I’d agree modal categories share the relationship of time with each other, but that’s the extent of my agreement so far. Mostly because I don’t consider the categories in accordance with your thesis. — Mww
What method? There may be an irreducible first principle employed by the method, but first principles do not describe the method that uses it. — Mww
Precedence. As in ordered sequential priorities? So…Law of Ordered Sequential Priorities? Sounds an awful lot like plain ol’ cause and effect to me. Why isn’t it? — Mww
is straight outta Aristotle, unequivocally applicable to objects whether in concerto or in abstractia — Mww
you had to reason to your first principle. — Mww
If it’s new, it shouldn’t have anything to compare with, insofar as the new cancels the established, or at the very least, makes it obsolete. — Mww
Does it escape Quine's deconstruction of that distinction in Two Dogmas? — creativesoul
In my parlance, and perhaps I should have made it explicit, the time I talk about is no more than the time I conceive as ground for something else also of mine that I can talk about. Hence, a mind considered as eternally existing is not a required antecedent for this conception of time. — Mww
Perhaps in your parlance, time is being treated as a completely self-subsisting something-or-other, then the argument could be made that kind of time needs an eternally existing mind for its possibility. Dunno how an eternally existing anything can be shown beyond logical conditions. And logical conditions alone have no warrant for ontological existences. — Mww
Ok, with qualifications, in that you assign categories differently than what I’m used to. Usually, the categories proper have no internal relation, at least to each other, which I take you to mean. — Mww
Anyway….this new philosophical method. How does it work? What’s the irreducible starting point? — Mww
That would be interesting. What does a propositional account of such axiom look like? In a tripartite logical human cognitive system, the categories are the mediator. Being pure conceptions themselves, it would seem self-destructive of the system for the pure mediator to be mediated. — Mww
I might caution, perhaps unnecessarily, that metaphysical reductionism can only go so far before it becomes logically absurd. — Mww
“but also by” negates “alone”. Minor self-contradiction, to be sure, but might warrant some re-consideration. — Mww
If you say intuition is conditioned by time alone, are you referring to the faculty of phenomenal representation in itself, without regard to sensibility? I ask because intuition of real physical objects by which our internal phenomena are possible, are also equally conditioned by space. — Mww
Time and intuition are co-necessary…..for what? For cognition in general, sure. Intuition, whether faculty or representation created by that faculty, without time is impossible for humans, but time is already given whether there be intuition or not. Your thesis should demonstrate how time is in fact a given, if it is, or, how the system would operate if it is not. — Mww
Finally….do you have a connection between the conception “memory” and the conception “consciousness”? — Mww
I'm not doubting that you have not laid it all out. I'm rejecting using the notion of "necessary" as a means to discriminate between kinds of true statements. — creativesoul
“….. It is very remarkable that we cannot perceive the possibility of a thing from the category alone, but must always have an intuition, by which to make evident the objective reality of the pure conception of the understanding….” — Mww
….then you haven’t created an entirely new system of philosophy at all, but instead, merely clothed an established transcendental philosophy in a different colored dress, insofar as the understanding, being conditioned by time alone, makes temporal priority explicit in the deduction of its categories. — Mww
Still…..cheers for diving into the deep end. Most folks don’t even realize there is one. — Mww
You cannot have one without the other. Earlier you spoke of necessary truths didn't you? — creativesoul
Yeah, I'm not keen on using "necessary" to discriminate between kinds of true statements. I prefer the way I set out in that OP. We may discuss the differences, or not. — creativesoul
It would benefit this community if after publication you'd kindly let us know the publisher, the publication, and the venue (in case it's a paper you present) and the corresponding details so we could follow the events. This of course is not a demand but a request. Thanks. — god must be atheist
You could always quote something from that link and discuss it. — creativesoul
You think that existing eternally and existing of necessity are the same. — Bartricks
No big deal, I am okay with this, it's only a small mistake in composition. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts, nevertheless. — god must be atheist
if the occurrence of geometric points is necessary for the occurrence of geometric figures, then this would be one example of logical necessity devoid of temporal priority: the geometric figure logically necessitates geometric points thought both are fully concurrent. — javra
Out of curiosity, if this happens to make a difference: Are you addressing this issue in regard to what does or can ontically occur or, else, in regard to our human capacity to conceptualize various forms of logical necessity (whether or not our conceptions be illusory)? — javra
I agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant. — god must be atheist
To show that the answer is no experimentally, you need to obsrve all events, examine the events in which such precipitation occurs, and see that they all follow the rule of intuition. If they ALL follow, including all events ever in the future, then you proved experientially that the answer is no, it can't. — god must be atheist
On the other hand, while developing qm behavour's math models, the logic has shifted to observing calculated events that are logically impossible with an explanation using only classical logic. — god must be atheist
You did change the raw quesiton; you made a question whereby the cause is or prior event is necessary for the ensuing event. — god must be atheist
Its logic has spit in the face of human intuition based on logic. — god must be atheist
That one thing depends on another does not entail that the former existed before the latter. As I keep explaining. — Bartricks
What do you mean by 'necessity' then? Why do you think it implies 'exists before anything else'? — Bartricks
it may not be so for all. — Agent Smith
I'm a philosopher. — Bartricks
An interesting OP. :up: — Agent Smith
Mill's 5 methods (to establish causality). — Agent Smith
I think it's always been true. — Bartricks
I think that's true. — Bartricks
Presumably you realize that if something exists contingently, then that can be consistent with it actually existing? Or do you not understand that? — Bartricks
Can't you see that 'eternal' and 'necessity' are different? — Bartricks
Yes I can. There are no necessary truths or contingent truths. But it is true that time exists. There. — Bartricks
No, you're conflating 'exists of necessity' with 'exists eternally'. They're different. The first entails the latter, the latter does not entail the first. You're affirming the consequent. — Bartricks
No it isn't. That's question begging. Explain how it is logically impossible. (It's from Kant) — Bartricks
Imagine that for all time there has been a two storey building. Imagine the first storey exists of necessity, but the second does not. The second depends on the first. but the first did not exist before the second. — Bartricks