative terms.

Take Hatebreed’s message here, for example, of self-growth and effecting positive change in one’s life despite. Coupling this kind of message with the idea that we are individuals with our own moral arcs and (in some ways discrete) identities tied to those morals, heavily informed by some larger ideas or ideals, but never quite dictated - at least in a reductive sense - I think one can make a strong case for a subset of the public that is highly mobilized and effective at creating change. — ToothyMaw

The case of Hatebreed's song "Looking Down the Barrel of Today" is an odd one in a purely sociological sense. For example, the video displays some textual messages that are not actually part of the song's lyrics. One of those messages says "We wish those painful things never happened to you..." And I ask "what painful things?" and who are they referring to when they use the word "you"?

My interpretation is that they are speaking to "you in general", if that makes any sense. They're not saying "You, Arcane Sandwich", they're not saying "You, ToothyMaw". It's a sort of "you" in general, whoever that person might be.

Regarding the part about the "painful things" that they wish never happened to that "abstract you", they are effectively assuming that anyone (everyone, really) has undergone some painful things in their lives (whatever those "painful things" might be in each individual case), and they're saying that they wish that those (the painful things) never happened to anyone. And they're saying that without even knowing what those "painful things" are in each individual case.

Do you think that my interpretation of that video is more or less correct?

My points were,
1. There is no ultimate proof that demons don't exist. Could you prove demons and dragons don't exist? — Corvus

I'm trying! That is indeed one of the things that I have been working on for the past year and a half, more or less. To prove, logically, definitively, that demons, dragons and other fictional entities do not exist. But it's a really difficult thing to prove, because that discussion is about the concept of existence itself. Mario Bunge, my philosophical hero, says that fictional entities (such as Pegasus, demons, dragons, ghosts, God, angels, etc.) have "conceptual existence", while ordinary objects such as this table or this computer have "real existence". Unlike Bunge, I want to prove that fictional entities do not exist, not even conceptually.

2. Even if demons don't exist (lets presume that they don't exist), the fact that demons don't exist doesn't stop people imagining and thinking about them. People have been talking about demons and fire breathing dragons for thousands of years, and still will be doing so until the end of human civilization creating them in art form i.e. movies, novels, paintings and sculptures. — Corvus

Indeed. And I, as a metaphysician, should be able to talk about all of that, in a way that makes sense to the common person as well as the philosopher and the scientist.

3. The fact that people imagine, think and talk about demons implies that abstract existence has significant meanings in the human mind, which suggests that abstract objects can exist. Perhaps abstract objects exist in different forms, and should it be said that abstract objects axist? instead of exist (in physical objects?) :) — Corvus

Hmmm... this is where the discussion gets extremely complicated, because it has to do with the very concept of existence, it has to do with what the word "existence" means, and that is not an easy thing to understand. The easiest solution is to use a dictionary, for example an online dictionary, and look at the definition of the word "existence". But that's very basic. Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point.

Of course my points are just assumptions and inferences from your claims. You can disagree, if they don't make sense. But it is interesting to see different opinions on these aspects of existence. — Corvus

They make perfect sense. The problem is that these problems (i.e., the problems about existence) are not easy to solve.

there are many claims made by Science with little or no evidence. — Corvus

100%, that is True. Sting theory for example, has very little (if any) evidence. Some specific aspect of the theory of the Big Bang are mere speculation without good evidence (for example, the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Perhaps there was something. For example, there could have been another Universe before the Big Bang, with its own spacetime)

People tend to believe anything no matter how superstitious it may sound, if the claims were under the name of science, then they would believe them. — Corvus

I'm not so sure about that. Some people today seem to believe very wild things, even when presented with good evidence to the contrary. The most extreme example would be the people that believe that the Earth is flat. Not people of ancient times, but some of the people of today, of the 21st Century. They believe that the Earth is flat even if science says that it is not. So, those people simply don't believe what science says. That is just one example (it's the most extreme one), and there are other, less extreme examples, as well.

So there is no much difference between scientific or religious claims in their superstitious nature. — Corvus

100%, that is a very good point. All that I would say is that in other senses, science is not like religion, because science is atheist (or at least agnostic). Individual scientists can be religious, but that is a private matter. Science, in the public sense, is not religious (it cannot be, by definition).

DNA RNA are only meaningful for those who works in the labs with the white gowns. They mean nothing me. No matter how closely I inspect my hand and fingers I cannot find a trace of DNA or RNA.
For me being alive means being able to eat, drink, sleep well, and enjoy the pleasures from the daily routine. — Corvus

Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician.

