Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:16 amIt sure does. It explains the utter incoherence of Philosophy.

If non-contradiction is a law (like gravity) how could I possibly violate it?

The law of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time. It does not state that people cannot believe otherwise.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:10 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:16 amIt sure does. It explains the utter incoherence of Philosophy.

If non-contradiction is a law (like gravity) how could I possibly violate it?

The law of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time. It does not state that people cannot believe otherwise.

You have the memory of a gold fish.

Define “same time”.

If you are currently identical to yourself when do you stop being identical to yourself?

Are you still identical to yourself?
What about now? Still identical?
How about now?
Now?

When does it stop being the “same time”?

( wrong thread )

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:36 amJust in case you missed what I wrote above;

I have NEVER claim things are "mind-dependent"*

I didn't miss it, I addressed it. "Not mind-independent" means "mind-dependent". So when you say "Space, time and clocks are not mind-independent", you are saying they are mind-dependent, i.e. if minds ceased to exist, they would cease to exist too. In fact, in another thread, you went so far to say that trees do not exist when noone is looking at them ( which means that we create them by observation. )

I have already given you my points, i.e. human-based FSK-ed reality, why is that you cannot accept this but rather force your words onto me?

You are the one forcing your beliefs onto everyone else. How many threads have you started on this same exact subject? Too many to count. How many proofs of mind-dependence have you provided? Zero. You merely reassert your beliefs and repeat your weak arguments over and over again.

Your thinking is too rigid, dogmatic and ideological.

The general term used in reference to philosophical realism is 'mind-independent' as generally agreed upon as a convenience. Btw, loads of books and articles had been written on the subject of Philosophic-realism versus ANTI-philosophical-realism.

To simply rely on a word for its meaning, especially in philosophy is too short-sighted. As such, contexts and details are necessary to convey what the point really meant.

From the anti-philosophical perspective, reality is conditioned upon System Theory, i.e. all are connected.
Note, 'independent' can be synonymous with unrelated, unconnected, unassociated, and the like.

In this case, 'mind-independent' of philosophical realism is more appropriate to mind-unrelated, mind-unassociated.
Therefore ANTI-philosophical-realism would be mind-related or mind-associated.

My definition of a FSR-FSK [emergence and realization of reality] is human-based, thus mind, brain and body related - QED.

I have raised more than 250 threads in this section [..I have listed them in their specific categories] and they all are related and directed to counter the claim by PH & gang that Morality Cannot be Objective in his thread;

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?t=24601

• So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?
  Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:46 am Your thinking is too rigid, dogmatic and ideological.

Implicit ad hom./explicit insult.