Philosophy Discussion Forums

The universe has always been here and you have always been here, not of course, in your present form, but always here nevertheless.

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 11:46 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 11:19 am We all know that the universe did not come into being the day YOU were born.

Agreed. Did I say something like that? Idealism is something much more profound, and should be discussed on the level it has been discussed through the history of philosophy. But I think this is not the place where we can mount on that level.

It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.
Try and write more carefully.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:41 pm It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.
Try and write more carefully.

I have tried my best. In philosophy it is not easy to get a grip of another's views if the horizons of thinking are very different. The expressions cannot always be very accurate, depending on the subject at hand, especially in metaphysics.

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:59 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 12:41 pm It's like you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.
Try and write more carefully.

I have tried my best. In philosophy it is not easy to get a grip of another's views if the horizons of thinking are very different. The expressions cannot always be very accurate, depending on the subject at hand, especially in metaphysics.

On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:03 pm On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.

Do you think Heidegger's terms are precise in your definition? Or do you think he was not a genuine philosopher? Or Kierkegaard? Our language is very limited, and we must sometimes use metaphorical expressions and create new language games.

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:14 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:03 pm On the contrary. The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.

Do you think Heidegger's terms are precise in your definition? Or do you think he was not a genuine philosopher? Or Kierkegaard? Our language is very limited, and we must sometimes use metaphorical expressions and create new language games.

You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;

"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."

REALLY?

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:21 pm You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;

"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."

REALLY?

That is BigBango's text. Wrong address.

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:43 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 2:21 pm You might like to cut the flim-flam and tell me what you think you meant by this;

"The reality of experiential states is a fact that precedes any physical evolution of mental properties."

REALLY?

That is BigBango's text. Wrong address.

And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:23 pm And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'

I do not defend that BigBango's statement, but I stand behind the latter statement.

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 3:00 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 21st, 2018, 7:23 pm And yet you defend the statement and add this "my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible.'

I do not defend that BigBango's statement, but I stand behind the latter statement.

On what grounds?

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 3:49 pm

Tamminen wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2018, 3:00 am
I do not defend that BigBango's statement, but I stand behind the latter statement.

On what grounds?

I do not know if you have read my conversation with Fooloso4 above, but I suggest you read it so that we don't have to repeat the same arguments here again. If you draw the same conclusions as Fooloso4, that is fine with me, and if you have fruitful ideas on the matter, that is better still.

The problem with materialism is that it makes unjustified assumptions and commitments. We cannot eliminate the being of the subject from the knowing of the world, but because we see matter everywhere, we draw the false conclusion that matter is everything there is, or at least everything can be reduced to matter, and that the being of matter does not depend on the being of the subject. This is an epistemic leap that has no rational justification. What materialism tries to say is that our own being can be explained by of the being of our objects, in the sense of noumena, which are independent of our knowledge of them, in the Kantian sense. Here we have two intuitions in conflict: the intuition of materialism that matter is everything, and the intuition that the being of the subject cannot be eliminated. The first intuition appeals to transcendence, because matter in itself is transcendent, and the second intuition remains within the scope of immanence and argues that we cannot make a leap out of it into ontological transcendence. Because a world without subjects would be precisely that: transcendence without immanence, and this would mean absolute nothingness if it were possible. But nothingness is not possible, and therefore there is necessarily some kind of a subjective perspective to the world if we think of the world as a spatiotemporal totality.

ThomasHobbes wrote:The Philosophical lexicon comprises of very precise terms.

It's just "comprises" not "comprises of".

Tamminen wrote:I claim that a universe where flying unicorns are a usual sight is a possible universe, but a universe without subjects is not possible, if we speak of an alternate universe, so that this universe does not exist but the alternate universe exists instead. Because I claim that the subject-world relationship is the "Archimedean point" of reality, a universe without subjects does not fit into the logical space defined by this basic ontological structure. Ontology precedes logic in this sense.

Tamminen wrote:I have discussed this with others many times, and I only repeat: my view is that the being of the world without the being of some subjective perspective is impossible. And I know intuitively that it must be so. But I think this discussion cannot lead to agreement any more than it has led so far with anyone else.

I suggest that the discussion will never lead to agreement so long as it consists of propositions about "what is" rather than propositions about "what is useful" and further discussions about the goals with which that utility is associated.

You're discussing a version of the old, old philosophical cliche about trees falling over in empty forests. I think that discussion is futile. I think you should instead ask yourself: "what set of beliefs are most useful to me in making something of what I see using my senses?" Personally, there are various reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world continues to exist when I close my eyes. There are related reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world existed before I was born and will continue to exist after I die. The fact that I have life insurance is testament to that second one. Do you have life insurance? If so, why?

If Materialism is best summarized by the proposition: "nothing exists except matter" than I'm not a Materialist. If Materialism is best summarized by the proposition: "nothing exists except matter and energy" than I'm not a Materialist.

The reason is that I think both of those propositions make category errors. I think an example of a better proposition would be: "Matter is one of the concepts that is useful to me for achieving my goals. Others are available." I don't know if that corresponds to an "-ism", but I'm not really much of a fan of "-isms" anyway.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2018, 6:12 am Personally, there are various reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world continues to exist when I close my eyes. There are related reasons why I find it useful to believe that the world existed before I was born and will continue to exist after I die.

It always comes to this, I am not as stupid as you think I am. I agree on all of what you say. If you had read the many conversations I have had on this, you would not have made those assumptions of what I think. My view about reality does not have the slightest effect on my need for a life insurance. It is an ontological standpoint on the relationship between the subject and the world.

I would have expected less lazy reading from you.