The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

New answers tagged

0

This is only a question of what we mean by "the same". All "objects" are continuously changing and are not exactly the same instant to instant. They not only change internally but also by interaction with the environment. For simplicity we refer to patterns of experience as being "the same" object if they don't change too much and fall out of whatever ...


1

Eternal life and youth, rejuvenation to the youthful state - all these are hot topics of the current cell biology and medicine, see, e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-018-0206-0 especially after discovering Yamanaka factors that lead cells back into pluripotent state (fully and partially - without preserving identity and functionality and with ...


1

[I]s there some discipline in philosophy that tries to express the content of the each concept in some basic notions, is there discipline of the philosophy that tries to uncover such basic notions and types (be they the already known mathematical notions and types or something other)? What are the names of such disciplines of philosophy? What are common ...


2

Technically, this IS a question about biology. You see, there's a thing called genetics that is very useful in identifying not just species but individuals. I don't know much about jellyfish reproduction. Maybe they're all "identical twins," for all I know. But is they have genetic variation, then each life stage would presumably have the same genetic code. ...


6

Welcome to SE Philosophy! This is what is known in philosophy as a question of identity and is related to the metaphysical discipline of ontology, or the study of what is. In essence, identity is the question of what 'is' is, and is a source of much debate. Are equality and equivalence the same thing?. Questions of identity related to personhood and the ...


0

Surely, Ideas=Thoughts, Ideas are part of Consciousness. In the world we live in, and in our normal state, Consciousness is composed of: 1-perceptions 2-thoughts 3- feelings. Hence, Ideas are part of Consciousness. Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness We can generate Consciousness, i.e: we can generate thoughs, feelings, or may thoughts, ...


-1

The Ontological Argument St Anselm formulated the Ontological Argument. It is an argument for the existence of God. It is a striking instance of an idea that compels being. I'll let you read it for yourself. I'll just say that for the thousand years following, philosophers rebutted it. That so many have tried suggests it is controversial That so many ...


4

I think this question is conflating a few different levels of analysis. 'Being' in the sense of sein or dasein, which is usually taken to mean the peculiar nature of life (or human life in the latter case): i.e., very roughly equivalent to conscious experience. 'Being' in the ontological sense of material existence: i.e., it has physical form, therefore it ...


2

Welcome to SE Philosophy! From (SEP: Existence): We can trace the issue of whether existence is a property to a disagreement between the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and some of his medieval followers over the relationship between an individual's essence and its existence. The question you pose goes back to at least Aristotle, and is metaphysical ...


1

"Infinite regress of causes and effects can't be real/ is illogical/impossible". Why assume it is impossible. (Reality doesn't have to appeal to our common sense) Why assume we understand what it actually IS as finite creatures. Why assume that it is the only alternative to "uncaused cause"? Maybe there are million other alternatives we can't ...


0

An infinite regress is evidence that our thinking is incorrect. Such contradictions do not arise when our thinking is correct. They are found all over the metaphysics of our universities. They are not found at all in the philosophy of the Upanishads, which endorses a neutral global theory. Why this is not regarded as a vitally important issue I have no ...


2

I think the distinction is actually between being a Philosopher and simply philosophizing. I would say an illiterate may be able to philosophize, however they may find extensive challenges in reaching insight due to a lacking foundational exposure to the long history of philosophical perspectives and methodologies of philosophy. Alternatively, a scholar ...


0

Philosophers that belong to a school and have absolutely all ideas coherent with the rest of the school group are either dictators or bad philosophers. Therefore, belonging to a school implies to act and to predicate some set of ideas that are not coherent with those belonging to oneself. So, the main difference is self-contradiction. A philosopher has ...


0

We don't We don't Why not? Okay, perhaps that was a bit pithy. There are indeed people who make these assumptions, and one can talk to their rationales if one pleases. There's a lot of people out there with a lot of opinions about what is going on. However, one can talk about the whole of philosophy, considering people who deviate from the "norm." ...


0

About first I dont know Here are some Roland Barthes quotes in the direction you seek though not literally I am interested in language because it wounds or seduces me Language is a skin: I rub my language against the other. It is as if I had words instead of fingers, or fingers at the tip of my words. My language trembles with desire Language is ...


0

Wittgenstein already sees the positivistic notion of 'words as object descriptions' as false. But he would probably not make the leap automatically from subjectivity to emotion. (There is a lot of space in between.) Words are moves in a game, and the collaborators determine the rules by participating. Those rules go way beyond description, and even when ...


1

The critique by Nick Shackleton-Jones is on Dennetts dogmatic rationalism. At one point he writes: Dennett actually says of Intuition Pumps: ‘when you read what I write, you download a new app to your necktop’. Really? And how did that work out? You might think I am being a little harsh on Dennett who, as far as one can tell, is a decent chap – but it ...


1

Yes, of course, every comprehensive philosophy is a set of such answers, but agreement is not a valid criterion to choose among them. Consensus is relevant in science because of the scientific methods, where repeatability of an experiment produces a scientific consensus. Philosophy does not have the same luxury of a well structured epistemic framework (and ...


2

Skimming though that link, I'm not at all certain that idea is tied to a particular school of thought. This is critical book review, and reviewers often speak from loose conceptual structures rather than tight analytical positions. The idea Shackleton-Jones is trying to get across is that Dennett's description of 'words' is both inaccurate and hypocritical: ...


1

There are well-endorsed answers for all these questions but you will not find them in the academic philosophy of our universities, as is indicated by the answers and comments here. The question of whether there are any widely agreed answers is easily answerable by pointing to the widespread agreement on their answers in the Perennial tradition. Regrettably, ...


0

This will be more of a "meta" answer towards the class of questions, of which this is one, that try to find what "progress" philosophy has made, most often in comparison to science. The challenge is generally put in the form: "Ever since the ancient Greeks, topics such as "what is moral", "what kinds of things exist", "can we have knowledge" ete have been ...


0

Let me take a different tack than other respondents. What is emptiness? It is the metaphorical space in a container. In fact, motion through space is understood by a conceptual metaphor called Containment which is a hint at how neurons organize themselves at the neurocomputational level. In essence, metaphysical presuppositions that lead to these ...


1

Now, can anyone tell which, if any, of these question has found an answer (meaning an answer agreed by [almost] everyone) and who was the author? "Almost everyone" is a very ambiguous term. It's tough to see explicit agreement on metaphysical principles because many people never consider them, but go about their business thinking without thinking about ...


1

The Wikipedia article on ontology that the OP cites notes that answers have been provided but they may not have been accepted by others: Various philosophers have provided different answers to these questions. This should be enough to answer the main question: Now, can anyone tell which, if any, of these question has found an answer (meaning an answer ...


2

Whether or not a subset is considered an element of the superset is a metaphysical presupposition in your set theory. In naive set theory, the relationship between sets as elements is not clear, because often the context treats elements and sets as objects and containers through conceptual metaphor. As such, certain implications arise from having containers ...


2

We have the concept "car" : an abstract (an universal), and we have individual cars : the objects (the particulars). Individual cars fall under the general car concept. If we assume the existence of the set of all cars (an abstract : the extension of the concept), an individual car is an element of the set of all cars. The concept car is subsumed into ...


1

Ontology made easy - Amie Thomasson: It is considered a great book and a friendly guide to ontology. An important issue treated in it is related to the quantifier approach of ontology.


Top 50 recent answers are included