No of course i know Berkeley was the 'forest guy' but it is attributed to Hume because berkeley is not remembered. his best memory was for tar water, by the way.
Kant is not an idealist if you read closely he is actually extremely pessimistic
egiewfghkf
Sort:
0
#26
you must be young because one thing is and im giving you free advice, as i tell my students..
DONT RELY ON THE INTERNET
0
#28
I don't know. I can't know. Would he exist on a higher plane? Or does he continue to exist within Alexei Shirov?
General Chess Discussion yet again!
Don't over complicate this - existence is an utter mystery - unknown and unknowable, vast and unfathomable. Because the fundamentals cannot be known by our finite minds, everything that follows is speculation. How is this possible? We will never know.
What kind of lunatic can't figure out that things exist? Semantic games and bullshitty freshman philosophy only go so far.
0
#37
There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, and some who do not know. And what line of distinction can there possibly be greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge? - Socrates
But isnt all life an imitation
Hatty-Freeham wrote:
There are some who imitate, knowing what they imitate, and some who do not know. And what line of distinction can there possibly be greater than that which divides ignorance from knowledge? - Socrates
But isnt all life an imitation
An imitation of what, exactly?
0
#39
Str.
Was not the sort of imitation of which we spoke just now the imitation of those who know? For he who would imitate you would surely know you and your figure?
Theaet.
Naturally.
Str.
And what would you say of the figure or form of justice or of virtue in general? Are we not well aware that many, having no knowledge of either, but only a sort of opinion, do their best to show that this opinion is really entertained by them, by expressing it, as far as they can, in word and deed?
Theaet.
Yes, that is very common.
Str.
And do they always fail in their attempt to be thought just, when they are not? Or is not the very opposite true?
Theaet.
The very opposite.
Str.
Such a one, then, should be described as an imitator—to be distinguished from the other, as he who is ignorant is distinguished from him who knows?
Theaet.
True.
Str.
The latter is the mimic of appearance; the former, the learned mimic.
Can we find a suitable name for each of them? This is clearly not an easy task; for among the ancients there was some confusion of ideas, which prevented them from attempting to divide genera into species; wherefore there is no great abundance of names. Yet, for the sake of distinctness, I will make bold to call the imitation which coexists with opinion, the imitation of appearance—that which coexists with science, a scientific or learned imitation.
Theaet.
Granted.
Str.
The former is our present concern, for the Sophist was classed with imitators indeed, but not among those who have knowledge.
Theaet.
Very true.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
then do the ideas exist