Philosophy Now Forum

As far as whether he is right or wrong in saying that suicide is "THE one truly serious philosophical problem", I think it's maybe a little bit like trying to determine if the statement "green is a pretty color" is "right" or "wrong". It's perhaps more like a matter of opinion coming from a particu...

Nick_A wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:39 am

Simone

Oh gosh, Nick.

Don't you have any thoughts that aren't about Simone Weil?

Just marry the girl, and get it over with. Nobody else wants to know.

The following is from an article by a well-known Theist in defense of one philosopher's mostly correct objective view of ethics: The Ethics of Ayn Rand: Restatement Actually, RC, we've got to differentiate between "objective" and "Objectivist." The former is a kind of synonym for "real," and the se...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 am

Analogies are phenomenon.

Phenomena.

Well, I read what you said, and can't follow it a bit. Whether it's the grammar, the vagueness or the ideas, I can't tell.

Three tries. No go.

Okee dokee.

Okay. This argument of yours that if were to assume essentialism is incorrect, then the category of female would not exist at all. The "category" might still be around, but it wouldn't refer to anything real. And in the real world, you can't get an unreal thing. You can delude yourself about it may...

Gnosticism is a way of thinking. Everybody but you seems to know it's a religion. It is classed as that, no argument, but religions are tribes, and there can and are Gnostics in all tribes. Well, there's a variety of Gnostics, it's true. That doesn't suggest they're not "religious," nor that they d...

So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences. But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories. Now you've got it. Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism Not at all. Becaus...

Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy). You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you w...

So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences. But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories. Now you've got it. Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism Not at all. Becaus...

All phenomena may possibly exist through analogies. Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else. Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon. ???? What happened to "analogies"? Where did this "continuum" suddenly appear from? I...

So my question would be, "Is it really inevitable that a person who thinks deeply about the nature of things, and sees them as they really are, is going to be brought to the edge of needing a reason not to kill himself ?" :shock: That's really an extreme position that Camus is taking. 1940 was an e...

All phenomenon can exist through analogies... This isn't coherent English. A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition. That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it. So, naturally, I can't respond. All phenomena ma...

Kierkegaard was very big on the topic of despair or "the sickness unto death," I believe he called it. Yes. But while Kierkegaard saw despair as a sort of illness of the maladjusted soul, he also saw it as quite curable. The despair was not a product, for Kierkegaard, of a long, hard look at the tr...

125 pages in, and still no grounds for any secular objective moral judgment have been found. We can't even prove, on that basis, that something as bad as slavery is wrong.

That should really tell us something.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:18 pm

All phenomenon can exist through analogies...

This isn't coherent English.

A singular noun is linked to a plural and intransitive verb, with another noun used as the object of an ambiguous preposition.

That doesn't work. No sense can be made from it.

So, naturally, I can't respond.