| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/15 Posts: 753 Last seen: 6 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
She made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I agree that many people today argue for a point of reference in superficial ways, although I am not for an "overthrowing" this.
All I can say is this epic battle which persists, as subjectivism and objectivism took place once in grammar. The broom and dustpan might begin there in a pretty humbling way. People whistle a revolutionary tune, for changes in thinking. But what did other people whistle, I wonder? Subjacere Objacere
| |||||||
|
Registered: 07/16/11 Posts: 1,085 Loc: ation: Tasmania Last seen: 14 days, 4 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Hello Sudly As for what you say about the Bible. That's your opinion.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/02 Posts: 8,005 Last seen: 21 hours, 26 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: No, your example does not rule that out.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
If earth an all the people on it were removed.. there would be no humans to observe.
It'd be nice if you made a point like why that doesn't rule out observers instead of just saying no.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
If you've ever bothered to read the bible or any other holy book you'd see how contradictory and false they are. They contain claims such as flat earths, talking snakes, unicorns, the sun revolving around earth, light before stars etc.
If you look at it from a factual perspective it has been disproven beyond a doubt. That doesn't mean you can't cherry pick a few lines you like from it though, if it makes you happy you have the right to think it.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
Science has an accumulated grasp on how the world works thanks to generations of evidence provided, that's far better than a single individuals opinion.
Science can refute claims based on the evidence provided, if there is none, it's easy to refute. Sadly the human race evolved the propensity to make snap decisions assuming a correlation between A and B. Our habit of false positive thinking or superstitious thinking is the basis of finding false patterns like god. An example would be an early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass, it could be either A- the wind or B- a predator. Survival instincts push to make a decision quickly, often creating a false positive such as there being a predator when it was only the wind. Yes, my subjective experiences are not evidence. Neither are yours. That's why objective scientifically viable evidence is the basis for my arguments. Things outside of science such as morals are up to society as a whole to decide based on the evidence for what is beneficial to society. Non killing and stealing is beneficial to society so laws are made to ensure it. Again, somethings are rationally possible, it doesn't automatically mean they are true which is why evidence is required in order to make the claims. My beliefs are conformed to the evidence provided. If none is provided, it is just an idea and has not been confirmed yet. There may well be more to consciousnesses and existence than we know of, until evidence arises that indicates it is so, there is no reason to believe it beyond faith.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote: This is a pretty good question Deviate. The questioning of simulation or imagination speaks to the OP's sense of dialogue quite well. Quote: The OP seems to suggest a constructive process in which knowledge is gathered, and I think it is possible to look to that in a positive sense. To stress it in these given terms; turning our heads from these very red herrings of our own possible suggestibility, there is the proposed notion that propositions may be found to be true, or “factual” in some implied way. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish a proposition in what here seems to be either an insinuation, or in an oblique "suggestion" for being constructive and contributing to humanity’s pursuit of knowledge, but I think that with some insistance a manner of assertion can be ascertained here, and carefully considered on its own terms. So to begin; I would suggest it would be possible to consider the OP to be a positive assertion, as clearly in some way it is an assertion. I think if this assertion was held to the ground of being an explicit proposition to consider, it would also be possible to consider and critique this. Hopefully it would not be too excessive to insist on this. All in all I would say thiz is not just a mannerism, but a position informed by certain more or less conscious assumptions. The OP is outlining the provisions of what has sometimes been called "logical positivism" or "logical empiricism", a way of thinking peculiar to American philosophers. The critical question put to the OP's particular manner of suggestion would plainly be whether the suggested or implied general analysese and evaluation of propositions is itself a verifiable epistemological proposition, or if on the other hand, it is more along the lines of a puppet show or the projected figurative imagination of the OP. I think a constructive critique could begin there. In sincere, and all around, wouldn’t it be fair minded to consider moving from what is “often” suggested as “false”, to the contingence and domain of ideally evaluated propositions in some provision? Why does the OP dwell on "falsity" rather than making a positive or explicit proposition of its