[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
All relations are metaphysical, because a relation is not a material
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 118
Thread images: 9
All relations are metaphysical, because a relation is not a material substance.
>>
>>1317741
Define your terms please. What do you mean by 'relation'?
>>
>>1317741


Sure, young hegelian.

Also reality is only an idea.

2/10
>>
No, Op is "kinda" not bullshiting. Doesn't seem to know what metaphysical means (Admitedly fairly few people that don't actually meddle in philosophy do) but he is kinda right.

Basically he is saying that relations are pure creations of a cognition on the basis that your metaphysical system only allows existence for material properties.

I don't actually know of many arguments that support that type of theory but what I know is that these kinds of metaphysical positions didn't age well, as quantum physics shook them up quite a bit. Nowadays most "scientifically sound" analytical metaphysicians try to go for dispositionalism instead, which is to say that, "deep down", all properties that one can ascribe to an existent are defined in a counter-factual way. As an indirect result, it means that these philosophers consider the laws of nature to be necessary. True story.

Don't know shit about Hegel though. That bitch makes no sense to me, most of the time.
>>
>>1317745

He probably means the same thing you do by relation, actually. Meaning a property that is ascribed to a set of objects in an ordered ways. For example: A loves B is a relation. A loves A is a relation. A loves is not a relation.
>>
If it's not a material substance, it doesn't exist.
>>
>>1317815

Are elementary particles material? Is gravity material? Do they not exist?

If so, why?
>>
Energy isn't a material substance either, but it sure as hell isn't metaphysical.
>>
>>1317830

that depends on how you view energy, no? are carbohydrates energy? are they energy once converted by our body?
>>
>>1317830

Okay, so let's just get this out of the way. Metaphysical does NOT mean "That doesn't exist". Metaphysical means "Related to the field of metaphysics".

The field of metaphysics dedicates itself to the study of non-empirically approachable concepts. That does not necessarily means concept that "don't exist". It may sometimes mean "Concepts that are at the basis of our scientific understanding".
>>
>>1317836
>are carbohydrates energy
No, they're a molecule that carries energy with the bonds between atoms.

>are they energy once converted by our body?
No, when they are metabolized they are converted to other molecules with less energy than the parent molecule did, and the difference is stored in the bonds of yet other molecules.
>>
>>1317836

I think the contemporary understanding is that matter is a function of energy, but that there are some types of energy that are not material. I MAY BE MISTAKEN THOUGH. Any actual physicians are welcome to bitchslap me.
>>
>Getting Trolled by Constantine
>Shiggy
>>
>>1317861

Define "troll"

Define "Shiggy"

Define "Green text"
>>
>>1317840
If it can't be approached empirically, it doesn't exist.
>>
>>1317872

Nah. Too simple. The very concept of existence for example is a metaphysical concept. Yet existence sure as fuck can't be defined by science. So existence doesn't exist? Meaning what, that no object has the property of existence? That I don't exi
>>
>>1317741

Actually, relations are physically recorded as biochemistry in the brain so they do exist physically.

Since human thought isn't magic, its all created through synapses and various other things that obey the laws of physics.

So it exists.

Physically.
>>
>>1317881
Existence doesn't need to be defined. It can be empirically observed. It's only magic-thinking idiots that feel the need to define it.
>>
>>1317886
>Actually, relations are physically recorded as biochemistry in the brain so they do exist physically.
>Since human thought isn't magic, its all created through synapses and various other things that obey the laws of physics.
>So it exists.
>Physically.

Nice try, but human thought is not supposedly relational then, or your reasoning would be false. Amirite? Then what is registered by the brain are not the relations themselves but the (Supposedly) propositional conception of these relations. Therefore conceptions of relations are physically registered in the brain, but relations themselves are not.

So they don't exist.

Physically.
>>
>>1317887

Sure, and it's only magically idiotic people that think existence itself can be observed. So I guess we at least are on the same dancefloor. Wanna make out?
>>
>>1317899

The concept of relations is human thinking about how things are related.

Human thinking is atoms arranging themselves into certain patters that cause this human thinking.

Without human thinking relationships would not exist.

Except for animals who are aware that different objects in the universe share characteristics or have cause and effect. Who also have minds made up of matter.
>>
>>1317906
Yes.
>>
Besides for fucks sake existence ain't even THAT hard to define. I mean most people are ok with "X exists if and only if X has a causal influence".

Now the concept of causality gets a bit more brutal to define. But it has been done. I won't pretend to know all the quirks though.
>>
File: 1457848731686.jpg (80 KB, 766x960) Image search: [Google]
1457848731686.jpg
80 KB, 766x960
>>1317899

Let us put it this way. Let's say the universe became hostile to all life everywhere all at once and all life died.

If there were no beings to come up with relationships between things in the universe, then there wouldn't be anything in the universe to come up with relationships.

Rocks and space dust don't create relationships.
>>
>>1317912

Yes, except for animals, AI's, and counterfactually existing intelligences. And a lot of stuff actually.

You don't get to be a physicalist, basing intellectual concept on matter, AND doubt the exterior world. That kind of position doesn't hold for long.
>>
>>1317926

Which is mentioned animals at the end of my post if you felt to read that far.

Either way, all intelligence requires matter to function and must obey the laws of physics so it all exists.

All the way down.
>>
>>1317920

Same answer as above. Either you think the exterior world obeys rules independently of our little existence (Whether these rules be comprehensible or not I should add), or you say that these rules depend on our existence.

If you choose option you cannot make a thought experiment "conceiving" the world without life, since life is the necessary condition for any conception.
>>
>>1317906
Something is said to "exist" if it produces some/any effect that, if it did not exist "exist" could not be otherwise observed.

So, for example, you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste dark matter, but (at least provisionally) it can be said to "exist" because we can observe that it exerts gravitational force. Now, in the future we may suddenly realize that the whole dark matter thing was nonsense like the aether turned out to be, and dark matter never existed/was illusionary etc. but provisionally it can be said to exist."

Most would raise the objection that "therefore God exists, because even though you can't see, hear, touch etc., the universe could not otherwise be observed, thus God must be at least as existing as dark matter." Which is a nice try, but dark matter is a much better explanation for the gravitational anomalies we are observing and at the very least can theoretically be falsified.
>>
>>1317929

The first sentence was just me developing your remark. With Ai's. And other stuff. Which you didn't mention.

But I must say, again, either the universe exists with rules that are independent from our existence, or the universe doesn't exist without us conceiving it. You don't get your cake and eat it too.

This is philosophy, damnit, not wankery 101. YOUR MEEK IDEAS HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXIST.
>>
>>1317934

I believe relationships are a mental construct. Sure things like quality and cause and effect exist in the universe, but without intelligence which requires matter to function, the concept of relations would not exist.

As far as a thought experiment, its not. The universe at one time had no intelligence to create relationships and only recently (as far as we know) that intelligence got to a point where it could construct relationships between objects to better manipulate those objects etc.

A lifeless universe has no relationships. Qualia too.

All mental constructs require matter to function because mental constructs require intelligence and intelligence requires matter to function.

Its not magic that makes these things.
>>
>>1317945

Most philosophy is wankery because they had no understanding of biology.
>>
>>1317945

The universe can exist without observation, but relationships are a mental construct created by language.

I would go as far as to say if we didn't not have the language to express relationships they wouldn't exist either.

Matter would still exist, but relationships of what that matter does and how it acts is separate from what humans think about it.
>>
>>1317947

At last something that kinda works!. But you still have to explain to me HOW causality works if there are no relationships between objects independently of our conceiving them. I don't think you'll be able to do that. After all how could you conceive universe in which objects interact without entering in a kind of relation?

Now as far as the existence of the "concept" of relations. Sure. But I never was talking about the concept, that's a linguistics thing. The only thing is to distinguish always between the mental construct and its reference.

And no, It is not magic.
>>
>>1317955

Most biology is wankery because they had no understanding of philosophy.

(Seriously, do you even the concept of species brah?)
>>
>>1317972

That's easy. Causality works because matter reacts with other matter and energy in the universe.

That does not require an observer (except that there is spooky behavior in quantum physics).

Those interactions is basically observed by intelligence which constructs relationships to better understand or how to predict how things matter and energy will turn out.

The relationships themselves are a mental construct of those predictions or observations should turn out by the belief of whatever intelligence observing them.

Matter and energy would still behave however they behave without an observer because they obey physics.

To be fair, physics and the laws of physics are mental constructs on how humans predict how energy and matter react and what they are predicted to do.

In that sense, what humans call the laws of physics are just a mental construct as independent of what matter and energy really does.

Its just a tool to help us understand why things happen.

Which exist in the human mind which exist physically.
>>
>>1317972
>Now as far as the existence of the "concept" of relations
The problem is that "relations" is just a concept humans invented for the purposes of organizing thought. We group many different types of interactions (many which do exist physically independent of humans) with artificial groups (often created exclusively for convenience and reflective not of independent reality but of subjective human experience.) Grouping all of them under the vague term "relation" and attempting to say anything useful about them at once will obviously present problems, as we are trying to use messy human categories to say anything true about reality.
>>
>>1317937

Your definition is super circular, but that's because of the way you phrased it, not because of it's spirit. What I think you wanted to say was: "Something is said to "exist" if the currently accepted scientific theory has to suppose its causal influence in order for it to be coherent"

That's an instrumentalist position. I tend to gravitate towards that myself. Risky but doable. You already answered the main objection too. The only problem is that it is a contextual definition, which means existence is defined for a specific culture at a certain time, and as such you end up saying stuff like "X exists for Y but X doesn't exist for Z". Not the most dramatic thing but hey.
>>
As stated before, they exist in the same way Winnie the Pooh exists.
>>
File: 1459600798319.png (763 KB, 1312x1014) Image search: [Google]
1459600798319.png
763 KB, 1312x1014
>>1318002
>>
>>1317990
>That's easy. Causality works because matter reacts with other matter and energy in the universe.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. And HOW exactly do they "react" without conceiving them to be in a relation to one another? Doesn't convince me. We do define the laws of physics in terms of relations nowadays. Afaik.
>>
>>1318002

And how does he exist?
>>
>>1317815
If its reductionist, its idiotic.
>>
>>1317886
But biochemicals have no meaning on their own.
Your neurons are not relations themselves, but they house relations as a substrate of a sign.
All reality is inherently symbolic.
>>
File: 1450512869003.jpg (82 KB, 602x635) Image search: [Google]
1450512869003.jpg
82 KB, 602x635
>>1318016

Matter doesn't need to create the concept of relationships in order to react with other matter and energy.

It behaves that way because certain atomical structures interact with other particular atomical strutures and involve energy in the process.

When intelligence sees it, it makes itself understand what happens by creating the concept of a relationships.

I realize this might be difficult to conceive because humans have a hard time disassociating their thought process with the universe because that is how we deal with what we observe.

So the best I can suggest is to stop anthropomorphizing non-intelligence and make the assumption that what we perceive and observe is not required for matter and energy to interact with each other.
>>
>>1317745
His statement applies to literally every possible definition of "relation" so he doesn't even need to bother defining it.
>>
>>1318025
>>1318033

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS.

> All reality is inherently symbolic.

Big words. Did too much formal logic to still believe that.
>>
>>1318044

Don't patronize me. I am a philosophy student specialized in contemporary epistemology. Trust me, I have seen some shit. And it is not a distinction between the scientific worldview and the naïve worldview that is about to throw me off.

What I don't like about your position is that you confuse metaphysical arguments about the nature of the universe for linguistic arguments. I am not talking about how one "defines" or even "understands" relations. I am talking about the very possibility of understanding the laws of physics as non-relational. I.E, provided the laws of physics are about objects that have an existence (Which IS your position) how can one understand them in a non-relational way. Here is a cookie: You can say to solve the issue that the laws of physics don't actually deal with objects but with ONE object. As such it may only have monal properties.

Now if you decide to defend the idea according to which the laws of physics are radically not understandable for our cognition, meaning there is NO POSSIBLE LINK between our worldview and the way the world works, fine, but then you shoot down your own argument by admitting you are talking out of your ass.

