I can't do much more arguing for tonight, but the general concept is we get rid of the concept of nonexistence — Derrick Huestis

Sorry that you don't seem to be a condition to discuss the matter further. I'll leave you with something to ponder upon if you care to. What is your definition of existence?

Many of the enlightened folk love to revel in their self-perceived superiority, it is true. :vomit: — praxis

It's not about superiority/inferiority...there are, let's just say, more pressing matters like suffering & death. Have I missed anything?

There is no downside to death — boagie

If you're being tortured mercilessly, yes.

if you die quietly in your sleep it's a gift from the gods. — boagie

That's what the Thanatos and Algea do to you. It makes you lower the bar for everything, so much so that you begin to perceive curses as boons, punishments as rewards, hate as love, privation as presents, you get the idea.

what is mourned by loved ones — boagie

Don't kid yourself.

That out of the way, food for thought: Algea warns us of Thanatos and Thanatos liberates us from Algea. Our frenemy relationship with pain (Algea) and death (Thanatos) is the stuff of legends.

Also check out Tithonus, granted eternal life but not eternal youth. Imagine if you were told that you would age but live forever. Wouldn't you ask for the Grim Reaper to pay you a visit...at the appropriate time? and maybe...just maybe...we did just that, explaining why we die i.e. we willingly opted to die to escape a grim fate like Tithonus'. :chin: We forgot about the arrangement...someone jog our memories for us will ya.

hear you, hopefully I can get you to understand it as intended and then maybe it will make more sense.

I'm using the word "nonexistence" as a state of being that is permeating and all-encompassing. So, think of a "great abyss." In this great abyss all forms of existence are gone. So no space, no time, no ideas, no physical matter, no God either if you believe in that. Now, if you try to explain the properties of this abyss you begin to have problems. How big is it? Well, there's no space in it, so none. How long does it last? Well, time doesn't exist to it, so none. What ideas does it impress upon your mind? Well, none, it vanished from my mind after realizing it had no size and no time component to it, there is nothing to say here. — Derrick Huestis

"...there is nothing to say..."

Then whence God?

Pyrrho the skeptic is supposed to have walked into paths of oncoming wagons because being true to his own philosophy of global skepticism, he doubted his own senses and thoughts.

I can't be Pyrrho Pyrrho but I can at least pay homage to his good faith and sincerity and say,

1. Don't know
2. Don't know
3. Don't know

The shocking truth is I really don't know. I seem to drift back and forth between the real world and my imaginary world, the line between them have blurred to the point of me being unable to distinguish them. Go figure!

Which is wiser (i.e. less foolish (self-immiserating))? :chin:

Christian: "For Heaven's sake, save your soul from Hell!" (Suffer as Christ suffered.)

Buddhist: "Reduce suffering here and now." (What soul?) — 180 Proof

I'm not sure but it appears, from my personal experiences and those of others, that morality and hedonism don't always go hand in hand as some/most of us believe. Sometimes, to be good, one must suffer is what I mean.

I have no clue as to why that is. All I can say is goodness, on occasion, involves a whole lot of pain. :cry:

There is getting to be some repetition here which is wearing me out, but for what it's worth this thread has convinced me a different angle of approach might be better. When you say nonexistence is a concept, you're saying it is something which creates a contradiction. The whole word and every use of it creates endless contradictions. The point of this introductory statement was to show the absurdity of it, thus negate the possibility thus we must accept the concept of an infinite existence. Concepts are ultimately things, as I have previously stated, so even when you talk about things that don't exist, all you're saying is they don't exist as a material reality, but they will always exist as a concept. — Derrick Huestis

I'm a bit confused about the whole issue but here's some further analysis:

Redness exists & Non-redness exists.

Redness is a state/quality that red objects display. Non-redness is a property that (say) blue objects have.

Existence & Nonexistence.

Existence exists means simply that there's a state/quality - existence - that some objects like men, cars, stones possess.

Nonexistence exists, in similar fashion, describes the state/quality - nonexistence - of some objects like unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns.

A little bit more about, nonexistence exists. This statement doesn't amount to a contradiction because "nonexistence" refers to a quality/state and "exists" implies that quality/state is one in which some objects are in. True, no? It doesn't amount to saying a nonexistent object exists in which case it would be a contradiction.

Thanks! :up:

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face. — praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing.

I watched the video and it commits an error right from the beginning with question: Does nonexistence exist?

The presenter argues, fallaciously, that the answer to the above question can't be "yes" because that's, as per the presenter, a contradictio in terminis.

However, nonexistence is a concept and so as a concept, nonexistence does exist. How on earth are we able to talk about it otherwise?

Non-existence can't exist
— Derrick Huesits
↪T Clark

The physics here is unnecessary. The sentence above is simply not well-formed.
1d — Banno

You seem to be the right person for my question.

