If space has no properties, then how come lines are possible in it? How come circles are possible? How come any geometric figure is possible in it? What governs what is possible in space if not its properties? What governs what space is, if not its properties? — Agustino

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Your last question seems to commit the category mistake I listed above. Nothing can "govern" space.

They are possibilities which are determined to exist by the nature of space itself — Agustino

A possibility is a thing that may happen or be the case, so you're saying that a line is a thing, which is what I said. It is an object, albeit a mental object.

space being non-Euclidean determines that the angles in a triangle can add up to something different than 180 degrees, and inversely - space being Euclidean determines that the angles in a triangle necessarily add up to 180 degrees — Agustino

No. Non/Euclidean geometry's axioms determine such things. Not space.

they are pure spatial relations — Agustino

And what, pray tell, is a "pure spatial relation?" For what it's worth, Wikipedia disagrees with you.

No, my main point was that space has no properties. I was thinking of physics when I said material objects. Geometry, you are right, deals with mental objects like lines and triangles. But these are imagined as being in space, just as material objects are perceived to be in space. So in both cases, space is being presupposed.

That's technically true, yes, but it doesn't affect my main point.

Which is a property of space governed by geometry — Agustino

No it isn't. Space has no properties. Only material objects in space have properties and these properties are what geometry studies.

Does Schopenhauer think space. time and causality are, exhaustively, functions of the human mind, such that they can have no existence or properties beyond, or contradictory to, how we directly experience and intuitively conceive them? — John

Yeah, I think so.

By means of what is space the principle of individuation if not by the relationships it creates amongst geometric figures? — Agustino

It doesn't create whatever relationships you might be referring to. It creates your ability to say "figures," plural.

No lines aren't themselves in space — Agustino

Rubbish. Try thinking of or drawing a line that is not located in space. It's impossible.

rather they emerge from the properties of space itself — Agustino

This is sheer incoherence. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

are the Platonic Ideas noumenal or phenomenal? — John

For Schopenhauer, they are phenomenal.

Why then are geometrical judgements synthetic a prioris? — Agustino

Are you asking me this? Because if you are, I think I quite clearly implied above (and in my PMs) that I am not necessarily committed to defending this claim. I am only trying to defend the a priori nature of space itself, not the alleged a priori nature of geometrical judgments.

But the relationships between geometric figures is what space itself is. — Agustino

Saying this doesn't make it so.

I mean I ask you again, what else could space be? You say a form of our cognitive faculties... well, to be more exact, what is that? — Agustino

I thought I answered this in a whole paragraph above. I don't know what more you want.

I don't actually remember Schopenhauer using the term stage, but it may be possible. It's been awhile since I read WWR in full. — Agustino

I seem to recall him using it.

The Platonic Ideas are known outside of space, time and causality, and hence must be higher than the will in the hirearchy — Agustino

No, not according to Schopenhauer. The Platonic Ideas are dependent on the will, as the adequate objectification thereof.

That being said, as I have told you before, I myself sometimes think Schopenhauer ought to have reversed this order. But I was only trying to explain what Schopenhauer says on this point, instead of criticizing him.

I might disagree that Platonic Ideas still presuppose subject/object — Agustino

You can disagree if you like, but again, Schopenhauer still explicitly says they do.

I would say part of the principle of individuation because time for example also individuates. — Agustino

Sure.

the Will is closer to an idea or a subject than to matter. — Agustino

This is still a bizarre claim to me. It's equally distant from both ideas and matter in terms of what it is.

Kant/Schopenhauer, because remember all knowledge must be ultimately reducible to some perception — Agustino

No! This is profoundly antithetical to transcendental idealism. Rationalists thought we had knowledge of things not derived from experience, or a priori knowledge. Empiricists thought all knowledge was grounded in experience, or a posteriori knowledge. Transcendental idealism says that we do have knowledge a priori, but that this is limited to the forms of knowledge itself. In other words, we have immediate knowledge of the conditions of knowledge, while all other knowledge is mediated by those very conditions, and so is a posteriori.

If space is inseparable from our cognition, and non-Euclideanness is not perceivable in perception a priori, that means that non-Euclidean geometry cannot be knowledge, since it has no perceptual referent. — Agustino

It's interesting to note here the semantic shift from "non-Euclidean space," a phrase you have used up until now, to "non-Euclideanness." Just what is "non-Euclideanness?" The properties of certain points, lines, etc derived from non-Euclidean geometry? I don't see anything else it could be, but if so, then, as I said, the points, lines, etc are themselves in space. It's one thing to say, "lines and shapes can be measured a certain way, a way different from what Euclid taught in some cases," which is what non-Euclidean geometry says, and quite another to say, "this describes space itself." Simply put, geometry, whatever model one uses, measures the properties of things, but space is not a thing, therefore it says nothing about what space is in itself. If it were an object, then it would be perceived as such. But we don't perceive it as such. We rather perceive objects that are already in space.

