Oct 30, 2017 01:16 AM
(This post was last modified: Oct 30, 2017 01:17 AM by Syne.)
That's just the philosophical problem of universals.
"Berkeley's great contribution (picked up on later by Kant) was to suggest the preposterousness of referencing absolute knowledge, given that all knowledge is gained through contingent sensory experience. In fact, the very notion of finding coherence and permanence within sensory experience was so preposterous to him, that he had to postulate the notion of a God who holds all reality in His mind, in order to explain why the world doesn't just vanish when we stop perceiving it. He was forced, by his extreme empiricism, to posit the existence of God in order to explain our experience of coherence, even though on an empirical understanding of raw sense data, such a conclusion did not follow." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of...s#Berkeley
See how similar ideas can be expressed without unnecessary jargon? You can look up any known word in a standard dictionary.
It really seems like the CTMU folks have just been duped into thinking standard philosophical positions are novel simply because they can't even penetrate the jargon in a useful way.
"Berkeley's great contribution (picked up on later by Kant) was to suggest the preposterousness of referencing absolute knowledge, given that all knowledge is gained through contingent sensory experience. In fact, the very notion of finding coherence and permanence within sensory experience was so preposterous to him, that he had to postulate the notion of a God who holds all reality in His mind, in order to explain why the world doesn't just vanish when we stop perceiving it. He was forced, by his extreme empiricism, to posit the existence of God in order to explain our experience of coherence, even though on an empirical understanding of raw sense data, such a conclusion did not follow." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of...s#Berkeley
See how similar ideas can be expressed without unnecessary jargon? You can look up any known word in a standard dictionary.
It really seems like the CTMU folks have just been duped into thinking standard philosophical positions are novel simply because they can't even penetrate the jargon in a useful way.