Ants exist: Ex(Ax) where Ax = x is an ant

Unicorns don't exist: Ax~(Ux) = ~Ex(Ux) where Ux = x is a unicorn.

How do we translate, "nothing exists" in predicate logic???

I wasn't making a case. But I'm sure someone on this forum is just waiting for a chance to not only disagree with you, but insult the fuck out of you.

Start a thread on it. :up: — frank

:smile:

Well, I can tell you this: I have thoughts which I find hard, sometimes impossible, to articulate.
— TheMadFool

I don't think that's unusual. — frank

So, does what I said about myself make/break your case?

I get the feeling you didn't read the post you responded to.

We're trying to arrive at non-linguistic thought.

If a dog uses language, then the dog won't help us with our project. — frank

Well, I can tell you this: I have thoughts which I find hard, sometimes impossible, to articulate.

I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings—the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddha's destruction. — Mullah Omar

The Taliban could be described as crazy but...not that crazy...yet.

If the dog thinks, "I shouldn't stay in the road." then it would appear that the dog is using language.

We were trying to arrive at non-linguistic thought.

As I said, Isaac's non-linguistic modeling is probably our best bet. — frank

You seem to be of the opinion that negation is limited to human-level languages. How then do you explain the dog's actions? The dog gets up on all fours and moves away from the vehicle's path (negation) , there being no indication of it wanting to do something else (affirmation). I'm just curious. Does that mean dogs have human-level language or are you wrong? I'm not sure.

Which begs the question of how we end up in this so called prison to begin with. As far as erotic asphyxiation I hope David Carradine is in a better place now. Lol. — TiredThinker

It's possible that the body isn't actually a prison; does vessel make you feel better?

See, when I mentioned this to Constance, she was like, 'Yea, Hegel.'. And I was like, to myself, 'Yea, she understands that without negation, there are no propositions because a P is the negation of a negation.'

So it's not just emotion that makes me silent here, it's that somebody on the planet understood and that's enough? — frank

:ok: I was simply pointing out what seems to be a fact - animals know what negation is. I'm not sure but doesn't animal training involve a carrot-and-stick (reward-punishment/affirmation-negation) schema?

A christian and a buddhist meet in a bar. The christian asks, "do you know who Jesus is?" "Of course, I do, " the buddhist replies, "Jesus was a bodhisattava." It's the buddhist's turn, "do you know of the Buddha?" and the christian, without batting an eyelid states, "Yes, the Buddha was a saint."

References:

1. Buddhism & Christianity

2. Barlaam and Josaphat/Bilawhar and Budhasaf

“Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.”

Gasan remarked: “That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood [is a bodhisattva].” — Wikipedia

That buddhism can accommodate Jesus and likewise if there's a place for the Buddha in christianity, are these two religions really that different in terms of...wisdom?

Stray dogs, I distinctly recall, sleeping/lounging on the road get up and move to safety when they see an oncoming vehicle. My guesstimate is that they're thinking, "do not stay in a vehicle's path. It's dangerous." Nobody tells/orders strays using a positive command to behave this way and nor do these dogs act in ways that suggest they wanted to do something instead of not wanting to do what they were doing. What say you?

Good is not a thing you are. It's a thing you do. — Kamala Khan (Marvel)

Kamala Khan's beliefs about morality seem a bit muddled. A virtuous person is something you are but then she bounces back in the second sentence. A rather interesting pair of sentences I must say.

The virtue ethicist's eternal question: How will a virtuous person act in this situation (whatever it is)?

The virtues? What are they? All I know is that the highest virtue is wisdom but wisdom is like a double-edged sword as far as I can tell - both being good and bad, pro tos kairon, can be "wise."

Enheduanna (also transliterated as Enheduana, En-hedu-ana, or variants; fl. 23rd century BC) is the earliest known poet whose name has been recorded. She was the High Priestess of the goddess Inanna and the moon god Nanna (Sīn). She lived in the Sumerian city-state of Ur. — Wikipedia

More here.

The million dollar question: How did modern literary researchers recognize Enheduanna's work as poetry? Is there some cross-cultural leitmotif to poetry that helps the careful reader identify a work as verse instead of prose?

The point of prose poetry seems to be to express thoughts and emotions as they flash through the poets mind for the first time; these when ruminated upon rationally become standard prose.
— TheMadFool

Possibly.

From the prose poetry link:
Blending the techniques of prose with the emotion and lyricism of poetry, the best prose poems uncover subconscious thought with searing originality.

I was thinking about how haikus are composed.
If they are to capture a moment in time and still must follow certain 'rules'...
I suppose it's like taking a snapshot ? It has to be almost instantaneous, or does it ?

