Philosophy Now Forum

Works now, terrible poem though In realms of power, a fiery blaze, Trump's presence casts a vivid gaze. Through trials fierce and storms unkind, He stood, unwavering, in his mind. With fervor fierce, he led the way, A maverick in the light of day. His voice, a trumpet, loud and clear, Ringing out fo...

No things. All is energy - patterned (ordered) and non-patterned (chaotic). All is dynamic interactivity. The ancients used fire or water as their representational metaphor. Abstraction = simplification/generalization of what is present. Present = manifestation of past - interpreted as appearance. ...

7 dimensions: The 7th dimension is an infinite space-time universe with infinite dark matter and dark energy, which corresponds to the limited dark matter and dark energy in our 6-dimensional classical finite space-time universe. If the 7th dimension is an infinite icy ocean, then our 6-dimensional...

Well at least you two finally agree on something. After all you both live in some kind of alternative reality.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:32 pm Come to think of it, when there's a troll like moron dick-for-brains around, anyone could be it. I could be. Anyway, I'm done. Or am I?

Yeah yeah but what's the actual reason you don't want to admit that you exist?

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist. Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested. Still more of ...

I beg to differ. Here's part of the link you suggest: 'Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework...' That's pure Kant. It's got 'the exter...

That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused. Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clear it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_...

But why don't they refute indirect realism? Refute it how? That's what I'm asking. You claim three things refute direct realism: Kant, science and psychology. And then you say science and psychology refute Kant. So I'm confused. Perhaps you could set out the premise(s) of indirect realism - to clea...

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess...

That may be the right diagnosis. And I'm sure that Kant's disastrous noumena/phenomena distinction is at the root of it. The distinction by itself is actually fairly useful, it's only disastrous when we do what Kant did and claim that the noumenon is 100% unknowable. That's actually an insane guess...

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:33 pm The only ontology that requires true "insight", is the Platonic one.

Like religion huh

He says there are two senses of the word reality What VA has been saying all these years is that there are only two philosophies: naive realism and Kantian naive anti-realism. And that he's super smart because he knows that the second one beats the first one. Kant told him that the "naive"...

Every member of the club sees exactly the same things. How is that possible if all of us just invented them? How do we manage to coordinate a common fictitious illusion so precisely? So, for people who do not have the ability to see them, they do indeed not exist. For us, they do. Again, it would b...

Every member of the club sees exactly the same things. How is that possible if all of us just invented them? How do we manage to coordinate a common fictitious illusion so precisely? So, for people who do not have the ability to see them, they do indeed not exist. For us, they do. Again, it would b...