It's a trivial matter: If you have a finite set of concepts and wish to define *each one* of them using other concepts, then it's impossible to avoid circularity.
Consider the simple case of there being only three concepts A, B, and C. Suppose you define A using B. And then you define B using...
I didn't say that 10-year olds can define what consciousness is, but that they understand what "consciousness" means. We know this by observing that they use the word in a meaningful way. Incidentally that's a common state of affairs. For example all people with normal eyesight understand what...
All normal conscious people cannot help but understand what "consciousness" means. Perhaps you refer to the fact that materialists (or so-called "scientifically-minded" people) have great trouble fitting consciousness in their worldview. Indeed there is nothing in all the books of physics...
Socrates has not written anything, so it can´t be the case that you´ve read him. And in any case a book by a great philosopher is probably not a good choice for an introductory book. As for thinking you are stupid, there is a great distance between stupidity and ignorance.
Consciousness is not a Greek concept, but is universal and universally understood. Thus even small children understand what consciousness is. So, for example, any normal 10-year old will understand the fundamental difference between the events “I hit my drums and they make a lot of noise” and “I...
Ah, if you are a conscious person you can't help but know what the self is: it is what you mean when you say "I". If you are not, then you can't possibly understand it.
Anyway, nice talking to you.
On theism the self is spiritual.
On naturalism it depends. Those who believe in materialism would certainly say that the self is physical. Or perhaps that it is an illusion. On naturalism many every-day concepts become rather vague.
On theism the self is a being not a phenomenon.
Even on naturalism it is wrong to think of the self as a phenomenon. Phenomena are impressions of conscious experience (look it up in the dictionary). Thus in a physical reality without conscious beings around (say in our universe millions of...
God is not a physical thing and thus naturally enough God is not visible to us in the way largish physical objects are. Nor is God visible in the metaphorical sense physical particles, forces, etc, are. On the other hand I think that the proposition “God is invisible” is grossly misleading. I...
Speaking of “gods” outside of the context of mythology or of sociology is misleading. Even saying “God exists” is misleading, since it suggests that among all other things that exist, one more, namely God, also exists. That’s not theism’s claim at all.
We all agree that many things exist. For...