I am skeptical as to whether the idea of complete/incomplete has any discernable meaning applied to either the world or the universe.

what is your basis for claiming the infinite is more complete than the finite? it strikes me as counter intuitive.

partially, yes. And for the most part, the degree to which thought is partially mathematical is going to be mostly the same as the degree to which thought is logical. and for the most part, when it comes to logic, mathematics is more precise than thought.

It is when I think 2 + 2 equals 4.

there is no loss of clarity in going from the adjective triangular to the noun triangle. I suspect there are examples where going from adjective to noun may increase clarity. just saying.

could you tell me what you mean by "experience."

What constitutes an "experience?"

And do not most people consider an "experience" as something they can reconstitute in some form and reflect upon?

Absent some sort of acknowledgement of experience as constituted by some communicable post hoc assessment capable of carrying or conveying meaning, are you not risking the rendering of the idea of "experience" as something "meaningless?"

That fits with what Warhol was. When technology gives people more time, they don't use it to relax, they use it to go faster, get more stuff done, run the economy hotter.

They resist being arrested by simple stuff as if they're hungry for action. This may be getting more social-criticism than Warhol really is, but it's there. — frank

I agree.

The mass emulation of the leisure class is a mass emulation of the superficial trappings of leisure rather than of leisure.

triangle (the noun).

except you already conceded you know the name Jessica. and even if you did not know the name Jessica, you would not ask what a Jessica was if you had not already heard "Jessica" as a reference to some person, place, thing, or group.

What is a spickledeerfork?

Could you say more about that? — frank

Yes.

In addition, I strongly recommend people read Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. The technology age has a similar democratizing effect upon culture as did the mass production age as described by Veblen. Technology provides information and entertainment to the masses in the same way that mass production brought material goods to the masses. Technology fills in the leisure spaces with entertainment in the same way emulation of the habits of the leisure class filled the leisure spaces created by the automation of mass production.

Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ? — Monist

yes. you must have some understanding of X in order to formulate a question regarding X. all your question can do is give a deeper understanding than the one you must have to even ask the question.

“No one is in control. That is the major source of contemporary fear...” — xraymike79

and no one ever has been. control is an illusion and the need for it is an addiction.

except physics as we know has not had 500 years to provide adequate answers to reasonable questions.

I was, of course, joking.

How could they possibly cover it?

They cannot even agree that it is happening.

For some, the world is a wonderful place.

politics are a large scale appeals to emotion, not reason.

interesting take. The technology angle reminds me of Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class on steroids.

It also made me think of Andy Warhol and how he turned a mundane tomato soup can into a work of art while rendering the Mona Lisa mundane.

In some sense, a purported piece of art that makes you question art is a work of art.

then you must be watching the wrong station.

I am not sure what I mean is the question. I would suggest that based upon the comment, what Schopenhaur would mean is that science is the way we come to know the Devine. Though I personally have thought in terms of consciousness as the universe coming to know itself.

I suspect that knowing and understanding are not synonymous and I would rephrase your question as "how can one formulate a question about truth without an understanding of what truth is?"

But that is just me being picky as your question is an excellent question.

In some sense, I think we "live" in the truth (which does not make us truthful). Instead, we have an understanding of truth and we use that understanding to either uncover or conceal the truth.

Good point. Naturalism ends up being dependent on dualism to express what it rejects. The Naturalist binds herself to conclusions with no theory leading up to them and then demands that we limit the scope of the question. The fact that this is exactly the modus operandi of the medieval Catholic Church should signal us that this isn't science. — frank

I was listening to a discussion on Schopenhaur and someone suggested that he would consider the scientific approach as the communicative structure of the Devine. And that struck and I am not even a religious person. But the possibility should be humbling to the naturalist.

Good point. Naturalism ends up being dependent on dualism to express what it rejects. The Naturalist binds herself to conclusions with no theory leading up to them and then demands that we limit the scope of the question. The fact that this is exactly the modus operandi of the medieval Catholic Church should signal us that this isn't science. — frank

well said. and a bit frightening.

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

good question and of course, the answer is that one cannot. in that sense, truth is that on the basis of which truth is already understood.

a sense of truth is constitutive of our nature (which does not make us necessarily truthful). we could not make our way about in the world without a sense of truth.

