Given that the ontological necessity of existence must be defined as essential to Being itself, how can such grounding of the epistemological function be articulated without assuming on a priori and unwarranted existential premise?
2006-06-19 09:44:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The emporer has no clothes! This question is just meaningless babble and philospohical double-speak, strung together like Christmas lights. YOU don't even know what you are asking. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. Besides, what budding philospher goes by the name of "Jelly Jiggler?"
2006-06-19 09:58:36 · answer #1 · answered by memphisroom 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure it can, or at least, I can't think of a way to do it. Existence is a general assumption that must be made before a proper debate can even be possible. Even the most theoretical of philosophers derive at least some of their arguments from the world as they experience it. Therefore, the existence of both the philosopher and the world are assumptions built into almost every theory.
You're always going to get the "are we butterflies dreaming we're men" philosophers, but no matter how polysyllabic their arguments, it still sounds like so much idiocy to me.
2006-06-19 18:46:48 · answer #2 · answered by lcraesharbor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You sound to me like a show off. I could answer your question for you, but I don't think that's what you want. You just people to think you're smart. Sad that you need random people on the internet to do that for your self-esteem.
2006-06-19 17:11:32 · answer #3 · answered by sothisislife 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I understand what you are saying then then my answer would be:
Apparently you can't. That's is why we have philosophy, God and other things that try to explain why are we here (IF we are here).
2006-06-19 16:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by caesareor 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow! I juuuuuust asked my sister this question yesterday!!
2006-06-19 17:07:06 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if ya wanna show of do it in a university forum. hopefully that will teach you and your high ego a lesson
2006-06-19 16:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by cesef1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was just asking myself the same question!
2006-06-19 16:55:00 · answer #7 · answered by leopion2001 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know...
are you suggesting that 'scientific fact' SHOULD over-rule 'theory' ???
if not, i don't get your question
2006-06-19 16:58:51 · answer #8 · answered by Cap'n Donna 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you feeling okay??
2006-06-19 18:38:45 · answer #9 · answered by guppiesgalore 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
woah woah woah woah woah!!...
What are details?!
2006-06-19 16:51:15 · answer #10 · answered by coreyzard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