Or is it more like - capturing a moment in the mind and then 'painting' it afterwards from memory.
A landscape artist who can't paint en plein air might use a photograph of the scene.
But that wouldn't quite have the same 'feel' to it, would it ?

I wonder if the rules become second nature - like our grammar rules, or driving a car - so that some haiku poets don't even have to remember to shift gear, they just do it automatically? — Amity

Some are natural poets, they don't have to learn the ropes like others and mayhaps the difference between these two can be seen in their respective works. The trained have their moment in the sun and we must give them credit due but its the talented who are the trailblazers. I maybe biased though and may have ruffled some feathers already. That's all. Good day.

Evolution has no need for love. — Benj96

This doesn't add up. Every single trait that exists in the present was/had to be good for survival and if love is part of human relationships, it must aid in living or some aspect of procreation must depend on it. Where? how? is a mystery to me. I suggest we approach the matter from the viewpoint of someone about to be hoodwinked; after all, flowers don't actually intend to give bees a drink of nectar, it's bait to make the bees unwittingly cross-pollinate. You're a bee that has finally come to the realization that it's just a sex toy. Nothing wrong with that though, right?

:up: :ok:

Prose poetry: From the examples in the link you provided, all that stood out to me was rhythm (cadence?). The point of prose poetry seems to be to express thoughts and emotions as they flash through the poets mind for the first time; these when ruminated upon rationally become standard prose. I guess we could say prose poetry is reminiscent of and recapitulates humanity's earliest encounters with language and cogitation - vague, fragmentary, emotional more than rational, directionless, borderline coherence, so on.

That is a greatly irrational solution to a small problem that can easily be solved with a foot — IanBlain

That solution extends naturally to killing people who are, let's just say, problematic for you. Don't you agree? After all, in both cases we sanction killing or, more accurately, it's ok to off something/someone to deal with a problem.

Too, ecologically speaking, bugs are considered as essential components of the natural order, key to the health of the ecosystem - exterminating them, your foot in chemical and other forms, might come back to bite us.

Moreover, did you notice?, bug sprays are labelled, "POISON" - what kills them kills us too. I wonder what that means?

We are family...

Thank you so much for this comment! It cheered me up! When I was a kid I used to write poetry in my notebook. Sometimes I think if I make a good effort I could write good poems and participate in some competitions — javi2541997

:up: Forget about it!

Beautiful Haiku :flower: I will check Gyodai more deeply beacuse I never heard about him until today. — javi2541997

Do. Good luck!

Indeed, it says it's hokku.
— TheMadFool

Where?... — Noble Dust

Never mind!

@TiredThinker

Lack of oxygen produces increased activity
Though disinhibition—
Mental modes that give rise to consciousness. — PoeticUniverse

PoeticUniverse's comment reminded me of an interesting fact about alcohol intoxication. Alcohol is a neural inhibitor or so I hear and so, when one drinks, the brain is actually shutting down. Now, relate that to the fact that people who are intoxicated tend to report a heightened sense of awareness and improved cognition (anecdotal?).

It appears then that powering down the brain seems to enhance consciousness. Taking that to its logical conclusion, when the brain actually shuts down in death, consciousness should max out - life after death!

Mahayana Buddhist beliefs on death and what happens to consciousness are in line with what I said above. It's said that at/after quietus, the mind, freed of its physical prison, is capable of feats that are beyond our wildest dreams.

:chin:

This might be relevant too: Erotic Asphyxiation

The only Haiku poetry I can remember from my youth is,

Leaves fall
And pile up;
Rain beats on rain.
— Gyōdai
— TheMadFool

That's not haiku brah.. — Noble Dust

Indeed, it says it's hokku. Mind telling me what's the difference between hokku and haiku?

By the way,

Hokku is the pre-modern form of Haiku. — Internet

Thank you! — Bitter Crank

You're more than welcome!

TPF doesn't have to change (lower or raise) its standards. You, Jem, et al can/will continue your efforts. This isn't an elite Philosophy Department blog. It's a public forum, and as such there will always (a guess) be participants with varying levels of sophistication in writing and in philosophy. There is room for a pretty wide range--a big tent.

At this stage in my life, what I'm not good at now is likely to stay that way. Fine. Younger participants have time to improve. And, you know, you don't have to be good at every single area of philosophy, because it like history or literature covers a huge amount of territory. Its time runs from 500 b.c. to the present, over dozens of different categories. You will find some are just the ticket and others you won't be even remotely interested in. All normal. All OK. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement.

Indeed, I remember remarking on a similar thread how every great philosopher began, must so, as a student, a novice, with little to no idea about the subject, making every mistake in the book, falling into traps that litters the philosophical landscape, and losing one's way in the jungle of ideas. True philosophers should, for that reason, be charitable as possible for such new recruits that have been drawn to philosophy for one reason or another.

