That's assuming that metaphysical monism is false, that time is one of the categories of being, and that "they" weren't craftily hiding their guns (and other weapons of mass destruction) somewhere out of sight. How much of that do you uncritically accept, Cripza my Zipsta, and is not that uncritical acceptance (assuming it is such) analogically related to your caricatures of faith?
If "they" were individual monads, then metaphysical monism would be false.
I fail to see the difference between time as (one of) the necessary condition(s) for the possibility of experience and as one of the categories of being. To what does the difference amount, by your lights?
Any archeological evidence depends on further assumptions. Granted that these assumptions are reasonable, this still proves an epistemologico-psychologico-sociological point. I leave it to you to figure out what that might be.
As for "weapons of mass destruction," you are just being linguistically unimaginative.
If I am a fuckgrumplestump, I have no reason to believe it, so your assertion is just so much hot air until you give me at least some indication of what the severally necessary and jointly sufficient conditions are for fuckgrumplestump-being.
Jacobi? Fichte? Sounds interesting. But when it comes to that general time-period, Kierkegaard's attack against Hegel is of much more interest to me. Good luck with the paper.
Materialistic monism is still a pluralism insofar as one matter is metaphysically separate (even if substantially identical) from another matter. Phenomenology supervenes on ontology, and so a dualism in the former undercuts a monism in the latter. Parmenides et al. were screwballs.
The Kantian position leaves open the truth of the Aristotelian-Thomistic. apperception made a point about this (though not in this exact language) in real_philosophy some time ago. Do you disagree with it?
An acceptance of certain archeological facts is uncritical if it does not use critical standards or methods, and many of our reasonable assumptions are not critical because to be critical about everything in our noetic structure would be a waste of time and would kill intellectual productivity. There is an analogy here to issues of faith, to which I was alluding with my comment (and use of the irresistible Plantinga icon) above
( ... )
I am cognizant of the nature of your inquiry; in all honesty, the answer is a marriage of affirmation and denial. I assure you that the honeymoon is no contradiction. The paradoxicalness of the orgasms occuring therein are only apparent.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I fail to see the difference between time as (one of) the necessary condition(s) for the possibility of experience and as one of the categories of being. To what does the difference amount, by your lights?
Any archeological evidence depends on further assumptions. Granted that these assumptions are reasonable, this still proves an epistemologico-psychologico-sociological point. I leave it to you to figure out what that might be.
As for "weapons of mass destruction," you are just being linguistically unimaginative.
If I am a fuckgrumplestump, I have no reason to believe it, so your assertion is just so much hot air until you give me at least some indication of what the severally necessary and jointly sufficient conditions are for fuckgrumplestump-being.
Jacobi? Fichte? Sounds interesting. But when it comes to that general time-period, Kierkegaard's attack against Hegel is of much more interest to me. Good luck with the paper.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The Kantian position leaves open the truth of the Aristotelian-Thomistic. apperception made a point about this (though not in this exact language) in real_philosophy some time ago. Do you disagree with it?
An acceptance of certain archeological facts is uncritical if it does not use critical standards or methods, and many of our reasonable assumptions are not critical because to be critical about everything in our noetic structure would be a waste of time and would kill intellectual productivity. There is an analogy here to issues of faith, to which I was alluding with my comment (and use of the irresistible Plantinga icon) above ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment