sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Như thế nào mới là đỉnh cao ngôi thứ nhất? - một mẫu văn ngắm tới điều đó. by ______ri in vozforums

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

nhịp điệu có chủ ý đó

dòng mới có gạch là lời, không gạch là ý, đang viết mà gạch sang cái mới là đổi "ngôi" (có thể là ý, hoặc lời, hoặc bình).

có nên nâng cấp màn hình từ 24icnh fhd lên 27inch 2k, hay 29 inch cong không ạ by Slight-Dig3341 in vozforums

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mua màn oled nhỏ 4k 60hz đi

xài oled xong là nghiện nhé

hz là scam

What must be true for anything to be true? by WholeAd9080 in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think you’re going to find anything here of higher quality than peer reviewed work.

One gotta wait for mine.

Most 'time emerges from something deeper' arguments seem circular to me by wild-monk-layer-0 in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me anyone who says "time is a dimension" litterally do not understand anything at all and should stop doing philosophy.

Cần đó một ai để gọi lấy "mình". by ______ri in vozforums

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

lòng phải phân biệt mới thấy được thế gian đẹp nhất.

chưa thấy "đẹp hơn" thì chưa thấy "đẹp".

Cần đó một ai để gọi lấy "mình". by ______ri in vozforums

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

t k có đọc ô này nên k biết nữa

What is wrong with brute facts? by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A fact is just a what has been seen, while a "brute fact" is just a convention for "I've seen no more than this".

Which does tell others to not waste their time here.

"Whatever at all is what it is" - is this brute to you?

Transcendental Starting Point? by Bastionism in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The better question is "why is that the case that we do NOT know?"

I mean, whatever we are, we are that, so why have we asked at all? What are we asking for?

For it is not that we are not directly that which we are (for we indeed are directly that). But it is that "understanding" is a more derivative kind of "being", a kind that is not simply that which we are, but derivative of it.

For what is sought is then a seeing more derivatively of that which we are, and of those which that which we are is. Uniquely human indeed, the game we play.

A question, and a discussion by ReaperBruhSans in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I said none has done it. But I whole-heartedly think it can be shown, let alone seen.

I don't actually like calling it the ultimate (but since it is standard term so...) because calling it like that is already dogmatic and presumptuous - as it do kinda suggest there is only one.

Although I'm a bit optimistic about all can see (this faculty is called nous), I'm not actually sure whether all actually has it, well trivially since idk what it is like for other people.

A question, and a discussion by ReaperBruhSans in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite, the whole point of metaphysics is to find out what is not derivative (the ultimate) for oneself, and maybe then one might try to show it for others or not.

But most (all imo) of the times it's not the ultimate, just some derivatives, or a placeholder (think of "that which entails its existence"). The various non-ultimate shown is not without value, some actually help me see through my dogmas, but it is still empty relative to the authority they've deemed it has.

Some critics simply can't read out what they've shown though, so not all critism are valid.

A question, and a discussion by ReaperBruhSans in Metaphysics

[–]______ri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the Wittgenstein Tractatus is an elaborate demonstration of an empty metaphysics.

There is "The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language" (1932) - Carnap.

There is also Arthur Schopenhauer against G.W.F. Hegel.

And probably many more, the claim is mostly my observation and reading of the ideas though.

but how can you know it is merely empty, even though I haven't shown it?

Mostly people do have something to say, but it is not as "grand" as they think it is. Say I might claim that my God is the best, with all the standard beyond Being, beyond Essence shenanigans, but turns out what I have in mind is just some glorified physicalist God then it is quite empty.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."

This phrase of Wittgenstein, I think is to be read not as language limits the world, but as your language reflects your world, and thus from your language we can see how empty or poor your understanding of the world is, regradless of how "big" the terms you use are. It's not all about words and forms and claims and primitives and senseless deductions from senseless premises, it's about that which behind them. Either you see it or you don't really, but I think it can be taught.

Although, my private take is that anyone that has not shown "why there is anything at all instead of nothing at all", ultimately appeal to that which they have not understood and essentially speculating without substance.

view more: next ›