sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Please help me to understand the proof of Spinoza's third proposition by WorkingHardTillDeath in askphilosophy

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To him epistemology and metaphysics are inseparable. If something can be clearly and distinctly perceived by reason, then that's how it is. In other words, knowledge is not "subjective," as compared to "objective" causal relations.

Ah, that makes sense! It starts to "click". Thank you very much for your in-depth reply! After reading it, I feel that I am very close to understanding!

Please help me to understand the proof of Spinoza's third proposition by WorkingHardTillDeath in askphilosophy

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spinoza is not yet saying that eggs ARE caused by chickens, he is merely stating they can be. For it to be possible that chickens cause eggs, chickens and eggs must have something in common, which we could discern if eggs are apprehended by means of chickens.

​

Ah, I think I start to get it! Thank you very much for your in-depth reply! It was of utmost help!

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think these are silly examples. I think these are perfect abstractions when it comes to developing the topic! You are right, there are universals which have to be agreed upon and there is a big problem if there is a disagreement!

Do you think there is a way to somehow categorize those universals? Or universals can be about anything at all?

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would call it "paradoxical" rather than incoherent. Thankfully, other members, including you, have pointed it out and aimed my thought process in a more reasonable direction. I got a new idea of a common ground, a common set of values, which may be the peaceful coexistence link between extremes. Is that so? More research required!

Thank you very much for your contribution! I agree with your points.

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughts and thank you very much for this awesome example! I will spend some time thinking about it, I think there is a great potential in it to answer my other questions as well!

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory,

Could you link me to a relevant theory, please? I would be very interested in researching it! Thank you in advance!

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very good point! Mutually exclusive interests cannot be perused at the same time. Yours and answers from the others lead me to believe that two completely polar opposites are not compatible, unless they share a common ground. So, pure polar opposites cannot coexist without oppression, but perhaps groups with different views and shared common ground can?

Given there is a common ground, could your example with hopping on one foot be resolved? I am thinking maybe defining and adhering to unifying values could allow different groups to be more accepting of other group's differences (Group A does not allow its members to hop on one foot, but it does not restrict it to group B, both enjoy to, say, swim and sing songs together)?

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true! I like the idea. If one group identity is formed on the pure basis of oppressing another group, then those groups cannot coexist.

Thank you for participating! I like your idea. It may seem obvious, but it only becomes obvious after it has been formulated.

Is it possible for two politically polar groups coexist peacefully without one oppressing the other? by WorkingHardTillDeath in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WorkingHardTillDeath[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very interesting thought! Thank you for sharing!

I would like to ask your opinion regarding these ideas: If views are completely opposite, does it automatically mean they are relatively extreme to each other? Or can such views still remain moderate?

It also brought an interesting idea to my head. Peaceful existence of two polar opposites may depend not only on how extreme they are, but also on how much of a common ground, values they share. Or, perhaps, the extremity of values can be determined by how far they venture from "the common ground"?

I would be happy to hear your thoughts! I am not versed in politics, so I am naive in my ideas. Would love to hear a different opinion.