Then you are quite simply wrong, I would say. Nothing personal, and nothing against the world of facts.

Australia is an independent nation state. — Banno

Is it? If it is under the rule of a Crown, even in a purely formal way, is it really an independent, sovereign country?

Thank you very much, @kazan.

In that case, I will say that it seems to me that it might be in Australia's best interest to declare its independence from the British Crown. In other words, it seems to me that Australia should be an independent nation-state. The same goes for every nation in Oceania. And all of them, the Oceanic nations, should compose the continent in Oceania in geopolitical terms.

Perhaps I am wrong, or mistaken in some other way. I am trying to make sense of this, from my own point of view as a South American. I am of course an Argentine by birth, that is the nation that I belong to. And precisely because of that, I am aware that I am a South American. How could I not? There is even a logical relation between the concept of the nation and the concept of the continent by definition. In other words, nationalism is an essential part of continentalism, yet the reverse is not the case: continentalism is not an essential part of nationalism (since a nationalist could be, instead, an inter-nationalist, or even a multi-nationalist, or a trans-nationalist for example).

Edit: in other words, it seems to me that continentalism is the "highest stage" of nationalism, or even the logical consequence of being a nationalist to begin with.

Edit 2: I've edited this thread for the sake of clarity.

And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war? — ssu

There is no such "nature" of war, scientifically speaking. The best that such an idea has "going for it" is perhaps the Warrior Gene stuff, as in, the genetics of aggression, but not much more than that.

Sure humans evolved, and so too the ability to count, speak, tell stories and much else besides. But that doesn't mean that Frege's 'metaphysical primitives' such as integers and logical principles, can be legitimately depicted as a result of evolution. The aim of evolutionary theory is to explain the origin of species, not an epistemology. — Wayfarer

But there is currently an evolutionary explanation of epistemology underway, and of science more generally. For now it's just a research program in the perhaps Lakatosian sense, but they have not produced any opinion-swaying papers just yet.

I am proposing that he is talking about it many times but with the humility of being a mortal creature who only can remotely glimpse the divine. Note how often he uses "perhaps" in Book 3. He does not state as a matter of fact that nous is separable. In Book 2, Aristotle is more comfortable with locating the "act of knowing in the context of the individual as receiving the power from the kind (genos) they come from. The same immediacy of the actual is being sought for without the naming of the agent in Book 3. — Paine

But it's a very... "subtle" point, isn't it? If Aristotle is effectively talking about it as many times as you say, why isn't it more ... obvious? Humility notwithstanding and all that, this is Aristotle that we are talking about. Are his scholars really sure that the Prime Mover is "the same thing" as the active intellect? It seems like -pardon the expression- "a stretch of the imagination", as people say nowadays, a simple act of "stretching" or even of "reaching", if you will.

No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized. — Bob Ross

Unless it is an exploratory investigation in the methodological sense, unlike an OP which represents another type of discussion, such as the pros and cons of certain moral standpoint.

Let me try to help. It sounds like you want to discuss Speculative Realism. What specifically about it are you wanting to discuss? Korman’s mereological argument? Be specific (: — Bob Ross

Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated. Yes, I want to discuss Speculative Realism, but more specifically After Finitude, and more specifically the meaning of the term factiality, because that is what undercuts what I wrote in the OP.

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality?

Why you should care about the Question of this Thread:
(this part needs to be completed. Can you please help me with this part, @Bob Ross? Just share your thoughts, think of it like a brainstorming exercise. Don't worry if your words become too "rambly", we're not at the "Painting stage" yet.

I get all that (thanks for responding, BTW), but the part that I can't understand is the following one: if the concept of the active intellect is so important, why doesn't Aristotle talk about it anywhere else but in one obscure passage in De Anima? It just strikes me in the manner that an odd thing would. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that's what Arcane is asking about. They — Bob Ross

Well how nice of you, Bob. How genuinely nice of you to use the pronoun "They", in reference to me, as a signal that you are not taking for granted what my individual biology is like. That's very thoughtful of you, very moral in character. Everyone just calls me "he" on this forum, though I don't think I've given any explicit indication as to what my actual biology is (however, do not panic, as I can guarantee you that I am not a Mind Flayer, of that I am quite certain).

They seem to be asking how one can know what reality is as it were absolutely in-itself. — Bob Ross

No, I am not asking anything, dear Bob. I am not the author of this particular Thread, someone else is, someone who just so happens to share some of my beliefs about realism, it seems. I, for one, am not asking anything. I already know what the ultimate truth about reality is. For I have seen it with my very own set of eyes: It is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit.

