Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
3

Which philosophers have proven existing is being part of the change in time? Coincidentally, I became interested in the work of Lee Smolin just last evening. A renowned theoretical physicist, he has made major contributions to the philosophy of physics. His areas of research includes cosmology. According to Wikipedia, in an article he wrote for Physics ...


3

The desire to not only survive (or live) but to perpetuate one's species is one of the foundations of biology. You could argue that it transcends philosophy because it's shared by countless species that aren't intelligent enough to engage in philosophy. None of us have any control over our birth. We are alive due to circumstances beyond our control, and we ...


3

To answer the question of the existence of 'ideas' outside of and beyond the confines of a human mind it is first vital to escape the bounds of what HF Hallett termed 'truncated empiricism'; that theory which places limits on which subject matters are eligible for scientific investigation. This 'boxing-off' of segments of human experience delimits the ...


2

Schopenhauer offers a double epistemological aspect of the world, which is to say, existence, as being at once Will and Idea. His work is not explicitly a study of ontology, i.e. essence/being, beyond the essences of Ideas, which for Schopenhauer are simply the intelligible, a priori objectifications of Will, for the subject. Although this system appears ...


2

Your question is a deep one about the very nature of logic. If logical truths are true, what exactly are they true of? And how do we know? There are many possible answers to these questions, and no general agreement among philosophers. Since the literature is pretty huge, I can only briefly summarise the main positions. Simple logical realism would have it ...


2

I don't believe that there is wide agreement among contemporary philosophers on the answer to your question. The layperson's position you describe above sounds like logical realism. Logical realism states that there are facts of logic, and these facts are completely independent of us (our minds and our language). If humans had never existed, the law of non-...


2

Michael Polanyi claims (page 7) ...all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. Here is Wikipedia's description of tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. Here is ...


2

Many if not most of us at some point or other in life begin to entertain serious doubts about why being alive matters. It is an important question and indicates a level of seriousness in the questioner and deserves a response which might help to illuminate our predicament as humans with a somewhat constrained perspective on life. In Spinoza's psychology, [...


2

In your question you reject a possibility on the grounds that it is absurd: But this is like saying that: a thing can come from nothing. This way the real world can be a finite realm that originated from Nothing. Which is absurd! However, that reality is absurd is a possibility that you should consider. If you allow reality to be infinite, which is a ...


2

A short piece of dialogue between Subject an Matter appears at the end of the Supplement to book1 of The World as Will and Representation, chap. 1. As a forcible conclusion of this important and difficult discussion I shall now personify these two abstractions, and present them in a dialogue after the fashion of Prabodha Tschandro Daya. It may also ...


2

I find the question rather difficult to disentangle but seem to agree with its conclusion, and this seems to agree with Aristotle's conclusion. This may be another example of an issue being made more and more complex in an effort to overcome what is in fact a simple problem to state. if a thing exists it must have a status and it must be subject to ...


2

Person A: "I want to live forever. Why can't I live forever?" Person B: "You can live another 20 years." Person A: "Is that all? Then why don't I just kill myself right now?" Even setting aside questions of an immortal soul, it is pure irrationality to want to die now, simply because you are going to die eventually. If there is any value in living, for ...


2

The answers to the three questions What is the probability that it is possible to build at least two simulations? What is the probability that there's anyone who can do it? What is the probability that this someone has done it? could be anything one wants between 0 and 1, from impossible to necessary. If you find it hard to believe that ...


2

Before trying to ask 'How to measure', first you should confirm whether consciousness is a thing like light, waves, radiation etc. If you are quite sure about it, you may try to search a tool for measuring it. We don't even know whether consciousness is zero dimensional, infinite dimensional or something more than these. Those who could realize ...


1

Why didn't you just ask "Do forces exist?" Asking if they "really exist" obscures the question. What kind of distinction is there between something "existing" and "really existing"? Existence is already a metaphysical concept and so is outside the realm of science. When "existence" is used in science it refers to patterns of experience. That is all we have ...


1

I wouldn't say that physical phenomena universe is differentiable, rather differentiability is a property of functions which are abstract objects (unlike rocks, trees, concrete stuff we do physics on). Note that momentum, forces and the like are abstract objects that we use to get information about concrete things. When we do physics, we take a phenomenon, ...


1

Classical physics as well as quantum mechanics (QM) and the theory of general relativity use as basic equation differential equations. A differential equation assumes that the law in question can be expressed by differentiable functions. This assumption has proven fruitful since the times of Newton. And QM shows: Even when the basic differential equations ...


1

The most rational reason is that, if you are alive, you can always choose to die, but if you are dead, you can never choose to be alive. This makes being alive favorable over being dead. There is at least some evidence suggesting that living organisms are defined by their ability to optimize their own global entropy. In other words, we evolved to be able to ...


1

By this question he is trying to make you think about 'actual entity'. Here, he didn't make you explore 'existence'. So, by this question what he indirectly implies is that there is no actual entity; otherwise he wouldn't have asked you to examine a usual experience. When 'actual entity' becomes doubtful, the usage--'everything' would also become doubtful. ...


1

Potentiality is not a substance. Substances are matter+form composites. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his short word On The Principles of Nature 5., everything which is in potency can be called matteromne quod est in potentia potest dici materia Matter is a mode of being midway between non-existence and substance.


1

From a biological perspective we live to reproduce. We live to reproduce but that's kind of a boring answer... The way I view it is that having a finite existence forces us to reproduce. Which allows us to make more finite lives, and those finite lives can create more finite lives and so on. So although we might die. We can still be arguably be alive in the ...


1

Bram28 clearly exhibits an 'intuitional' grasp of the origin and nature of deductive reasoning. Once again it is Spinoza who clarifies the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and selected the former as the only one to deliver certainty and truth. He explained that the subject matter of inductive reason, what he termed 'modalities' or what we ...


1

In my philosophy program (fifteen years ago) I learned to distinguish symbolic logic (a symbolic, or formal language) from philosophy, which relies on meanings derived from natural languages. I don't think that it's very useful to conflate these two fields of study. Assertions claimed in natural language differ in their properties from logical "...


1

These definitions are all, according to Spinoza, "concerning God". By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. There is only one thing the essence of which involves existence and the nature of which is best described as existent: the Universe, which Spinoza ...


1

In order to understand Spinoza's definitions we need to apply a type of 'expansionist thinking'. His concepts do not respond to any type of reduction. Substance, for example contains everything which the human mind can contemplate and much more. Not in some 'ding an sich' manner. Substance is an 'idea' which we can form in our minds and comprehend, in some ...


1

@ Mozibur Ullah- One simple way to approach this question may not resolve whether what has been observed as what appear to be 'laws' of nature are such, is to point up that no matter what the physical activity under observation, whether in a fishbowl, an ocean, a person's body, the moon, distant stars, black holes, or even the Big Bang, at each and every ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible