bro... you ask for criticism while writing stuff like
"Of course, our beliefs aren’t directed at the world but at thoughts or “propositions,” those non-spatial, non-causal, non-temporal entities whose existence is self-evident, as I’ve discussed here."
of course?? nothing here is 'self-evident' to me. certain (meta)philosophical disagreements can't be remedied via criticism, eg. when someone asserts something unintelligible to be self-evident. this is cult-level communication, just a bunch of thought-terminating magic. in fact, to me and many others, it's best described as unintelligible gibberish slop that 'thoughts' (something 'we' have, but are separate) are non-spatial, non-causal, non-temporal entities.
famously, all that these kinds of views have going for them is a bunch of academic philosophers asserting that these are unanalyzable, simple, irreducible, self-evident... this is just an impasse. building out some goofy system based on such magical assertions is a closed loop onanism.
Beliefs are directed at thoughts/concepts/ideas/propositions (I'm indifferent for what you call them), but let me know where you disagree. Feel free to check out the SEP on "concepts" to understand what I'm referring to first: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
bro... you ask for criticism while writing stuff like
"Of course, our beliefs aren’t directed at the world but at thoughts or “propositions,” those non-spatial, non-causal, non-temporal entities whose existence is self-evident, as I’ve discussed here."
of course?? nothing here is 'self-evident' to me. certain (meta)philosophical disagreements can't be remedied via criticism, eg. when someone asserts something unintelligible to be self-evident. this is cult-level communication, just a bunch of thought-terminating magic. in fact, to me and many others, it's best described as unintelligible gibberish slop that 'thoughts' (something 'we' have, but are separate) are non-spatial, non-causal, non-temporal entities.
famously, all that these kinds of views have going for them is a bunch of academic philosophers asserting that these are unanalyzable, simple, irreducible, self-evident... this is just an impasse. building out some goofy system based on such magical assertions is a closed loop onanism.
stop. get some help.
Beliefs are directed at thoughts/concepts/ideas/propositions (I'm indifferent for what you call them), but let me know where you disagree. Feel free to check out the SEP on "concepts" to understand what I'm referring to first: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
are 'thinker' and 'thought/concept/idea/proposition' ontically separate existents?
Yes
What are your disagreements? Happy to answer questions.
I tried.