I don't expect you, or anyone else, to believe me, though. And you are of course free to disagree. After all, I might be wrong about this, right?...

... so, "carry on", and that sort of talk?

Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to critique it as a work of literature? Are you asking about a specific aspect of “Speculative Materialism”? Do you see how this is an incredibly vague agenda. — Bob Ross

Ok, let's start with that. Let's make a better agenda. Agree? Don't mind if I just assume that you do, for the sake of expediency. Let's invent an agenda. I'll tell you my premises, and I'll tell you what my agenda is, taking those premises as mere "starting-point hypotheses" in the epistemological sense.

My premises, the premises of my personal philosophy, the ungrounded statements that I simply accept, for no other particular reason than the mere fact that I actually believe them to be true, are the following five terms.

1) Realism
2) Materialism
3) Atheism
4) Scientism
5) Literalism

From there, I can deduce, as a conclusion (due to a series of logical deductions that I will simply omit for the sake of expediency) that, the OP itself, which is literally my "Love Letter" to the book After Finitude, IS the agenda of the OP, not "the agenda" of me, Arcane Sandwich, as a person, or citizen, or what have you.

In the methodological recognition of the fact that Speculative Realism has already been discussed in this particular Forum in the past, the OP is simply an instance of a research activity that begins in media res. I am effectively charting new conceptual territory with Speculative Materialism itself in the OP, and I do so as a fan of Quentin Meillassoux and also as an informed, critical reader of After Finitude. If you do not agree even to these very basic terms of the discussion itself (i. e., the methodological decision to begin in media res), then I ask you to "look at this thing" from a more Medieval perspective, instead of the Classicist perspective so eloquently displayed as an image in you Forum avatar.

Catch my drift, Bob?

Note: I have edited this message for Clarity's sake. Who is Clarity, anyways?

what would be said in an encylopedia — Wayfarer

Like Wikipedia.

what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation. — Wayfarer

Then I would explain it like so. Materialism is the black part of the Ying Yang, Idealism is the white part of the Ying Yang. Apply the rest of the ying-yang theory accordingly.

So, again, what I call the absolute, can be pictured like the symbol of the ying-yang. So, let us proceed:

I declare that the Phenomenological Subject is the "white dot" inside the black part that is Materialism. And I also declare that the Noumenological Object is the "black dot" inside the part that is Idealism.

And that, is what I call "The Absolute". Its truth is in its Spirit, not in its Letter. Its Law, however, is outside of itself as mere symbol, and its Chaos is what we do with...

... well, you "catch my drift", so to speak.

EDIT: And what I call "The Blind Spot of Science", is the black dot in the white part: what I have called the Noumenological Object.

And what I call "The Blind Spot of Phenomenology" is the white dot in the black part: what I have called the Phenomenological Subject.

EDIT 2: From the preceding hypotheses (for they are only that), the following can be deduced:

The Blind Spot of Science = The Noumenological Object
The Blind Spot of Phenomenology = Phenomenological Subject

Perhaps that makes no sense. Either way, there are 2 possible expressions that I have not used yet:

1) The "noumenological subject", which would be the Scientist as a subject (i.e., the scientific subject, as distinct from the phenomenological subject), and:
2) The "phenomenological object", which would be the object related to intentional consciousness.

EDIT 3: The scientific subject (also known as the noumenological subject) wishes to know, from a scientific standpoint (that is, from what Husserl calls "the natural attitude"), what is the noumenological object (the world itself, as science understands it, as existing independently of all subjects, both scientific as well as phenomenological).
In doing so, the scientific subject forgets about its constitutive blind spot, which is none other than the noumenological object itself, it is the way that the world is, which science cannot access. This awareness has somewhat of a "bracketing effect" on the scientific subject, in the sense that the "scientific" part is "bracketed out" by a sort of "sui generis époché). In other words, the "scientific" part is momentarily ignored, and only "the subject" remains. But that mere subject quickly becomes a phenomenological subject, which gazes at the world in an attempt to intuit the essences of the phenomenological objects in general, as related to that very same subject that is conscious of them.
However, there is also the realization that the subject may freely flow from one state of awareness to the other, and vice-versa.

EDIT 4: The white dot is the idealistic part of materialism, and the black dot is the materialist part of idealism. There is usually some idealism within materialism as a philosophy, and there is usually some materialism within idealism as a philosophy.