What is art is decided by the artist. A group of people who are difficult to pin down. — Punshhh

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is.

Really. What do you follow that has you putting the highest authority in another, without you absorbing and embracing the ideology and making it your own? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I know that words have meaning and no reasonable person would subscribe to an ideology where they would refer to their self as the "highest authority" while referring to someone else as the "highest authority."

Just saying.

You have more than one process when judging? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

the question was not about the process I use in making a judgment.

Instead, the question was whether I am the "highest authority" regarding my judgments.

And again, that depends upon the issue.

If I have medical issues, I am going to find a doctor worthy of being the "higher authority" on the issues.

And please do not confuse final authority with highest authority and please do not respond in such a way as to make your own vacuous.

I understand art as an expression of human consciousness, and art work as information about the artists consciousness. Art as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all art ever made - cave paintings to present. — Pop

I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness.

Just saying.

How is the physical body not self-sufficient for Plato? — Pantagruel

I was not as clear as I could have been. The issue is not that of how self-sufficient forms (such as soul and body) interact. Instead, the issue is how do distinct substances interact.

For Plato, the real is reducible to the single non-material substance of ideal form. So even if the Platonic body is self-sufficient, it is ultimately reducible to a non-material ideal form. Consequently, Plato never has to explain how the non-material interacts with the material.

For Descartes, the real is reducible to one of two distinct substances, i.e., res cogitans (a thinking substance) and res extensa (a material substance.). And the Cartesians have spent half a millennium trying to answer the reasonable question of “how do two ‘distinct’ substances interact?”

And to date, every Cartesian answer is ultimately reducible to some form of parallelism, magic (transcendence) or “They just do. Isn’t it wonderful?”

Perhaps I could have been more clear. I am thinking of substance ontology in the sense of a substance being "self sufficient." Though Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would speak in terms of "souls" being different from physical forms, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that any of them considered "physical" forms to be self sufficient. As a result, they are able to avoid the issue of how distinct and self sufficient substances can interact. For Plato only the forms are truly self sufficient and for Aquinas only the creator is truly self sufficient. So they avoid the cartesian mind body issue by the simple reduction of all to forms or to God. For them, there is no true dualism.

thank you. I am definitely interested. However and as a technical matter, Fichte himself is certainly post-Cartesian and his own comments beg the issue of whether he himself would have thought in terms of mind/body if he were not post-Cartesian. So in that sense, I am looking for pre-Cartesian framings of the issue as mind/body. But I will certainly check out your recommendations.

The mind-body problem is a feature of the universe and has been debated since time immemorial. — Pantagruel

Please cite any pre-Cartesian debate regarding the "mind-body problem."

I feel no obligation to accept your definition of anti-realist. I am unaware that there is any consensus on a definition of an anti-realist.

I question whether our (human) modes of access to being necessarily exhaust all modes of access to being.

I would be surprised if they did.

I do not see why "physical reality" being three dimensional means that "physical reality" has a monopoly on three dimensional realities.

It is either that your using God to help you judge, or by your Gnostic Christian religion, you are not someone who fits that description. — Qwex

This is a good point. To ask:

Do you follow 1 Thessalonians 5:21, or do you let someone else do your judging for you? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

is perplexing.

Resting a claim to be one's own "highest authority" upon the authority of Thessalonians 5:21 is nonsensical.

do you see the world in some other way? what other way would there be to see the world? — tim wood

I think its called "monism" as opposed to dualism.

depends on the issue.

It can't matter (much) what they think of those of us who 'think about thinking' if they themselves don't also 'think about thinking'. — 180 Proof

I like that.

I suspect most people don't.

we are trapped within cartesian substance ontology in a very perverse way. the very process (thinking) upon which Descartes premised the certainty of his existence is now rated as less real than the res extensa, the questionable existence of which gave rise to the original cartesian doubt.

Oh well.

I seriously doubt that qualia of conscious experience of you as “I” can happen without resonating with other external embodiments/minds. — Sir Philo Sophia

I seriously doubt that qualia of conscious experience of you as “I” can happen without THE APPEARANCE OF resonating with other external embodiments/minds.

I fixed that for ya.

because they keep trying to sell me extended warranties for my auto