Also anthropomorphizing stuff is what we do! Heck yeah.
>>
> metaphysical
> means not material
I guess being a retard is some sort of metaphysical position too.
>>
Well, It's been a pleasure but I really need to finish my paper. Didn't expect I'd get a metaphysical discussion out of a massive troll but hey! Surprises!
>>
>>1318094

Means "beyond matter" you asswipe, and it is NOT used as an adjective. Kids these days.
>>
>>1318098
When you say "Metaphysical property" you say "Property that is being studied by the field interested in what is beyond matter". Not directly "Non material" and CERTAINLY not "Non existing"
>>
>>1317799
>Doesn't seem to know what metaphysical means
Beat it, Kant.
>>
>>1318098
> "beyond matter"
It is beyond physics and there are non material things in physics i.e. time, energy, forces, laws.
>>
>>1317741
>material is not metaphysical
>substance is not metaphysical

What the fuck are you talking about.
>>
>>1318106

True, true, I fucked up. It is indeed strictly "Beyond what was understood by Aristotle as belonging to the realm of physics."

And since I admitedly don't precisely know my Aristotelician physics I'll admit I was, in fact, an asswipe as well.
>>
>>1318114
When I say "substance", of course I meant it is the modernist, Hobbesian conception.
>>
>>1318106
By "material" I mean it in the modernist sense, as in "materialist".
>>
File: 1362015387749.jpg (48 KB, 402x604) Image search: [Google]
1362015387749.jpg
48 KB, 402x604
>>1317872
>If it can't be approached empirically, it doesn't exist.

Right so, politics, philosophy, the scientific method, economics, love, hatred doesn't exist then, gotcha.

>Positivists
>>
>>1318129
He didn't say scientifically, he said empirically. All of those are approachable empirically.
>>
>>1318123
All essences in language are objects in our ontology and thus metaphysical. You seriously don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>1318130
And there is no reason why the metaphysical can't be detected empirically, unless you use Kant's definition.
>>
>>1318133
Ontos and substance are synonymous in Hobbesian epistemology, even though the latter is a nerely translation of the former in Christian theology.
>>
>>1318130
>All of those are approachable empirically.

Really? How so?

Explain to all of us how you empirically prove the scientific method.
>>
>>1318142
*aren't synonymous
>>
>>1318143
Where was the word "prove" used?
>>
>>1318145
Given that you're arguing semantics, instead of answering my question, I'm going to assume you don't have an answer.
>>
>>1318143

Huhu, now that is straight up bullying!

And Constantine: You'll have a hard time convincing him that your ontology is not metaphysical.
>>
Constantine, you like Hegel? I'm a little surprised.
>>
>>1318157
If by "like", you mean "agree with", I don't like him at all. If by 'like' you mean 'respect", then I like him very much.
>>
>>1318145

He cannot expect you to "prove" but, if it is "approachable" as you said you do have to be able to at least give him something to work with. Can you confirm a scientific theory? Or love? This may be an option. Can you define love in terms of empirically observable criteria? Also a maybe, even though it becomes shit hard for the scientific theory.

Another option is just to take a dump on the whole thing by just saying "Nah, these don't actually exist" and walk away like a boss.
>>
>>1318152
The answer is that the scientific method was itself gradually developed empirically, through observation and testing. No, it does not prove that the scientific method is true, but that was never the claim. And people do approach the scientific method even today, by using it and testing to see what happens.
>>
>>1318088

>radically not understandable for our cognition

I'm not sure where you came to that conclusion from my arguments.

I'm not arguing that what energy and matter does is not able to be codified in mental constructs or that we cannot conceive of them.

Quite the opposite. I was arguing that relationships exist as a mental concept and that matter and energy do the things they do to each other simply because its how the atoms interlock with each other to form molecules and release or consume energy.

Matter does not preconceive how it will react in a relationship. It simply reacts when conditions meet certain criteria.

