HI /lit/ PLEASE HELP ME

I'll prove they exist to you if you can prove, to me, that you aren't a figment of my imagination.

>>8663697
Your imagination doesn't have the power to generate systems and substances when it has no knowledge of their compositions and how they work.

>>8663696
Try New Essentialism by David S Oderberg

>>8663705
That would make sense if it weren't obvious from the existence of dreams that there is more going on in my imagination than I'm aware of. Also, I have met schizophrenics, or victims of some similar affliction, who apparently generated very complete systems in their imaginations and then reacted to them as if they had imperfect knowledge. They did not seem to be aware of their own infirmity. Were I delusional, I would not expect to be aware of that.

File: 31bw8ERtD2L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (14KB, 333x499px)

14KB, 333x499px

>>8663706
I assume you mean pic related. Have you read it? If so was it good?

>>8663709
I'm reading it now. It's very good. He's the leading aristotelian of today. He's the major figure in the revival of universals.

>>8663707
Perhaps their minds generated 'systems' on the face of it, but the mechanics of these systems and the laws governing them would be nonexistent. Their minds may have generated another human in their imagination, but it did not generate the exact mechanics of the organism, as it does not possess the knowledge of how it works (e.g. organs, cells etc.).

>>8663713
Do you think the Aristotelian account of metphysics is largely unavoidable?

>>8663714
I don't possess a perfect knowledge of how I work, where all my own organs and cells are, let alone people I share physical space with. You are words on a screen. It is not difficult to simulate those.

>>8663716
No, modern philosophy was born with rejection of Aristotelian philosophy, but I think it's regardless the best account of metaphysics, ethics, politics and categories.

>>8663720
My point kind of was that if I am merely a figment of your imagination - as well as the rest of the material universe, it would presuppose your 'imagination' has perfect knowledge of the systems governing the material universe by virtue of the fact these even exist in such a complex way in this 'imagination'. We know for a fact that this is not the case.

>>8663731
I didn't ask you to prove the reality of the material universe. I asked you to prove the reality of the material you.

And I wouldn't need a perfect knowledge of material systems, just one good enough to fool me, and I and every other human are objectively speaking very gullible.

>>8663729
If it is the best account of your aforementioned categories, then why is it not more universally embraced? Would you say it is because the consequences of accepting such a system are too inconvenient for modern society?

>>8663736
>If it is the best account of your aforementioned categories, then why is it not more universally embraced?
Fashion. Philosophy is incredibly based on it, it grown out of fashion, now it's back in. It wasn't a part of the discourse at all 70 years ago, now it has a number of very prominent authors to its name.
>Would you say it is because the consequences of accepting such a system are too inconvenient for modern society?
Yes, largely so. Aristotelian philosophy doesn't mix well with liberalism.

>>8663734
>I asked you to prove the reality of the material you
Yeah I cant do that. Let me ask you this: Do you reject universals and objective forms on the basis of not knowing if I (along with everything else) am a figment of your imagination or not?

>>8663744
Oh I accept universals and objective forms on the basis of faith, I was just playin' a game wiv you gov.

>>8663741
>Aristotelian philosophy doesn't mix well with liberalism
How so?

>>8663741
I have heard people like Edward Feser say that the rejection of universals and objective forms is the root of all moral decay in society. Would you say the same? Do you think a large resurgence in Aristotelian concepts would be necessary to rejuvinate society?

>>8663747
>Oh I accept universals and objective forms on the basis of faith
Can you tell me why you choose to have faith that they exist?

>>8663750
Basic liberal axiom is that society ought to enable everyone to pursue his or her own goods.
Aristotelian axiom is that society ought to be established for the pursuit of virtue.

Whose Justice? Which Rationally? by Alasdair MacIntyre talks at length about it.

>>8663752
Aristotelian school is a philosophy, I think it has far more to do with religious beliefs.
Philosophy doesn't live in a society in the same way it does in academic circles, so I would say that acceptance of it would help, but integration in larger social spheres is not based on intellectual argumentation and conscious acceptance.

>>8663752
>Can you tell me why you choose to have faith that they exist?
On the one hand, I want them to. I really hope they do exist and I'm not on Evil Demon's Wild Ride. There's realistically no way to know.

On the other hand, I feel like they do exist. It makes sense on an intuitive level. I know there have been times my intuition's been wrong, but this doesn't feel like one of them. There's no special reason to distrust this level of intuition, and I'd much rather believe it than not ceteris paribus.

It also improves my life to believe it, although that's pretty far down on my reasons to believe.

>>8663765
>It also improves my life to believe it
Why? Wouldn't one say that the consequences of believing are much more morally and ethically restrictive than not believing? Or is that something you need and want?

>>8663774
An astronaut drifting alone in space is free of constraints, but he is not free to act.

>>8663753
You realize this thread began with the question of universals v. particulars, right?

>>8663802
Yes

>>8663802
I'm not seeing your problem.

>>8663696
Lolz sorry to ask but how can you tell if op isn't answering himself for more lookers?

>>8663697
>>8663705
>>8663707

Is this where Kierkegaard would say that pure reason is insufficient?