own? What is this occupation with a principle of contradiction? Well the generally posited idea of a “contingency” of possible propositions, is not here being demonstrated in any explicit proposition. The meaning appealed to is implicit. This is not asking for the possibility of a post hoc consideration, but simply laying bear the logic as it is suggested. Logical positivism is not the suggestion of logic in any particular domain of consideration. So what exactly is the general assertion? The appeal is to empirical researches, but this begs the question. Are there certain burdens, and contradictions to suggesting an implied or general analysis of propositions, as being empirical? Kant indicated that knowledge which was implicit to things, or "analytical" could indeed be found relayed in certain ways in extention with empirical research. This can be carefully considered though, because not all of these analyses which may seem to have this face value are really connected with actual empirical engagements with the world. For example, Kant defined analysis as “what is implicitly contained in a subject”. Analytic thinking, and its ideation of what is “contained in a subject” could seem to be generally worthwhile or even ideal to someone scientific minded because “what is contained in a subject”, could (with some naivety), seem to be a gesture to the textbook subject neatly binded, then opened and read, ripe with empirical truths about the world. This notion of “what is contained in a subject” is certainly possible to critique. For instance it is clear that whoever contributed to the book may have gathered much from experience and written it down as knowledge about the world in an empirical manner, but reading from it is clearly different than going out into the world and actually and practically experiencing it. Hence what is appealed to as ideally "contained in a subject", or what is in a manner of disposition appealed to as analytic mindedness may seem to have the face value of empirical research, and yet anyone can see it's not necessarily that in generality. In such a questionable way, the OP suggests a way of being generally given to consider possible examples of what is ideally "contained in a subject" in the general idea of analysis of various propositions in general. In one sense we could perhaps ideally challenge, and interrogate, and otherwise consider these propositions in the given suggestion, but we might also heed the possibility that in a similar way, what is appealed to as empirical engagement is just a formality, like someone reading from a textbook, which does not indicate any actual empirical engagement. For instance, in general, appealing to a logical empiricism could seem to suggest more in the way sciences have been gathered and stand as evidence posteriorly, according namely to their logic that has been gathered, rather than how they have been founded in progressive experimentation and experience, in actual or practical empiricism. We can come to the frank question of that. What does "analysis of propositions" or challenging forth propositional analysis, as something implied, necessarily have to do with actual empiricism? All analytic correspondences are based on containment. This may be considered suggestive. Kant’s example for analytic thinking, was in a formally contained statement, “all bachelors are unmarried”. Being "unmarried" is found contained in the conceptual analysis of the subject “bachelor”. Of course, this example is not meant to indicate all the possible forms of analysis which can be gathered are just semantic formalities. But this example does demonstrate in principle that what is "certain" as analysis is something that in its virtue of certainty doesn’t rely on appeals to the factual or world, but is contained to its concept or subject. Kant basically indicates that an analytic statement demonstrates at the same time that the containment of analytic thinking can indicate a strong sense of certainty, yet at the same time, containment relegates any content to a formality, or custom, or what might just be found up in someone’s head. Conceptual containment, in short, is problematic. This doesn't mean logical analysis can't be "useful". It just indicates that in certain epistemelogical considerations absolute necessity of determination, can't be appealed to in a general way as meaningful and this is why significant propositions are considerably found to be "contingent" or open to possibility. For example, a collection of propositions, “men are mortal”, “socrates is a man”, can demonstrate that “socrates is mortal”, by logical analysis (syllogism). The given contents of the two premises (socrates is a man; men are mortal) are not analytical. In both premises, there is an appeal to facts which have been gathered in the world, or generally an openness of possibility in what is being thereby found. Yet observing them together, the conclusion socrates is mortal, is itself possibly an inference that is logical. Gotlobb Frege, abbreviated conceptual analysis to the symbolic “A=A”, perhaps in a way that removed all illusions that analytic propositions appeal to outside sources beyond conceptual content, and also indicating its ideal certainty at the same time. Frege, however, was partial to an idea that analysis can be taken much more broadly than in isolated instances. For example, a much expanded use of logical, and mathematical analyses can indeed describe certain isomorphic structures of the world. More to that, Frege had a certain inkling up in his head about philosophy par excellence. He was wary of