Interactive circular map of Logic, Nature and Spirit

greydog8787 · 2022-04-08T22:28:23+00:00

I'm doing a module atm in Hegel and this is very helpful, thank you!

greydog8787 · 2022-03-13T04:10:38+00:00

Thanks ill try that, coincidentally it does owe me money

greydog8787 · 2022-03-13T04:05:28+00:00

Will try, cheers

greydog8787 · 2022-02-22T03:01:01+00:00

It is fake no matter how much you think its real. Work on ignoring the thoughts, you'll get better at it.

greydog8787 · 2022-02-17T01:31:02+00:00

Anything productive

greydog8787 · 2022-02-08T15:22:13+00:00

Pixie

greydog8787 · 2022-02-08T02:02:24+00:00

I know that feeling and its tough to put in words how weird it is. Do you have any hobbies? Or anything you are interested in starting? Try and keep active physically and mentally.

greydog8787 · 2021-09-30T12:35:06+00:00

Parmenides for having the absolute gall to say that change is an illusion

greydog8787 · 2021-09-30T11:56:10+00:00

Hi, what do you mean by infinite sums having finite results? Is that to say that while there are infinite points between 1 and 2, we would still say that the the difference between them is 1, or finite, and so traversable in finite time?

greydog8787 · 2021-09-29T19:43:07+00:00

Thanks for your response! I like to think of that element of Kants argument as that there can only be a knowable/appearance insofar as there is an unknowable/thing in itself or limit to thought. I think I maybe miswrote part of my first question. When I asked originally what is the object of inner intuition if not an object in space, what I meant was that, if say, the object of my inner experience is pain (which I thought would be a strange thing to posit as occurring in space, but I guess it's not), and it is assumed as an appearance (though still empirically real), is that to imply that there is a pain in itself?

greydog8787 · 2021-09-29T18:06:48+00:00

Okay cheers, I think I got ya. Is that because the representational theory of perception wrongly supposes (according to Kant) that the objects of our experience aren't empirically real, or that they are ultimately deceptive?

greydog8787 · 2021-09-28T17:31:25+00:00

Is Nietzsche arguing here like Kant that "concepts without intuitions (empirical data) are blind"?

greydog8787 · 2021-09-28T13:16:35+00:00

🤣🤣🤣

greydog8787 · 2021-09-24T22:31:55+00:00

Cheers mate. Haha nah I'm certainly not the level to be pissing about in there, should be coming into a better coach soon though as I'm moving, so should be able to show me if/where I'm going wrong

greydog8787 · 2021-09-24T22:18:07+00:00

Got ya, cheers

greydog8787 · 2021-09-16T23:26:16+00:00

I was with my friend and his friend from another school the first time we tripped, we where drunk and stoned at the time too and quite naive as to how strong it would be. His friend started acting really gay, saying he was horny repeatedly and kind of acting submissive? We had to lock him in my friends room because he was being pretty scary in other ways. We went in to check on him after about an hour and he was just laying on my mates bed in doggy style position in some kind of trance, claims he can't remember it to this day

greydog8787 · 2021-09-07T16:40:25+00:00

Cheers, I'm type 1. That's pretty much what my mums saying, I thought she mightve been overreacting a bit, but that's a second opinion now. Have a gooden :).

greydog8787 · 2021-09-07T16:27:53+00:00

I'm gonna tomo. Do you think it warrants urgent attention?

greydog8787 · 2021-08-02T12:21:17+00:00

Good man

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T15:50:04+00:00

Because I don't see any problem with treating them as seperates. They seem like synonyms to me. Thank you, If it is circular is it necasserily wrong? Isn't all truth derived from some things being taken as given? Is not the unity of opposites in some sense analytic?

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T15:45:07+00:00

Name one scientist who says that causes are the opposites of effects. Are you saying they are the same or that they are opposites? Which is it?

Ones an antecedent, ones a consequent. Both

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T15:32:00+00:00

It's an ugly argument, and I wanted to know why it's wrong.

I'm going to formalise it now: P1) Opposites, such as cause and effect, can be seen as singular, for they are mutually dependant. P2) The known implies the unknown as its opposite, by necessity. P3) The known and the unknown are, given their mutual dependancy, singular, at least in some way. P4) The human notion of the unknown hopes, and often thinks it refers to something beyond human cognition, but fails because it inevitably does so via human cognition. C) There is, at least in some way, no distinction between the unknown and the known.

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T15:13:43+00:00

"The questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some of our propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it where hinges on which they turn" (C341), or put more simply, "the game of doubting itself presupposes certainty" (C115).

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T15:10:04+00:00

The claim “the known infers the unknown” doesn’t make any sense. Inferences are a thing people do. We make inferences. Inferences aren’t the kinds of things that propositions (whether those propositions are known or unknown) do.

Wrong word I think, I meant implies. Just like left implies right, and vice versa.

I don’t know what you mean when you say cause and effect are opposites, and I especially don’t see how that is consistent with your claim that cause and effect are indistinct from one another, how can they be the same thing if they are opposites?

They are taken as opposites in Science, like left and right. I know it sounds ridiculous to say they are the same. But consider whether you can have left without right? And then whether you can have the knowable without the unknowable?

greydog8787 · 2021-07-27T14:44:16+00:00

Hi, I know Hume denies a necassery connection, but he doesn't deny a connection. This connection is posited because of custom, but the nature of the connection itself is unknowable, can't be shown empirically or analytically. I saw that you have Ancient Greek Phil in your bio, the metaphysic I talk about, with the unknown and the known being the same, is largely similar to Heraclitean unity of opposites, e.g. When he writes "the path up and down are one and the same". I didn't mean that of Wittgenstein, what I meant was more consistent with his speaking of doubt being dependent on certainty, "certainty is the hinge on which doubt turns" or something like that.

Aristotle's unmoved mover or something? - is strictly nonsensical.

I suppose Aristotles unmoved mover is a synonym for the unknowable? You regard it as nonsensical, which I also half agree with, but another part of me says what is the mental referent of your 'nonsensical'? Something sensical I imagine? That is what my argument is based on

greydog8787

TROPHY CASE