We see these relationships as an observer that is a mental construct.
>>
>>1318130
metaphysics is also approached empirically, i just can't pinpoint which particular sense organ cognizes metephysical truths. unless maybe you consider thought a sense organ
>>
File: 5184976413_09f423ce8d.jpg (54 KB, 500x412) Image search: [Google]
5184976413_09f423ce8d.jpg
54 KB, 500x412
>>1318172
>rationalism a kind of empiricism
>>
>>1318195
it's no more radical an idea than gregory palamas' idea of the direct vision of god

that's basically plato, and many other ancient thinkers. rationa thought cognizes truths
>>
>>1318245
That's not really the framework being used here for empiricism, which comes from the Enlightenment. Yes, Orthodox theology affirms experience God directly through spiritual sense, but that epistemology is an anathema to Western philosophy since the seeds Scholasticism (which mean must remember, ultimately came from Muslim thinkers pushing for a deist version of Islam) sprouted..
>>
>>1318046
>no definitions
Do you even philosophy?
>>
>>1318255
I didn't know scholastics were opposed to it. I guess that makes sense. I wasn't using empirical in that kind of technical sense, but in the literal sense of "relating to direct experience".

Can you elaborate on how scholastics treat this particular question? Are you saying Aquinas doesn't believe in this "direct vision"?
>>
>>1318256
I said that he didn't need to because it applied to just about every definition of relation you could think of. I can't think of any senses that that word is generally used that it wouldn't apply. Can you?
>>
>>1318256
All demarcations and interactions
>>
>>1318266
No, he surely didn't. He only considered God approachable through faith and reason.
>>
>>1318273
And relevancy, I might add.
>>
>>1318275
So what was the point of life as far as he is concerned if it's not deification? Do good stuff and get your reward?
>>
>>1318293
Latin theology is very juridical. Penance and punishment are seen as synonymous, hence why Purgatory was so logical for them.

However, strictly speaking, he considers *contemplating* God to be the point of life, in like with Augustine who got it from Plato.
>>
>>1317830
What are you speaking about when you speak of "energy"? Energy must have some ontology. The very question is metaphysical
>>
>>1318304
Augustine was also influenced by Plotinus, so wouldn't he have believed in some kind of "union"?
>>
>>1318306
In a sense, I mean, that is after all what Communion is all about. He also believing in emulating God. But as far as something so drastic as deification goes, he didn't think like that.
>>
>>1318305
Depends on the exact context. Thermal energy is not identical to gravitational potential energy. None of them are themselves substances though.
>>
>>1318354
The internal energy of a system may very well be a substance.
>>
>>1318305

Yes, but ontology is a mental construct. Energy doesn't care how you classify it. It does its thing regardless.
>>
>>1318372
Could you elaborate?
>>
>>1318375
Ontology is the exact opposite of a mental construct. The ontology of something is its being. Its ontology is how it is.

>>1318377
You said thermal energy isn't a substance. Thermal energy is the internal energy of a system as a result of its temperature. The internal energy of a system is intrinsic to that system and is contained within it. I'm not saying that it is a substance, but I would say it's not at all apparent that it isn't. Our working definition of this type of energy makes it quite clear that it is an intrinsic property. It is something in need of an ontology.
>>
>>1318391
Motion is not a substance.
>>
>>1318391

The ontology we label things is a mental construct. Atoms are how they are regardless of how it is.

Even if we agree that ontology is not a mental construct, then its still material and therefore provable or falsifiable or however you want to say it.
>>
>>1318400
Thermal energy is not motion
>>
>>1318406
Unless I'm misremembering, thermal energy is stored in the vibration (motion) of the bonds within a molecule, and with gases it is also the non-macroscopic kinetic energy of the particles.
>>
>>1318405
>Atoms are how they are regardless of how it is.

And its ontology would reflect this

>Even if we agree that ontology is not a mental construct, then its still material and therefore provable or falsifiable or however you want to say it.

That does not follow. Something's ontology may simply be that it is not something that has any being. or exists. If it does exist, it does not necessarily have to be material either.