Kant's "intuitions" or what he called the "psychologism" which phenomenally minded philosophers either appealed to or were burdened to consider, when they spoke about the phenomenal world. (That has been mentioned in this thread) He thought this phenomenological "intuition" could be avoided, and substituted a "logical" concept of sense for it. Frege insinuated that all of epistemelogical considerations could be contained to the symbolism, he was in a sense already working with. Along with symbolizing analyticity as A=A he found that an example of A=B could symbolize propositions which reach out to the world, and find something new about it (going from A to B this can be cognitively significant). This was in a sense, an open contingency. Unlike Kant, in his work Frege contained an ideal synthesis to a relation between symbols at the same time that he indicated its openness. (This is covered in On Sense and Reference by the way). Therefore analyses were in his, and many other considerations, not “limited” or contained to symbolism. Frege said that for a proposition to "make sense" logically, was a demonstration that the logic of language use reflects the world in the same way that sensory faculties do. Hence the Fregean “sense" (sinn) which we "make" in a proposition, could be considered an analytical provision, and at the same time, assuming the "reasonable" assumption that logic of our language mirrored the world (That was Wittgenstein’s credited contribution actually) this indicated that analytical provisions could be considered empirical. This became the challenge of being constructive, and intellectually honest, from empirical statements down to grammar. Granted logicism doesn't really work as something that can be demanded, but hence, logical positivism, or logical empiricism was proposed in that manner. Although as a culture, analyticity remains in more or less spirited assumptions of many Anglo Americans, it was pointed out again by pragmatists that analyticity falters at its own conception of ideal containment. The idea of an overarching, universal idea of “analyticity of propositions”, is what philosophers like W.O. Quine have critiqued as the dogma of empiricism. The main problem with the appeals to a logical or analytical basis of empiricism, is it ultimately isolates, rather than opens conjectures it appeals to. Objecting to the projected general idea of analysis of propositions, as a so called "state of affairs", is not to necessarily object to “realism”, or having a view that generally “has facts”, or propositional contingencies to it, but it is possibly an objection to naively leveling discussion to those criteria in a simplistic way. Generally, it is possible to object not only to isolated ideas, but to certain strictures which enforce the "logical" or instituted place of empiricism in social dialogue. It is ultimately possible to question whether generalized suggestions of propositional analysis really have anything to do with empirical engagements, or if, for instance they are contained in some way, such as in the imagination. The general question to put could be this: Is verificationism a verifiable proposition? More pragmatism later. Edited by Kurt (07/07/15 01:03 PM)
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
That looks like 1400 words of gibble de goop
To the point: "Is verificationism a verifiable proposition?" Objective assessments of reality have factual a base. Subjective assessments like feelings and experience do not. Each to his own opinion but what is more likely? A- Collective objective evidence points towards what is true B- Individual subjective beliefs point towards what is true
| |||||||
|
Friend Registered: 04/18/13 Posts: 528 Loc: Fl Last seen: 1 year, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
What I am hearing from the other side of the science wall, is that anything is possible in our universe, and boxing up the human experience with a lab tested fact sheet only keeps man further from a deeper understanding of the universe.
There's just some things about the depths of Existence that no fact sheet could ever account for. Also, many things that can't be physically proven in a court of scientific law. Silly, they are beyond scientific testability and man's cosmic arrogance. I can't grab a Soul-o-meter and measure the frequencies of your mystical nature and display them on a graph with lots of calculations. But our human minds are gifted with perception of this. These "senses" within our beings are not calculable or physically apparent, and rely on a separation from the material world. Remember forever though, we access the depths of the universe with the same tool we access this physical world...our minds. Our minds are our only (human) limit. And we know how far out we can get ![]() Don't hold your breath waiting for science to prove any mystical notions. But do ponder, that thousands (?) of humans with no physical relation or connection to each other, experience similar crucial details in their subjective travels of the mind. Most of the times, the knowledge received by travelers is almost impossible to describe with words, and when it is, it is limited by our language and cognitive descriptions. I'm not talking about the cool geometric patterns and morphing walls either. Just gnosis. The rules and guidelines of the material physical world command existence? That's caca. I can't prove it tho. Take the trip. Trust your tools.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Sudly I am glad you recognized a question in what may not be entirely intelligible to you.
