That will have to be subject to negotiation, but it certainly isn’t going to include Parmenides.
This is probably as old as Permenides. Definitely older than Decartes
OK. Something is getting lost in translation here. The fact that an idea is old doesn’t automatically make it wrong, and I never said it did. Starting again from first principles doesn’t imply that you can’t retrace certain steps already taken by others. In other words “Consciousness exists” works just as well now as “I think therefore I am” worked for Descartes. The point is that, from our perspective here and now, it still works.
I could not disagree more. The metacrisis is the direct result of our unwillingness to accept science, reason and realism. And if the lack of these things is the cause of the problem, then they have to be part of the solution.
Rule number 1 of 2R has to be get the diagnosis right.
That consciousness exists – is real – is indeed an essential ontological claim. That it follows that existence and consciousness are the same thing is not.
“Materialism is false” is a lot easier to demonstrate than “Idealism is true”.
I’m not sure - he covered a vast array of topics and most of his thoughts were not something one can agree or disagree with. Cosmic hierarchies or his classifications are not something I can relate to intuitively, but I found his ideas interesting.
