Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/now
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Angelika Kollin  pfp
Angelika Kollin
@angelikakollin
"The consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two, really one, seek unity and that is love." Nisargadatta Maharaj Portrait of Dominique 2019 / South Africa
17 replies
3 recasts
19 reactions

The Philosopher pfp
The Philosopher
@thephilosopher.eth
So interesting this connection between unity and love. James Rachel's, if I am not mistaken, is an interesting Philosopher who has a very deep view of love. When u really look to someone, you love this person. This seems to presuppose that we don't love when we do not really see the person. Some things to think about...
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Angelika Kollin  pfp
Angelika Kollin
@angelikakollin
Interesting view. I have never heard of James Rachel… ☺️
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

The Philosopher pfp
The Philosopher
@thephilosopher.eth
Oh, it is not James Rachels (James Rachels is from ethics mainly.). I said it wrong. It is William James. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James let me see if I find the text about love.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Angelika Kollin  pfp
Angelika Kollin
@angelikakollin
I see…. Still not familiar. Will take a look and read few short excerpts
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

The Philosopher pfp
The Philosopher
@thephilosopher.eth
Look what I found! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

The Philosopher pfp
The Philosopher
@thephilosopher.eth
He is a very interesting Philosopher. He defended against William Clifford that we are epistelically allowed, in certain circumstances, to believe in what we prefer, when we have no evidence. He establishes conditions like: no definite solution can be achieved, the question is alive, and you lose something or gain something if u believe or don't believe. It is more precise than my words, but just to give u an idea. Clifford thinks, differently, that we can never believe unless we have evidence. In fact, they are deeply discussing the epistemic acceptability of faith.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction