|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
how do you know there was a first substance?
Just curious |
It's actually an extremely interesting question. While we do have direct empirical experience of will, idea, and pure conciousness (which I conceive of as the principial ground of being), no one has any direct experience of the so-called first substance. Earlier Fox called my metaphysics an anthropomorphism, but I conceive of it more as 'theomorphism', on the axiom of an analogical correspondance between the universe and man. Fox doesn't agree with this - and I don't think it's something we can resolve in discursive argument - but in a sense it's more justifiable than his theory - although he could undoubtedly furnish reasons why he disagrees. That said, Fox has answered this question quite satisfactorily.
Last edited by Koveras on Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
how do you know there was a first substance?
Just curious |
It's pretty hard to imagine a universe where at least something isn't fundamental. There's a lot of potential for debate about what exactly that fundamental thing is (and some of the questions above deal in that), but everything can't be contingent. |
This is Kant's second antinomy.
| Quote: |
| Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. |
You're going to find it hard to imagine, Fox, because it is entirely alien to experience. Kant would say its alien to the mechanisms we use to apprehend experience, our minds simply are unfit to comprehend the truth on such matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
how do you know there was a first substance?
Just curious |
It's pretty hard to imagine a universe where at least something isn't fundamental. There's a lot of potential for debate about what exactly that fundamental thing is (and some of the questions above deal in that), but everything can't be contingent. |
This is Kant's second antinomy.
| Quote: |
| Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. |
You're going to find it hard to imagine, Fox, because it is entirely alien to experience. Kant would say its alien to the mechanisms we use to apprehend experience, our minds simply are unfit to comprehend the truth on such matters. |
I'm reasonably well versed in Kant (with the caveat that I consider him a genuinely challenging philosopher). I used the term "pretty hard to imagine" colloquially, not seriously; I was actually suggesting that it's logically impossible to have an entire universe consisting of nothing but contingent facts and objects.
Coming to a complete, perfect understanding the first substance is probably impossible. There are some basic, limited truths I would say are reachable, however, for reasons I've mentioned. I also think from those basic truths, more can be deduced. Logic is a powerful tool, and I don't think we should sell it short.
Last edited by Fox on Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, this began as a great thread, but you have now taken it way, way off-topic.
Can you please continue it elsewhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Guys, this began as a great thread, but you have now taken it way, way off-topic.
Can you please continue it elsewhere? |
I think it's more or less reached its logical conclusion for now anyway (since I don't plan to be lured into a debate on Kant). When I get around to coming up with answers to Koveras' challenges that I feel are satisfactory I'll PM them to him.
Sorry Old Man Casper, I'll get off your lawn now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Logic is a powerful tool, and I don't think we should sell it short. |
That crystallizes another question for me. In a universe grounded in unintelligence, why should logic have any epistemological value? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, have you seen this? Don't just look at #3.
Are you and everybody else still not convinced about the whole police state thing? And did you see my other post about the government ordering removal of 73,000 blogs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Fox, have you seen this? Don't just look at #3. |
Yes, I've seen it. Given it generally consists of points drawn from state law, it's hard for me to consider it evidence that America is collectively a police state. The only issue mentioned that is in effect in a majority of states (or even more than a tiny minority) is civil forfeiture, which while I don't like it, can be challenged in court and doesn't seem to be particularly abused. It's probably in need of some reform, but I don't think it's a deal breaker.
Until this meaningfully impacts the average citizens experience, I wouldn't consider it grounds for labeling the United States a police state. That doesn't make it okay, or mean it shouldn't be challenged, but I don't want to over-state the situation either. I'm hysterical about warfare. I'm merely concerned about the trends you mention.
| bacasper wrote: |
| And did you see my other post about the government ordering removal of 73,000 blogs? |
Yes, I saw it, and even posted in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a withering commentary on the American Justice System. No mention of the appellation 'police state.'
| Quote: |
Many states have mandatory minimum sentences, which remove judges� discretion to show mercy, even when the circumstances of a case cry out for it. �Three strikes� laws, which were at first used to put away persistently violent criminals for life, have in several states been applied to lesser offenders. The war on drugs has led to harsh sentences not just for dealing illegal drugs, but also for selling prescription drugs illegally. Peddling a handful can lead to a 15-year sentence.
Muddle plays a large role. America imprisons people for technical violations of immigration laws, environmental standards and arcane business rules. So many federal rules carry criminal penalties that experts struggle to count them. Many are incomprehensible. Few are ever repealed, though the Supreme Court recently pared back a law against depriving the public of �the intangible right of honest services�, which prosecutors loved because they could use it against almost anyone. Still, they have plenty of other weapons. By counting each e-mail sent by a white-collar wrongdoer as a separate case of wire fraud, prosecutors can threaten him with a gargantuan sentence unless he confesses, or informs on his boss. The potential for injustice is obvious. |
Its bad policy and bad law in a country where the 'rule of law' still means something. Reform the policy and the law, and things will improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Here is a withering commentary on the American Justice System. No mention of the appellation 'police state.'
| Quote: |
Many states have mandatory minimum sentences, which remove judges� discretion to show mercy, even when the circumstances of a case cry out for it. �Three strikes� laws, which were at first used to put away persistently violent criminals for life, have in several states been applied to lesser offenders. The war on drugs has led to harsh sentences not just for dealing illegal drugs, but also for selling prescription drugs illegally. Peddling a handful can lead to a 15-year sentence.
Muddle plays a large role. America imprisons people for technical violations of immigration laws, environmental standards and arcane business rules. So many federal rules carry criminal penalties that experts struggle to count them. Many are incomprehensible. Few are ever repealed, though the Supreme Court recently pared back a law against depriving the public of �the intangible right of honest services�, which prosecutors loved because they could use it against almost anyo | | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
