Posted: Nov 21, 2020 11:47 pm
I'm not sure what you're asking about that article, but I believe we share a certain impression of being nonplussed with it.
To me, he says essentially nothing with a lot of words. Nothing in terms of argumentation would be lost if it was edited down to literally just this section:
Which poses a rhetorical question which presumes that that "felt concreteness" is something real. Of course, this would not be a premise that any materialist would subscribe to, so it advances the debate nowhere.
To me, he says essentially nothing with a lot of words. Nothing in terms of argumentation would be lost if it was edited down to literally just this section:
at bottom, what we call “matter” becomes pure abstraction, a phantasm. How can the felt concreteness and solidity of the perceived world evaporate out of existence when we look closely at matter?
Which poses a rhetorical question which presumes that that "felt concreteness" is something real. Of course, this would not be a premise that any materialist would subscribe to, so it advances the debate nowhere.