You have to understand, it's nearly impossible to describe a single flower without describing it's relationship to the entire rest of the universe. And then, you are describing but one individual flower, not some sort of category that multiple "flowers" could fit into.
You have to understand, it's nearly impossible to describe a single flower without describing it's relationship to the entire rest of the universe. And then, you are describing but one individual flower, not some sort of category that multiple "flowers" could fit into.
my question is therefore: if the nature of reality as we perceive or experience it leads you to conclude that there is a realm of forms, how then does the nature of the realm of forms not lead you to conclude that there must be an even more fundamental level of reality, and indeed, an infinite regress of such realities?
Pretty sure Aristotle argues something like this against Plato / Socrates. Except my brain hurts so I can't remember where.
I think universals / forms are utilized to explain similarity. So there is only an infinite regress insofar as similarity need be explained. So once we go from red to redness, the only other step we would have to do is for there to be a Form of Forms, the form shared by all forms. or a universal of universals, the quality "universal" which is shared by all universals.
After that there's nothing which requires an infinite regress.
If we're going with an ontology or metaphysics of forms, not just the "explain similarity" bit, then we can get into self-evidence as a stopping point. Once we get to a self-evident truth, that can maintain itself and there is nothing "behind" it which would suggest an infinite regress.
_J_ on
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Need to go do actual work for a few minutes. But will be back to talk booze shortly.
Posts
You're like a bagel away from arguing Spinoza.
barnacles, patrick
hmmm
PETE WOULD YOU LIKE TO COALESCE UPON NEW YORK CITY AND BE SEATED FOR LUNCH WITH POLDY A. PODLEISTER AT 1PM
This.
Plus, I would bring Ms. Platypus along and we could all drink Manhattans and single malt scotches
Yeah I don't think it has hops or yeast.
what is a "manhattan"
the wreck of the medusa right?
i'm not fucking this up am i?
i, too, like my naked men piled atop each other and writhing in pain
Zima Lights though, he has to watch his girlish figure.
pleasepaypreacher.net
2 parts whiskey (rye or bourbon)
1 part italian vermouth
dash of bitters
stir or shake with ice, serve up in a cocktail glass or coupe
garnish with a cherry or twist
2 oz rye
1 oz rosso vermouth
3-4 dashes bitters
stir over ice and strain into a cocktail glass with a brandied cherry
whiskey and sweet vermouth with bitters
alcoholics starting off this page
we have talked a lot about hosting such a thing but for some reason it never happens and that makes me a sad slinger-of-tape
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
we are going to pay off most of our credit card debt tonight
guys I am really excited
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hey me to!
A way of introducing whiskey to little kids.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
they made a calorie free sweetener
they can't make hooch that won't get you fat?
also i want that
can i have that
i want that
years of drinking industrial sludge and silver nitrate in the drinking water ends up developing some bad culinary habits.
see also Genesse
they do!
it's called methanol!
lover!
Any suggestions?
i ran the gamut when i went to school in queens
i particularly liked moma, iirc
you wanna hit up some museums saturday? i would do that with you
we are thinking of heading into the city saturday morning to meet up with podly
maybe we could do that and then you and i (and or whoever else) could do some museums
they're open on saturdays right
In Ohio.
I have no words.
if you weren't the first forumer I ever met I would just assume you were a mythical creature, Mr Sulu!
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Descartes
Locke
Hume
but then I remembered that I used to drink manhattans
when I was 19.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Pretty sure Aristotle argues something like this against Plato / Socrates. Except my brain hurts so I can't remember where.
I think universals / forms are utilized to explain similarity. So there is only an infinite regress insofar as similarity need be explained. So once we go from red to redness, the only other step we would have to do is for there to be a Form of Forms, the form shared by all forms. or a universal of universals, the quality "universal" which is shared by all universals.
After that there's nothing which requires an infinite regress.
If we're going with an ontology or metaphysics of forms, not just the "explain similarity" bit, then we can get into self-evidence as a stopping point. Once we get to a self-evident truth, that can maintain itself and there is nothing "behind" it which would suggest an infinite regress.
personally i am a filthy pederast so i don't know if it will suit me but i will try some of that on saturday, probably