tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post7632284008379741282..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: Reason and the First Person -- independence and GodBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-71339237124044032022010-12-06T09:55:03.797-08:002010-12-06T09:55:03.797-08:00Meta: {{It seems to me you are trying to go around...Meta: {{It seems to me you are trying to go around being and straight to being itself.}}<br /><br />Well, I can't exactly be going around "being" per se and also straight to "being itself", since "being itself" is still "being". {g}<br /><br />But if you mean that I appear to be going around derivative existence and straight to independent existence, myJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-23197162875343128702010-12-06T09:44:53.657-08:002010-12-06T09:44:53.657-08:00Ana,
Sort of. {g} Have you read the Section One c...Ana,<br /><br />Sort of. {g} Have you read the Section One chapter I linked to?<br /><br />The standard complaint that you referred to against infinite regression, only works if causation always requires something other than self-causation. If positive aseity hasn't been excluded yet however (and to say the least I haven't excluded positive aseity yet in this argument--in fact I'm Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-62285194699238146672010-12-06T04:15:00.566-08:002010-12-06T04:15:00.566-08:00Ana, good point about reality.
I am not sure how ...Ana, good point about reality.<br /><br />I am not sure how Jason would deal with that, but in general it's empirical things, things given in sense data, which tend to be part of the process of "natural world" that are caused. Yet that may be redundant. Like saying "only things with causes are caused."<br /><br />It does there is a logic diving reality into N and SN. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-2443505526228195772010-12-06T04:12:15.627-08:002010-12-06T04:12:15.627-08:00Jason, this is a brilliant argument, but extremely...Jason, this is a brilliant argument, but extremely complex. It really needs to be a book.<br /><br />I also think in the long urn you are gonna have to deal with Heidegger and Tillich. <br /><br />It seems to me you are trying to go around being and straight to being itself. That's going to be impossible. But that may just be that I have being on the brain.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-37041136228582830652010-12-03T23:13:22.026-08:002010-12-03T23:13:22.026-08:00...the distinctive claim 'reality is an infini...<i>...the distinctive claim 'reality is an infinite regression' could itself be effectively reductively explained as being something which is not really an infinite regress.</i><br /><br />I am little confused as to the part where you said "as being something which is not really and infinite regress." Just need a little clarification as to what you mean.<br /><br />How I put itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com