From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15997 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Saturday, May 3 2025 Volume 14 : Number 15997 Today's Subjects: ----------------- How to get 12 days of FREE meals ["My Patriot Supply" Subject: How to get 12 days of FREE meals How to get 12 days of FREE meals http://brainresilience.ru.com/gEcnlD5TiVybo7vY4-Ua3tFH_oxc7iO7UIDd6DxUTf7xadAgMA http://brainresilience.ru.com/zltozccb2J5LBu7t6Tke1gzZCo15dRK8IYQ35Rb9mnju_dTp0w een 600 and 200 BCE, the Vaisheshika school of Hindu philosophy, founded by the ancient Indian philosopher Kanada, accepted perception and inference as the only two reliable sources of knowledge. This is enumerated in his work Vai?e?ika S?tra. The Charvaka school held similar beliefs, asserting that perception is the only reliable source of knowledge while inference obtains knowledge with uncertainty. The earliest Western proto-empiricists were the empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, founded in 330 BCE. Its members rejected the doctrines of the dogmatic school, preferring to rely on the observation of phantasiai (i.e., phenomena, the appearances). The Empiric school was closely allied with the Pyrrhonist school of philosophy, which made the philosophical case for their proto-empiricism. The notion of tabula rasa ("clean slate" or "blank tablet") connotes a view of the mind as an originally blank or empty recorder (Locke used the words "white paper") on which experience leaves marks. This denies that humans have innate ideas. The notion dates back to Aristotle, c.?350 BC: What the mind (nous) thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet (grammateion) which bears no actual writing (grammenon); this is just what happens in the case of the mind. (Aristotle, On the Soul, 3.4.430a1). Aristotle's explanation of how this was possible was not strictly empiricist in a modern sense, but rather based on his theory of potentiality and actuality, and experience of se ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 07:01:46 -0500 From: "Hudson" Subject: Carry a 1-Year water supply in your pocket?? Carry a 1-Year water supply in your pocket?? http://24burns.ru.com/6b2_J2zCuu93qIZCAuuo1nMKHiEUj0K4413mRtkIw0vGGW9X http://24burns.ru.com/bbs9E68tDGxt47vcbvtpqRAdJASwhqeSrSGlR0be_MYmYigX ry connection between one's conviction that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X. Conversely, the motivational externalist (or moral externalist) claims that there is no necessary internal connection between moral convictions and moral motives. That is, there is no necessary connection between the conviction that X is wrong and the motivational drive not to do X. (The use of these terms has roots in W.D. Falk's (1947) paper "'Ought' and Motivation"). These views in moral psychology have various implications. In particular, if motivational internalism is true, then amorality is unintelligible (and metaphysically impossible). An amoralist is not simply someone who is immoral, rather it is someone who knows what the moral things to do are, yet is not motivated to do them. Such an agent is unintelligible to the motivational internalist, because moral judgments about the right thing to do have built into them corresponding motivations to do those things that are judged by the agent to be the moral things to do. On the other hand, an amoralist is entirely intelligible to the motivational externalist, because the motivational externalist thinks that moral judgm ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15997 ***********************************************