3

No, and it is not what is stated in that article either This is a misunderstanding due to a problematic formulation in that article. The four points, one of which you quote, are not exactly "the views of Aristotle and Plato", but common views on knowledge they both took as a starting point. That is why the article says that the theories are build ...


2

Of course, their only difference is how they define the word "exists". If two equal saints meet and argue about something, most likely u should bet they're both honest, smart and wise guy, just confused about each other's definition. This universal confusion caused so many unnecessary conflicts throughout history. As Socrates once hinted that ...


2

See the SEP article on nominalism: [T]here are (at least) two kinds of Nominalism, one that maintains that there are no universals and one that maintains that there are no abstract objects. Realism about universals is the doctrine that there are universals, and Platonism is the doctrine that there are abstract objects. So there definitely is a difference. ...


2

R stands for King. That copy of the essay has a typo in it. Here is an essay without the typo: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43811/Why%20Philosophy.htm But, anyhow, he will have the habit of testing the thing by the thought; by the idea which he likes or dislikes; and not merely by the sound of a syllable or the look of four letters beginning ...


2

This is the thread that Buddhism uses to unravel our intuitions about the self, what is called the conventional self. Buddhism is often caricatured as saying 'the self is an illusion', but that is a misunderstanding of the real doctrine, 'anatta' or anatman, which says we have no permanent, unchanging self, no essential nature, and who we are always depends ...


2

I would start by saying, just to clarify slightly, that I think that speaking of logical causation is misleading, as (it is explained by other answers) "because" is not a truth operator. (Hence logical necessity works better.) Wittgenstein famously states that (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, proposition 5.1361) : "The events of the future ...


1

As to your question regarding the dependence of logical laws upon physical laws, you may have a look at Gonseth, La logique comme physique de l'objet quelconque ( " logic as physics of any object whatever") whch is briefly reviewed here : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/gonseth-f-la-logique-en-tant-que-...


1

This is something St. Augustine wrestled with in Book 11 of his Confessions. He concluded that the only time we really perceive is the present. I'm not sure what would count as a proof that the past exists. Our own memories about the past are often flawed and incomplete. We all often forget or misremember our own pasts. Think of The Mandela Effect. I don't ...


1

Imagine that time is nothing more than difference or change. If every single particle kept its location, there would be no time. This falls within how B-series proponents look at time. Well what if some particles just moves so quick our brains can't see the changes? Nothing moves infinitely quick. There is a speed limit given by SR and GR. Each snapshot can ...


1

We don't know time is continuous at small scales. But I don't think anyone claims it is. You have asked several questions. But Is time real? does not seem to be one of them (1) Is time continuous at small scales? Experience tells us time seems to be continuous at large scales, but that might just be a consequence of it being divided into very small frames ...


1

Your question begs the preliminary question, what is the self? Modern neuroscience supports the idea of it being a mental construct produced by the brain as a kind of coat rack for all the things going on within it and associated with your physical senses. Clearly, the propensity to build such a model is genetically encoded and unavoidable. However some ...


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