However indeed in the point of a rather simple question you responded to, I was asking for a yes or no answer. Is verificationism a verifiable proposition? Your own comment seems oblique to me. I'd say your post appeals to your own idiosyncrasies, not mine. Personally I don't know if objectivism or subjectivism are very coherent as bases for over arching claims in philosophy. I was mentioning this earlier in the thread...do you know you are talking about the derivative concepts of grammar? It sounds pretty hive minded to me. (Not that I don't think "subject" and "object" useful to recognize; I just don't think the conceptual equivalent of a blunt tool is appropriate to fundamentally characterize life and experience.) Anyway, the critique I posted which you are pretending to respond to basically states that "analyticity" or intellectual containment, is not a solid foundation for empirical sciences, or anything else of redeemable value. I wasn't talking to you as much as the forum as a whole, but I would say that in what I have observed, as many others have, although you may be correct on some few points about how the sciences stand in the present, your general attitude of correctness is stiff, and mostly contained to your head. I would say at least you could recognize some openness to epistemological discussion, because in a way that is what you appeal to, but on the other hand epistemology as an "understanding of knowledge" is not just a slate on which you place certain claims. If you would like a response from me, it would be the same response I already gave you twice: Nobody is doubting that there are reasonable possible inductions you are able to make. Your conservative basis of thinking surely will get you through the day. Congratulations and welcome to existence. This may not be the kind of validation you may be looking for though. The way you insinuate that everybody should think as you do, is what most people here are critical of. You seem to appeal to scientific evidence without much sense of its general intelligibility. Evidence stands not just for the world in any one dimensional sense, but ideally what is progressing, and what can be seen as developing, and being critiqued through history. Its content is complex. When people have mentioned these viscissitudes, let alone a broader idea of naturalism (including what may be a non-epistemological philosophical query) you respond pretty much in typical fashion. Apparently you predicate "science", literally down to the sentence as some simple "subject" that enacts and accomplishes this or that. Clearly any notion about evaluation of empirical senses or the way an intelligible conjecture of the universe may be based, seems to just be a post hoc provision for your slew of arguments about a general authority. I was responding to another poster and the OP in a certain way. I don't think the OP, yourself, or anyone else is representing 20th century analytic philosophy in any conscious way here, but I do think there are certain consolidated holdings of the same intellectual discourse that may be appealed to, "dogmatically" or culturally, even if generally things have loosened up over the last century. The question I asked at the end of my post about verificationism was mostly rhetorical, because the answer is actually no, verificationism, or logical empiricism, or whatever you want to call it..."Analyticity" failed to fundamentally ground itself. I am just generally pointing this out, whether you get it or not. Clearly this state of affairs that is appealed to as a "rule" as a one dimensional way of enframing and challenging propositions, is not only anachronistic, but a backwards way of reasoning about the world. "What the world has to be" to represent propositions or the logic of our language, is the highest rung of analyticity, and it is by its own standards, a pseudo-proposition. It is not verifiable, that we have any reason to assume this. So likewise, so as far as I see there is no ideal tabula rasa for sensory experiences, that our lives are conducted by, and there is not some singular "book" or "subject" of science where data is gathered in any so naive, one dimensional way. Science is purely methodological and to that, paradigmatic, not some book of knowledge to quote from like the bible. The idea of an overarching consolidation of analyses of the world, or the certain place of idealized "propositions" was something insinuated in a historical and cultural contingency in the early 20th century, when intellectual environments were tensely oppositional. Mainly Anglo American analytic thinkers were opposed to the largely and German influenced philosophical culture of phenomenological or intuitional thinking, and started this consolidation. The dictates of a "state of affairs", and the supposed virtue of analyticity of thought is a larger cultural, or economical and social issue today, and appeal to this residual intellectual culture is not what I am suggesting is a wholly conscious intellectual position; for instance, for either yourself, or the OP. Verificationism is usually latched on to out of personal prejudice and yet at the same time analyticity is not a "position", because there is no proposition for it. It is only an institution or abstract authority being appealed to. I hope what I wrote is useful, if not for you, for the forum, as pointing the way to interrogate consolidation and containment of "analyticity" in whatever way it may present itself. This could hopefully serve as a guide in how that line of questioning is done, and point to more pragmatic bases of thinking, if that would seem to be worth anything. That is what I was ideally speaking to in whatever idiosyncracy it might appear as to you, but I know there are a few people here who can understand and appreciate this. I was not questioning the OP, or yourself personally, unless you insist that I was. The question was rhetorical. My own proposal to the forum is this and it presumes some free thinking: "Analysis" or Analuein, in its greek etymology means "to unloosen". It is perhaps amazing to think so, I know, when today analytic mindedness tends to mean a stiffness, or uptightness. However I think it is possible to run that gauntlet, and to occasionally "be analytical", without allowing the turn toward concept and "language" to take over one's lively spark. I'll attest from experience that it is possible. Other than that...People can only "loosen" up themselves for the most part. Edited by Kurt (07/07/15 07:08 PM)
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
Universaleyeni, science is able to give us some sort of verifiable consensus, which helps us to refine our communication and ask new questions. Yes, it has limits and no, it isn't everything. But I think everyone is sort of talking (yelling?) past each other here when it might behoove us to meet somewhere in the middle.
And frankly, I think science will, in the coming decades, treat many subjects which are now mystical only and not acknowledged by science. Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago? -------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
Pure imagination hasn't gotten us far. Read up on the dark ages.
Subjectivity doesn't prove an objective reality. Thousands of humans think they're jesus, a wizard, an alien, a robot, a mind reader etc. Similarities in delusions don't prove those delusions. I trust the tools of science, not imagination. Edited by sudly (07/07/15 07:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
I doubt my answers will surprise you.
My answer was giving options for the question. My choice is A. Whether or not you wanted it to be answered I tried to. Some ideas are easy to refute, I'm just trying to tell people what my reasons are for refuting their ideas. Science has a lot of disciplines and a lot of books containing data supported by mathematical and physical evidence. "The way you insinuate that everybody should think as you do, is what most people here are critical of." I'm just explaining why I refute their claims, I state my views, I state why I hold my views. It's every individuals choice to believe whatever they want.
| |||||||
|
Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,414 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
Quote: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/15 Posts: 753 Last seen: 6 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Star Wars nerds have long since accounted for it though. It just uses a little special relativity and the help of a few singularities that happened to be nearby this Kessel run. Although by using special relativity to explain it, it also makes Hans Olo necessarily much older through time dilation. He would have been 29, but born before Obi-Wan.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote: Sudly, the question I generally asked was "is verificationism verifiable?" Do you know what "verificationism" means in this context? Quote: You are giving "options" to the question? Where do options fall into consideration, when you are verifying whether something is necessarily either true or false?
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
I believe that objective verification is viable.
For subjective empirical verification I do not. Things are either true or false. We can have a guess but it doesn't change the outcome. Experience only renders the probable, objectivity renders the possible. Verificationism is a sticky situation because it is a mixture of both subjective and objective reasoning. Knowledge is defined as a belief that we justify to be true. The question you're asking is, is it viable to justify our beliefs with subjective and objective thoughts. I would say no. It is only viable to justify a belief with objectivity because it is falsifiable. Subjective justification is not.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Sudly, I am not sure what you mean in a lot of those statements, but for you to answer my question, you'd have to know what I mean, so I feel that in a practical way I should turn the discussion back to clarifying what I mean by the question I raised, if you don't mind.