I don't mean that by stage. I mean space, time and causality by stage. — Agustino

Well, what I said is what I believe Schopenhauer means by that term. The stage is the unity of what I am presently conscious of.

Nonsense, for Kant the thing in itself is recognized as being logically necessary. He says that for there to be representation it follows logically that there must be something that is represented. It is thought by Kant as noumenal only in the sense that it utterly escapes, by its very definition, empirical investigation. — John

This is correct.

If the thing in itself is the noumenal and Will is not it, but rather merely "close to it", then is Will phenomenal? Obviously it cannot be part of the noumenal according to Schopenhauer, because the noumenal cannot have parts (according to both Schopenhauer and Kant). — John

The will can be considered a weird sort of phenomenon, yes. But it is not composed of parts, given that it's not in space. It is what appears in appearance or what is presented in presentation, which makes it the thing-in-itself for us. But it is not the thing-in-itself in and by itself.

And what about the platonic ideas? are they noumenal? If they are then how can there be more than one idea. And if all four the noumenal (timeless) the ideas ( timeless) the Will ( temporal only) and the phenomenal ( temporal and spatial) are different form one another, then how are there not four ontological categories? — John

The Ideas are outside of space, time, and causality, but they still presuppose the subject/object relation and so are still phenomenal. I would break up Schopenhauer's ontology in the following way:

- The thing-in-itself, which is completely unknowable.
- The will as the thing-in-itself when the latter becomes conscious of itself, which is knowable in time as distinct acts of will identical to the movements of the body.
- The Platonic Ideas as the different grades of the will's objectifying itself, that is, the different degrees of what the will wills, which is life/existence, and knowable in aesthetic contemplation when willing has temporarily abated, wherein one is conscious solely of the Idea and not the movements of one's body or of individual objects in space and time.
- Individual objects as the Platonic Ideas come under and known in space, time, and causal relation to each other.

The last three are all technically phenomenal, but in very different ways.

And there is no quadruple aspect theory. Will is the ground of the phenomenon. Platonic Ideas are encounters with and glimpses of the thing-in-itself through art, or mystical experiences. The thing-in-itself is the unknown ground or source of the Platonic Ideas and of the Will. So it's still double aspect - Phenomenon composed hirearchically of Will and then the other Representations, and Thing-in-itself. — Agustino

I think we see two bifurcations in Schopenhauer. There is first will and presentation, which is the world (hence his title). Then there is the world and the thing-in-itself.

I feel I should make an appearance. As I told Agustino, I freely admit to being fairly mathematically illiterate, which may hinder my ability to see the purported force of his objection. Agustino thinks that non-Euclidean geometry spells the death knell for transcendental idealism, while I have been pushing back against that claim in various ways. He drifts toward realism, whereas I, to the extent that I acknowledge the cogency of his objection, drift toward Berkeleyan idealism, for I say that I do not perceive space Euclideanly or in any other way. What I perceive are impressions, e.g. colors, shapes, sounds, etc, that my intellect fashions into distinct objects in space and time. Thus, I still regard space as an a priori form of knowledge.

Agustino wonders what space is if not its properties, Euclidean or otherwise. There are several ways to answer this question. First, I think we can say that space is the principle of individuation, i.e. it is that part of my cognition that makes what I perceive a plurality of distinct objects. However, because space is inseparable from our cognition generally, the question is technically based on a category mistake, because it's asking for knowledge of that which conditions all knowledge. Space can no more be known in itself than the eye can see itself or digestion can digest itself. It can still be known and perceived, but not in the way that the question assumes. Lastly, geometry tries to determine the properties of points, lines, surfaces, and so on, so it's technically not correct to say that it determines the properties of space itself, since points, lines, and surfaces are themselves in space. Any attempt to know what space is through experience, that is, a posteriori, necessarily presupposes it.

Now Schopenhauer's ontological idealism — Agustino

No. He's an ontological voluntarist, in that the being of the world is will, as opposed to mind, a la Berkeley.

If part of the stage is empirically real, then Schopenhauer's ontological idealism falls apart. — Agustino

The stage, assuming by that you mean the mental picture appearing before a conscious subject, is both empirically real and transcendentally ideal. Our experience of objects is not false.

Your reward will be a post in the space thread.

You want a medal?

Christians believe that a sex is something sacred, either physical and spiritual connection of partners — Takerian

Speak for yourself. I've read enough of the New Testament, the Church Fathers, and countless Christian mystics, ascetics, and theologians to know that this is not at all normative.

The arguments have to do with life, not souls per se. If they were solely to do with the latter, then positions like Aquinas's, who believed ensoulment happens well after conception, would be less useful in defending an anti-abortion stance.