>>1318423
Stored is the key word. It is not the motion itself, but produced by the motion.
>>
>>1318431
>Stored is the key word. It is not the motion itself, but produced by the motion.
So what is producing the motion?
>>
>>1318437
Depends. Particles in the environment often bump into each other, forces act upon them and so on. This motion is what constitutes its kinetic energy, internal energy, etc. What the energy is remains a question
>>
>>1318405
Ontology is present in the nature of the thing. The thing labels itself by right of its properties. Things you draw from. Not things you use to draw on top of.
>>
>>1318447
>bump into each other, forces act upon them and so on.
Are those substances?
>>
>>1317886
These chemicals don't so much make up the relation itself, but the actions on the part of the person. At best you can describe the actions of the individual components but not so much the thing itself. There is no intrinsic, empirical "relation", that can be noted and falsified.
>>
>>1318462
Another metaphysical question. And the reason why it's metaphysical is not necessarily because those things aren't material (they may very well be), but because the formalism of field theories have nothing to say about whether they actually exist and what their exact nature may be. Physics itself does not concern itself with that question. Maybe they are substances, maybe they aren't. I could just as easily take an instrumentalist view as a realist view.
>>
>>1318471
>Physics itself does not concern itself with that question.
Are you saying whether or not they are substances has no implications for their behaviour, in any context that could theoretically be tested?
>>
>>1318482
It does not. A physicist could say something like "an electric field here has an intensity of 100 dynes per stacoulomb" and that statement would not have to be interpreted literally. Such a statement could be ascertained as a convenient way to describe the result of some calculation. Whether fields actually exist or not is an interpretive matter, and therefore metaphysical. No fields have ever actually been observed.
>>
>>1318494
So if "substance" has no implications on the behaviour of a potential subject, why have the word? What information does it convey?
>>
>>1318512
It conveys the essence of some subject. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Whether or not something is a subject obviously has implications for its nature/ontology, but these matters do not play a role in the formulation of physical theories as practiced today. It is a metaphysical term, useful for defining the contours of any such philosophical question. I would consider the question of whether or not energy and fields have substance as a metaphysical question for this reason.
>>
>>1318531
>>1318512

>Whether or not something is a subject

meant to say substance. sorry
>>
>>1318531
>obviously has implications for its nature/ontology,
Are the implications testable?
>>
>>1318552
In principle? I would imagine there is a way of determining whether or not scientific realism is a valid way of understanding reality as it truly is. Practically speaking? I don't know. Not by the current standards of physics, anyway.
>>
>>1318568
>I would imagine there is a way of determining whether or not scientific realism is a valid way of understanding reality as it truly is.
That isn't what I asked. I asked if the implications of the classification of "substance" has for the behaviour of a subject (as defined by the nature of the subject and some protocol) are testable.
>>
>>1318596
Well, one of those implications would have to be that the subject actually exists. In which case we would have to determine whether or not realism or instrumentalism is the most valid way of approaching the account of the world as described by science. What we're discussing are entities postulated by physics, namely, energy/particles/fields. Is the existence of energy and fields testable? At the moment, no. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. Could we perhaps find some way of testing it? Maybe.
>>
>>1318628
>one of those implications would have to be that the subject actually exists.
So yes, the designation of something as a substance does have implications for its behaviour.
>Is the existence of energy and fields testable? At the moment, no. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. Could we perhaps find some way of testing it? Maybe.
So yes, in theory such implications are testable.

So the question of whether or not energy is a substance is a valid question for physics to explore. It fulfills the requirements.
>>
>>1318644
Such implications MIGHT be testable. It's an open matter. The only people concerned with these questions are philosophers of physics. It can only be a question for physics if physicists actually care about ontology, and you'll find that the majority do not.The very question of whether or not the substance exists is an ontological question.
>>
>>1318677
>Such implications MIGHT be testable.
Whether or not they are practically testable doesn't really matter. There are many things that are not currently testable, and may never actually be testable at least with our technology. But as long as they produce an effect that is theoretically testable, it's valid within the domain of physics. Whether or not any physicists actually care also doesn't matter to whether or not it is valid to the field.
>>
>>1318702
I agree. But no such effects have been produced by any of the substances under discussion, and so they remain a philosophical matter. There's room for input from both physicists and philosophers, especially when the issue pertains to both fields. Interpreting the true meaning of an "effect", whatever that may end up being, must be tackled on a case by case basis. For instance, empirically verified statistical Bell correlations between entangled particles have produced a host of interpretations that would be considered metaphysical by any standard. Physical tests, especially when concerned with the fundamental problems we're talking about, may always lead us to metaphysical conclusions about the constitution of the world. And that's okay.
>>
>>1318726
As long as everyone stays in their lane, they can do whatever. Good fences make for good neighbours.
>>
>>1318160
Why do you respect hegel? isnt his work directly opposed to your beliefs and faith?
Thread replies: 118
Thread images: 9

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.