Here is a wikipedia article on verificationism, which is the concept I was speaking to: Quote: The question I asked was "is verificationism a verifiable proposition": You seem to think conjecture is open on this, and in a sense it is. Maybe I could clarify. I would say people implicitly appeal to the basis of verificationism, but not as far as I see, upon any epistemological criteria. The principle may be an ethical one that is appealed to. It's something like the idea that everyone is supposed to share an "intellectual honesty" or "constructive" regard for things, or not be "nihilistic" or some other kind of intellectual degenerate. It is kind of that red faced Richard Dawkins thing, sometimes as a cultural movement, sometimes an ethic. In general it is something pretty embedded in Anglo-American culture. My question is relatively simple and straight forward: I am generally asking if there is a simple proposition, which determines (yes or no) if verificationism is a verifiable proposition, in its own terms. Ostensibly this would be a logical consideration, if you consider the simple definition I posed previously: Quote: Is there a verifiable proposition of verificationism (that holds to be true)? If there is such a proposition, then you are walking Spanish down the hall. If verificationism is not a verifiable proposition, on the other hand, it would perhaps seem that the formality or conventionality of its appeal is mostly just a dogmatic way of marginalizing discourses, for what seems to be less good of a reason. That is to say; the main distinction about verificationists is they talk in a certain terms mostly about "nonsense" or a "pseudo-propositions". They are interested in keeping things in certain bounds, and this supposedly (according to the ideal anyway) their intellectual contribution. If this is merely a convention, one could certainly wonder about this ideal, if these cultural blinders are necessarily a good thing, or if this approach to things is even a pursuit of truth. Such a question would have to be left open, probably. What can be strictly observed, is that the said cultural (ie. conventionally founded) verificationist would have a tendency to talk about the way sciences stand as they are, or in other words the way they stand according to the logic that has already been gathered, or in a state of affairs of research, rather than finding contingence of propositions in an avenue of actual empirical possibilities, through a more pragmatic orientation. It could also be clearly seen that what has been gathered in textbooks as empirical logic, is not necessarily the same as an experimental or trial based attitude. Anyway according to the article, logical positivism is said to be irretrievable as an intellectual position. Not that I think you should take a wiki page's word for it, but on the other hand, I don't know what it is worth to study this kind of thing, ultimately. Personally I think one can investigate these things, but still, as Heraclitus says on matters of logos, "One must follow what is common" This also reminds me of something another non-analytic philosopher wrote of, in a certain impressionistic way..."Gods too decompose." Perhaps this could be refreshing to the present discussion? Do you ever read any of the literary philosophers? Nietzsche is a good one. Quote: If I could interpret Nietzsche, or what his madman is suggesting, I would say he is referring to the absurdity of a culture that still moves intellectually in circles about a dead matter. Personally I think verificationism is dead, but here I am talking about it. I am asking you a question, which I think I know the answer to. To me it's dead, and anachronistic even though a culture goes on around and about it. I'll leave the rest to you. The question I asked, is "Is verificationism a verifiable proposition on its own terms"?
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,805 |
| ||||||
|
All I am saying is that I use objective reasoning to justify my knowledge, just as the scientific method does.
Verificationism is a mixture of subjective/objective reasoning which I do not agree with. So to answer your question, no. Again I state that empirical subjective reasoning it not viable in justifying knowledge as though it has a factual basis.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
LSD, Sex, Cosmic Consciousness and Evolution ( |
3,958 | 39 | 11/26/07 05:47 PM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
The phenomenology of death. ( |
4,043 | 63 | 11/25/08 03:30 PM by deranger | ||
![]() |
Why is Phenomenology so esoteric and difficult? | 1,342 | 5 | 04/28/07 11:52 PM by spud | ||
![]() |
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology | 847 | 4 | 12/17/03 10:24 AM by fireworks_god | ||
![]() |
discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs ( |
1,212 | 22 | 08/11/15 03:13 PM by akira_akuma | ||
![]() |
Nietzscheian Propositions on "Reality" ( |
2,101 | 23 | 09/03/08 11:30 AM by Lakefingers | ||
![]() |
The Hard Problem of Consciousness ( |
2,303 | 34 | 05/26/10 12:36 PM by deCypher | ||
![]() |
Review of the last century's phenomenology ( |
4,723 | 68 | 11/21/02 11:42 PM by Jellric |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 7,878 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



