Papist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I believe this is a Coke can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamb Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Fascinating observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You believe incorrectly. What you've posted in an image of a Coke can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamb Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Luigi said: You believe incorrectly. What you've posted in an image of a Coke can. Due to the epistemological doctrine of intentionality, the image of a coke can will direct the mind to the coke can itself. Any questions on the matter may be directed to St. Thomas Aquinas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Lamb said: Due to the epistemological doctrine of intentionality, the image of a coke can will direct the mind to the coke can itself. Any questions on the matter may be directed to St. Thomas Aquinas. But your mind cannot OPEN the Coke can nor pour any Coke OUT of it. So what good is your epistemological doctrine of intentionality now, LIttle Ms. Thinks-She-Can-Shut-Me-Up-With-Big-Words-And-References-To-Theologians? And for that matter, what good is your mind if it can only IMAGINE drinking Coke? (I guess I told YOU!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 6 hours ago, Luigi said: So what good is your epistemological doctrine of intentionality now, LIttle Ms. Thinks-She-Can-Shut-Me-Up-With-Big-Words-And-References-To-Theologians? Her mind, as you identify, can open the coke neither in actuality nor in potentiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamb Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 9 hours ago, Luigi said: But your mind cannot OPEN the Coke can nor pour any Coke OUT of it. So what good is your epistemological doctrine of intentionality now, LIttle Ms. Thinks-She-Can-Shut-Me-Up-With-Big-Words-And-References-To-Theologians? And for that matter, what good is your mind if it can only IMAGINE drinking Coke? (I guess I told YOU!) Firstly, I did not say that knowing a coke can via the image is useful. Secondly, the knowledge of a coke can does actually perfect the mind a tiny bit, since it actualizes the potentiality of knowing a coke can. Thirdly, if you're Berkeley, there are only two things: minds and sensible things, except that sensible things are nothing more than ideas; hence, with your mind, you can indeed open and pour out the idea of a coke. Pssst... Don't tell anyone, but... I'm trying to boost my ego after getting a less-than-hope-for grade in epistemology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 To quote Allen Toussaint (the late great New Orleans song writer), "Yes we can can, Why can't we, If we wanna, Yes we can can." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted February 4, 2017 Author Share Posted February 4, 2017 On 2/1/2017 at 7:46 PM, Luigi said: You believe incorrectly. What you've posted in an image of a Coke can. The image of the Coke can implies its reality. Therefore, it is acceptable in our culture to believe in its reality if it serves my thinking. Hence, it is a Coke can. Now off with you. You anti-Coker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 8:39 PM, Lamb said: the knowledge of a coke can does actually perfect the mind a tiny bit, since it actualizes the potentiality of knowing a coke can, for those who have the aforementioned potentiality. ftfy ...... a qualification, just in case we have a special visitor: potentiality does not exist in Actus purus. psst.. don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to boost my ego as an uneducated 16 year old in a board full of realist hylomorphist geeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamb Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Jack4 said: ftfy ...... a qualification, just in case we have a special visitor: potentiality does not exist in Actus purus. psst.. don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to boost my ego as an uneducated 16 year old in a board full of realist hylomorphist geeks. In the midst of my oh-so-important 20-year-old-ness, I had forgotten that 16 year olds are creatures capable of rationality. Please forgive me!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximilianus Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 (edited) what? I think this should be moved to the debate table. Edited February 4, 2017 by Maximilianus to edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 what's wrong with you people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, MIKolbe said: what's wrong with you people? Pshaw. Kids these days. Couldn't empty the contents of a bed pan without debating your nutritional intake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now