Philosophy Now Forum

Nope: RC - The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it? Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and th...

the use of double negatives should be avoided if possible. Well, that says a lot about you ;) What I have learned in that one simple sentence is that you don't subscribe to intuitionistic logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic systems of intuitionistic logic do not include ... do...

Steve - What us your point? Sure, we don’t need eyes to ‘see’ as we can also ‘see’ with our hands, ears etc.,. Why should I concern myself with “redness”? From the phenomenological perspective I would say I experience “redness” due to the hue, tone, brilliance etc., of said “redness”. I cannot imag...

Skepdick - Can you show me the rules of philosophy? No. I never claimed there was a set of philosophical rules. I can, and you can, look up the rules for a game of chess and we can play the game. Just because ‘chess’ doesn’t relate to every single facet of what we know of reality (via in/direct expe...

Age - Fair enough. We generally agree it seems. I meant ‘humans’ when I said ‘we’. I won’t argue that what I am saying is explicit in every human being on Earth though, but it is there in waiting when cataclysms come about I’d say. It is a poor analogy to make here, but in natural science we can obs...

Scott - To add, physics roughly works in the assumption that there is some overall formula - physicists don’t agree that this is so and whether or not it is so is a matter of opinion only. Theories are refined and for all we know there may be no absolute answer. Nature does what it does and the fact...

RC - I never said this: Of course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must hav...

RC - The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it? Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is...

If there is too much beauty in the world we’ll create ugliness in order to appreciate it more easily. If there is equality in the world we’ll create more inequality in order to notice the difference. If you insist that this is what "we" will do, then when there is "to much" ugli...

Osgart - His definition can be applied to “money” or “language” too if you look closely. Generally I view it as a definition of human nature. He does write several pages of explanation. He doesn’t mention ‘controlling people’ anywhere in his book as far as I remember. Anyway, how about Eliade? The S...

Just in case no one has pointed this out already ... there is a difference between scientific fact and truth. Science doesn’t deal in ‘truths’. So-called ‘absolute truths’ exist within set limits. In arithmetic 1+1=2 is TRUE. Please note I am referring to the abstract set rules of arithmetic NOT th...

Scott - The context was directly above my initial question on the previous page. You’re just avoiding answering me. Why? If you don’t wish to answer fair enough, but don’t play games with me or I’ll just ignore you. My qualm is the clarity of the sentence. Why ‘remotely’ and why ‘in some way’. If th...

What does this mean:

If we can even remotely think of something certain, it has to relate to everything in some way.

Skepdick - You’re not making any sense to me I’m afraid. If you accuse me of a logical fallacy and then in the next breath call ‘truth’ BS I’m at a loss what I can say in response. For the record I’m not keen on using the term “absolute” and I can certainly understand your ire as I’ve seen many peop...

Skepdick - While you’re at it can you explain why my analogy was ‘false’ too please? I imagine if you asked almost anyone who understands English what is 1+1? They would say 2, and similarly they would assume you were talking about eating the fruit called apple not eating a mobile phone. What is “Ab...