That's merely a metastatement (@Lionino)a statement about another statement. — Tarskian
I'm not satisfied with this simplistic example but I think it works well enough. My point is that philosophy's sine qua non is her questions (even meta-questions) – the how what when & why of them – rather than any answers, or "statements". In Socratic manner, I think, philosophizing strives to reason to more probative questions (or more clear, precise formulations of a question) and not just the academic penchant for masturbating each other with cleverer and cleverer logical puzzles.Is the world (i e. a concept of "the world") deterministic or indeterministic?
If the world is deterministic, meaning that every event is caused by a prior event (i.e. non-random), then every person's choosing is epiphenomenal (or an illusion).
However, if the world is indeterministic, meaning that every event is uncaused (i.e. random), then, yet again, every person's choosing is epiphenomenal (or an illusion).
Suppose the world has both deterministic properties and indeterministic properties, meaning that any chain, or sequence, of events consists in alternating causal and noncausal relations, which therefore implies that every person's choosing is unconstrained-within-constraints, or compatible with the world conceived of having both deterministic and indetetministic properties.
Well, fwiw, I see no other way but to interpret Spinoza as both an immanentist and acosmist sub specie aeternitatis (though sub specie durationis also as a pandeist, which (for me) ontically relates him to that other great immanentist Epicurus).I actually interpret Spinoza as a sort of 'acosmist', so not sure I would call him an immanentist ... — boundless
For Spinozists, reality (Deus, sive naturans) is ineluctably immanent – the encompassing horizon that reason necessarily cannot encompass (i.e. explain, or transcend) – and exhausts all of our other rational ideas, concepts & categories. Absurdists might say "reality is the subject of transcendental despair" (i.e. void, anicca, dao, sunyata). Also, faith (i.e. "hope") isn't needed because in practice denying or ignoring reality tends to be hazardous. :smirk:Reality seems to have replaced God as a subject of transcendental hope. — Tom Storm
:100: Exactly.The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. — Benkei
"The mind is the subject of experience" is inept or even deceptive. Experiences are had only by minds [subjects], so what might seem profound is little more than tautology. — Banno
Philosophy reflectively-critically examines whatever is assumed to be "obvious and central" (e.g. intuitions, folk psychological ideas, values, etc) no?both obvious and central — Wayfarer
This "knower" (i.e. perceiver) Bishop Berkeley calls "God" which, not by coincidence I'm sure, is functionally indistinguishable from @Gnomon's "Enformer". An infinite regress-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:It is that which discloses such things as gravity and raditation and sub-atomic particles, amidst innumerable other things. It is the subject to whom all this occurs or appears. The ‘unknown knower’. — Wayfarer
Agreed. Mind(ing) is something sufficiently complex brains do – a (meta)activity, not an entity.[T]he mind is not ‘a thing among other things’ — Wayfarer
:up:... to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" ... Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum — Banno
:up: :up:It is one thing to say that things unperceived are not the same as we perceive them to be and altogether another to claim that when unperceived they don't exist. — Janus
IMO, not "a loser" versus two misogynists who advocate a National Abortion Ban (i.e. criminalizing women's reproductive healthcare) if elected.Two women on the ticket is, unfortunately, a loser. — Mikie
:up:The question is, why does he want to preserve that relationship? — Igitur
:lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes. — NOS4A2
(a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?[C]onsciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality, which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. — Sam26
:up: :up:The rules of chess encompass all the possible games of chess without themselves being one, and a game can provide examples of the rules in action, without being them. — tim wood
Yes (e.g. a community – more than any "subjective mind" – that uses the public conventions of "stop signs" & "traffic lights"; see below).Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020
Yes (e.g. thermal EM radiation from stars, etc). The "experience" may be "subjective", though "red" is acquired publicly, but (except for those who are colorblind) what "red" corresponds to in every instance (e.g. EM frequencies) is not "subjective".If there is no mind to experience and conceptually designate “red” does red ever aquire aninherentexistence independent of a third party mind?
No. Physics (provisionally) explains 'the regularities of nature' and logic (exactly) describes 'the entailments of regularities as such'. The latter is, imo so to speak, the syntax of the former (i.e. physics discursively presupposes logic). Why? Perhaps because ... nature, which includes – constitutes – h. sapiens' intelligence, is a dynamic process evolving within (thermal?) constraints from initial conditions – ur-regularities.[D]o you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
:lol: Principle of explosion —> STFU, kid.First Order Logic is a subset of Axiomatic Mathematics ... First order Logic, a subset of axiomatic mathematics, doesn't exist. — Treatid
:clap: :rofl:It doesn't matter ... the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! — Sam26
No, I'm neither an economist nor a policy-maker.Are you critical of the subject, 180 Proof? — Mark Nyquist