Also, there are some atheists who are opposed to abortion. They are a minority, but they exist all the same.

No.

I'm thinking of a certain type of advocate: the unthinking kind. So don't be so hasty in your defamations. You'll notice I didn't say "refugee advocate," but "uncompromising refugee advocate," the unpacking of which would deflate your charge.

Christians are especially vulnerable in the region, as are other non-Muslim minorities. This claim doesn't have solely to do with ISIS and nor is it meant to downplay the violence done to Muslims.

Might as well admit that discrimination is being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation, culture, or whatever. — jorndoe

Yes, that's exactly what it is, and there's nothing wrong with it, as I have already shown. The only way for it to be wrong would be if all religions and cultures were equal, whereby one isn't any better or worse than another, in which case choosing between them for immigration purposes would be arbitrary and irrational. But they are not equal and so it is not irrational to discriminate.

And nobody else can either. — Bitter Crank

True, which is why they need to be spread around. At the moment, the Arab states and Turkey have not done their fair share of taking in refugees.

Have we decided that economic migrants and refugees are a force of nature which are no more controllable than the weather? — Bitter Crank

It would appear so. A crusader during one of the Albigensian massacres once allegedly said: "Kill them all; God will sort them out." The modern, uncompromising refugee advocate merely replaces the word "kill" with "accept," while retaining the same unwarranted, absurd faith in a just and happy outcome.

The US can choose who can immigrate to the country by virtually any criteria it wants. The constitution legally applies to US citizens, not to those who are not. The US doesn't have to let in a soul if it doesn't want to, and this wouldn't conflict with the constitution at all. And all countries practice selective immigration. We need more engineers? Then we'll privilege them over and against people of other professions. Simply put, there is no right to immigrate and no wrong committed by refusing to let some people immigrate. In the present case, the argument can be made that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in the Middle East are the most in danger and in need of assistance, so I see nothing wrong with privileging them as refugees over and against others from the region.

Some sort of vetting is necessary in any event, since the US cannot be expected to take in all the refugees in the world indefinitely. Resources are finite and would be better employed trying to solve the problems that are causing the refugee crisis to begin with. One of them is the lack of a strong military presence on the ground, which was completely taken away by Obama against the advice of the military. The transition to democracy takes time, but Obama never gave it time to develop in Iraq. We have had large, now arguably superfluous, military forces in Germany and Japan for more than half a century, which originally helped their transition to peaceful democracies after WWII. Yet we completely pulled out of Iraq in its infancy and left them to the dogs of ISIS who seized on the military vacuum.

the one Marquez doesn't (in fact, remaining within his argument, can't) answer: How do we decide when to bring in independent value systems to override the epistemic argument? — csalisbury

Maybe he can't. But we certainly can. I already said I'm not trying to defend his argument per se. I'm only trying to defend him from certain accusations which would be absurd and uncharitable to lay on him.

I'm not a huge fan of Murray as he puts too much stock into intelligence tests, but his point is well taken and correct.

There are two kinds of facts: things and events. Only when put into a sentence that takes the form of a judgment (with a subject and a predicate) do they become true or false.

Trump has a foreign policy? News to me.

If the USSR won some global economic war it could also claim, as you did, that the US today (in the 'today' where the US is communist) is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the USSR at 'that time' (i.e before the US became communist). 'There was always a firm understanding of what the US would become' the USSR intelligentsia would say, 'there was no other alternative.' — csalisbury

Still don't get it. If the US were communist, then the USSR, upon defeating it, would make it communist? When does the US become communist in this scenario? In any event, using the USSR as an example doesn't work because it lasted less than a century. It meets very easily the criteria for being intolerable.

And I think it would be very hard to argue that the plantation/slave system of the south wasn't a system of property or political rights — csalisbury

On the contrary, I think it would be very easy for him, and anyone, to argue that human beings are not property and that one does not and ought not have the right, political or otherwise, to own them as such.

I'm giving you all scientific proof of God(s) existence. — TheMadFool

>:O I think he's pulling your legs guys. Best let him stay beneath the bridge.

Yeah? So if the USSR said the US should become communist, the US couldn't claim its own economic system couldn't transition into a communist system? — csalisbury

Not trying to dodge it, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at with this question.

Explain my understanding of basic institutions or the understanding of Marquez? — csalisbury

The latter, of course.

I don't a give a pig's brisket (made that up) what you think of it. — csalisbury

And nor do I care what you think about what I think of it. I merely had to point it out. It's like a reflex for me, and I would be greatly annoyed if I just let it slide.

Good. I'm better at that.

I feel like I'd like to continue to buy groceries — Carbon

And inflating assigning grades to 20 something ignoramuses who barely know how to blink and who will forget everything you taught them, sell the boring textbook they had to buy, and wonder why the hell they just took your class is the best way of buying groceries?

