New answers tagged

1

See Descartes' metaphysics : According to Descartes' ontology there are three levels of being: substance, attribute, and mode. The levels of being are understood in terms of ontological dependence. Modes depend on attributes for their being in a way that attributes do not depend on modes. And, attributes depend on substances for their being in a way that ...


1

You might enjoy F.H.Bradley's Appearance and Reality, in which he analyses and sublates a list of everyday categories and distinctions. There is also G. S. Brown's Laws of Form, in which he presents a formal 'calculus of indications' where an 'indication' is a distinction or category-of-thought. There is also C.S Peirce, who did a great deal of work on ...


0

Hint Consider Henri Lefebvre, Dialectical Materialism (5th ed.1961, English transl. Minnesota UP, 1968) for an introduction to the "main characters" : Hegelian dialectic (aka: Hegel's Dialectical method); Marx and Engels' critique of it, that generated Historical materialism, a "new materialist method [in contrast] with the idealism that had ...


0

Welcome, Richard Falvey. The opening comment that dialectical materialism ('DM') is all three is plainly correct though whether its author would accept the grounds of my agreement I naturally have no idea. I don't see how we can have an epistemology without an ontology. What do we think we know or can know if we don't make some assumptions about the nature ...


0

The key to understanding the point being made here is the difference between spacetime in relativity theory and the sort of spacetime you might use for non-relativistic physics (sometimes called "Newton-Cartan spacetime"). In NC spacetime you have three space axes and one time. What all our clocks measure is progress along the time axis. A slice of the ...


0

Following are some of my thoughts, first posted in 2016, on potential for discontinuity of spacetime. According to current theory, individual pieces of randomly moving matter in space attract each other with their individual minuscule gravitational fields and thereby eventually by accretion form increasing larger amounts of matter, eventually leading to ...


2

In English and in line with the ordinary language philosophers who appeal to definitions not based on abstruse metaphysical speculation but rather ordinary language description, strength has several meanings with respect to force: Strength used colloquially can be seen as that which has the potential to exert force as in a strong man or powerful motor. A ...


2

strength is the capacity to resist a force without failure or compromise. something or someone who is strong will not break when a force is applied. power is the speed with which work can be performed. something or someone who is powerful can perform a lot of work in a short time. work occurs when a force applied to something causes it to move. useful ...


3

EDIT: it may be worthwhile for those interested in answering this question to familiarize themselves with the OP's earlier posts throughout the stackexchange site - e.g. here (now deleted), here, or here - under this and related usernames. I did not check the username ahead of time, or I would not have answered; that said, I've decided to leave this answer ...


0

In essence, your question is like this SE post which asks "how science is related to philosophy". Other closely related question are "is science just a more refined and effective method of philosophy?", "how does one know whether a discipline is a science of philosophy?", and "How should we characterize the relationship between mathematics and philosophy of ...


0

Let's separate out two aspects of philosophy. First, there is a broad sense in which philosophy is the study of the application of higher reasoning. This goes straight back to the ancient Greek philosophers in the West (and to other ancient thinkers in other regions of the world): to the Socratic method, or Aristotles system of categorization. Note that for ...


0

Both discipline use low level logic. But they have a different goal : Science answer the question : How the world ? Philosophy answer the question : Why the world ? So, based on these statements, I think we can't say that maths or physics are a branch of philosophy.


-1

THE NEVERENDING STORY has the best description of imaginary nothingness I've ever read: that looking at it gave one sensation or experience of going blind.


1

I suspect to imagine nothing is analogous to dividing by zero. Any number "n" divided by zero is undefined. Implicit in the act of division is grouping, grouping is impossible if there is no group which results from you dividing by zero. Because Math hasn't bothered to define what division would mean if it didn't include grouping, we say n/0 is undefined. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included