1 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Space and time
You can derive libertarian (but bounded) freewill from platonism. You should look into it.
I'm not a platonist per se but I am a Kantian. Kant drew from Plato and Aristotle
I have a hard time taking folks seriously that ignore the first hard problem as any discussion about consciouness and thus freewill must be derivable from your answer.
Perhaps I don't quite understand this, but based on what I believe you are calling the first hard problem to be something vs nothing, I don't see that being a problem. It wasn't a problem for Parmenides and based on what I know about Plato, he took Parmenides seriously. Parmenides considered non being a problem a being being the only rational ontological existence. That makes separation nonsensical in the ontological sense. However just because something is nonsensical in the ontological sense doesn't necessarily make it nonsensical in the epistemic sense.
Are you an idealist?
Technically Kant tried to distance himself from what he called the *dogmatic idealist*, so in that sense you could call me a transcendental idealist in that I don't accept the things that I cannot prove. I am what some might call a skeptic, but I'm not at all skeptical about the law of noncontraction. If that makes me a rationalist then I accept that label as a badge of honor. However I would argue Kant himself was an empiricist.
The short answer is yes, I'm an idealist because materialism doesn't stand up in today's science.
edit:
realism/physicalism/materialism in the Matter camp
because of quantum mechanics, local realism is untenable, scientifically speaking.
Comment by URAPhallicy at 13/09/2024 at 06:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
because of quantum mechanics, local realism is untenable, scientifically speaking.
Yes. Which leaves 3 possibilities:
1. Existence in non local but real
2. Existence is not real but local
3. Some form of super deterministism as yet undefined.
I'm in the local but not real camp. QBism is an attempt at that. E: which is consistent with some "platonic" answers to the first hard problem.
Comment by URAPhallicy at 13/09/2024 at 06:49 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I always give my philosopher friends shade for dropping too many isms and dead people's names. I prefer plain speech.
I don't think we are far off from one another though. I think you are just overlooking an answer that can explain a somewhat idealistic position and possibly be the nail in the coffin for materialism.
I agree with you that materialism is dead but no one has bothered to bury it.