I'd probably lean more toward saying that forums like this, group discussions, etc. are more pure from a classical stand point. — Carbon

I don't feel obliged to hold up an Internet forum as any closer approximation to the ideal of philosophy than academia. I'm mostly here to kill time and don't pretend for a second that I possess or expect to receive an overflow of wisdom by posting here. But I do have high standards for what constitutes being a philosopher, yes.

I honestly couldn't care less if she wakes up after taking her class and feels philosophically "enlightened". I'd rather she just pass her class and maybe walk away thinking the educational experience was fun. — Carbon

Right, your standards are low to vanishing. You can have them if you like, but just don't speak for all of those who are interested in philosophy.

I'm sincerely (sincerely sincerely, not just rhetorically sincerely) surprised people thought that I thought that anyone was defending slavery. — csalisbury

Alright, I'll take you at your word. And just for the record, let me say that I never intended to defend the argument in question, so it doesn't matter to me whether it succeeds or fails, and I would certainly not base my own conservatism upon it. However, I wanted to make clear that it doesn't fail due to (again, I trust) what I wrongly perceived to be the criticisms of it in this thread.

And we didn't, at all, have a firm understanding of what new institutions the south would have to create to deal with the vacuum caused by emancipation. — csalisbury

Nonsense. The south today is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the north at that time: free trade, non-slave labor in the agricultural industry, etc, so there was always a firm understanding of what it would become. There was no other alternative.

According to my own understanding of 'basic institutions' and Marquez's. — csalisbury

Explain.

So this is where I'm at. — csalisbury

This is where you are. The "at" is not needed in this sentence. Pet peeve, sorry.

This discussion has become a mess. — Bitter Crank

I blame Anatoly Lobsterman.

It seems that there has been more 'testiness' around here lately. Some people have extended their sensitive feelers all the way across the room and squawk every time somebody touches them. Probably fallout from Brexit, Trump, LaPen, et al. Change is in the air, but we can't quite tell from which direction the next disaster will come. Makes people nervous. — Bitter Crank

An utterly breathtaking connection you've attempted to make here. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

as thornongil and emptyheady have, cant possibly poke a hole in the argument of someone with accolades — csalisbury

That's not what I'm doing and nor something I would ever wish to do. If you're done conversing in this thread, fine, but you're not getting away with spreading falsehoods about me.

Also, have you noticed that your grammar goes out the window the grumpier you get? You can't even spell my username correctly!

It's work man! — Carbon

And this is to sully philosophy. "Academic philosophy," "professional philosophy," and the like strike me as oxymoronic phrases. One can be a professional plumber, car salesman, accountant, or massage therapist, but a professional lover of wisdom? If that doesn't strike a discordant note with you, then nothing I say will have any effect. I'm not - at least not yet! - calling for the dissolution of such philosophy, but I am stressing its unimportance and non-necessity with respect to pursuing what philosophy genuinely is.

except to say he's not in favor of it. Which I believe, and have believed since reading the OP — csalisbury

That you clarify this now, albeit on page 6 of this thread, is most welcome.

And speaking for myself, I'm the last person to think a person's credentials immunizes them from criticism.

Again, if everyone agreed with the author, emancipation never would have happened. — csalisbury

That isn't clear.

The slave system in the american south was a basic institution. — csalisbury

According to Marquez? You're playing a crafty game here, which you must realize.

Aaaand now you contradict yourself.

Is slavery a basic institution? Yes or no. I answer no. You have answered no. We are now in agreement on the point of dispute.

Did slavery arise and was it maintained by a basic institution? Sure, but that was not the point of dispute and it doesn't make the basic institution from which it arose bad or evil, i.e. we can ask if a plantation system in and of itself is evil or requires slavery, and the answer is no.

But please, go ahead and drop those logic bombs you're apparently sitting on.

Are you just being sulky again or do you sincerely not understand? (Let me charitable and assume you're just being sulky) — csalisbury

I understand that you conceded to me my point. Perhaps you are a sore loser, though.

No one beyond the newbie undergrads in philosophy gives a shit about the mystical connection with wisdom you think is required for REAL philosophy or whatever the hell you're supposedly doing. — Carbon

Other people not caring about what philosophy is doesn't change what it is.

I'd tone it down a notch as you're the exact type of person that turns folks like Mary Ellen off in those sorts of classes. — Carbon

And turned off they should be. "Studying philosophy" for one or another vain end will prove a waste of time. Philosophy is deliberately useless, though not for that reason without value. But its value will never be realized except by those who feel the need to pursue it as an end in itself. The absurdity of claiming that a "philosophical education" can be had on account of taking a class or two ought to be self-evident, and if it isn't, then you are a philistine.