Good day!

So, metaphysically speaking, poems, whether rhythm/rhyme, are clocks, linguistic clocks. What say you?
— TheMadFool
↪TheMadFool

Yes, it is true. There are a lot of different types or manners to compound a poem. Haiku is the one I love the most because it is so philosophical. It doesn't even rhyme at all but this is why I guess it sounds so good.
One of the objectives of poetry, as Taneda Santoka explained back in the day, is freezing a particular moment in our life: the sunset, night, moon, nostalgia, parents, etc... Probably this is what we can consider as rhythm. — javi2541997

:ok: You know a lot about poetry. Great to have you on the TPF team. It looks like most forum members have their own unique talents - just needs the right thread for members to go public with whatever's their shtick!

The only Haiku poetry I can remember from my youth is,

Leaves fall
And pile up;
Rain beats on rain. — Gyōdai

There was a connection there between the poem, the poet, and me but it's lost now. Too bad, I wish I could go back about 30 years ago and re-read the poem and re-experience those emotions again.

Numinous,
Back then it was,
Now,
Like a spent candle,
Nothing!

Has something been lost in translation?
— TheMadFool

Probably. This is why translation is key in these poems. I don't know if it is accurate at all. My book version is in Spanish and the author who translated it explains to me that he did his best to translate Kanji in our vocabulary.
For example:
Gogori to
Kusa ni
Fundoshi kawaita.
---------------------------
Un revolcon en la hierba
Los calzoncillos ya
Están secos.
--------------------------------
A scramble in the grass
My pants are
Already drought.
- Taneda Santoko.

The translator explained that was difficult to interpret Kusa ni which literally is when you fall in to the grass o field. In Spanish means "revolcón". I searched and English means "Scramble" — javi2541997

That kinda gives me an idea; if we speak with a rhythm, even prose becomes poetry. :point:

That kinda gives me an idea;
If we speak with a rhythm,
Even prose becomes poetry.

That was an aside; picking up where we left off, I wonder what the deal is with blank verse. This particular strain of poetry is about rhythm and not rhyme. Rhythm is, bottom line, just another way of keeping time, no? So, metaphysically speaking, poems, whether rhythm/rhyme, are clocks, linguistic clocks. What say you? — TheMadFool

The above from The Metaphysics of Poetry

now I'm 75. — Bitter Crank

Way to go! Diamond Jubilee :party: :flower: Another 25 to go and you'll be a centenarian!

I was just wondering about what @Jem said. While I'm not as good as I'd like to be in English or in philosophy, which would be better for both Jem and the forum? The Philosophy Forum lowers its standards or Jem make an effort to improve his linguistic and philosophical skills?

This comment applies reflexively to me and others like me who are struggling to understand philosophy.

@Amity @javi2541997

now then, let's go out / to enjoy the snow ... until / I slip and fall! — Wiki: Basho

:up: I don't know how that sounds in Japanese but it's actually prose in English: "Now then, let's go out to enjoy the snow...until I slip and fall."

Has something been lost in translation? I dunno.

I appreciate your seeming sincerity, but one can be a flirt only so long. This post is largely an example of Poe’s Law — Ennui Elucidator

You seem to be on top of things.

That said, there are some things to be gleaned from an absurd analysis of the Omni-god, but as this is a philosophy forum (which is concerned primarily with method), I will not elaborate in a way that would strike of being religious.

I will, however, tell you that this story is an absurd expansion of an actual sermon which is timely for Jews thinking about the themes of some upcoming holidays. Charity and humility (the acceptance that others will suck at their jobs while we suck at our own) are virtues that go a long way towards maintaining relationships and allowing ourselves and others to seek and give forgiveness for our failings. The Peter Principle (empirical as it is) is a relatively contemporary tool for framing the abundant incompetence we see and highlighting the systems and systemic forces that foster it. — Ennui Elucidator

So, God wasn't what you wanted to discuss. What you really wanted was an opinion on human failings, incompetence, and how it would be better if we cut each other some slack to avoid unnecessary headaches. We did discuss that too, although only superficially.

Since neither of them possess that key piece of information, neither can be blamed for their demands. They're both in the dark - expect some fumbling, stumbling, falls, cuts and bruises, the ongoing Texas circus show is just another way ignorance manifests itself.
— TheMadFool

Well, one can insist that their demands, if they result in the adoption of laws, comport with the Constitution. That legal issue will remain as long as the Constitution is around regardless of whether souls exist. even if the Angels and Archangels, Thrones and Dominions, and all the Powers of Heaven proclaim that they do. — Ciceronianus

The constitution can't overrule facts. If souls are real, the constitution be damned! The constitution, any constitution, must be in line with the truth, no? If not, we would be living in a fantasy world and our problems will multply and/or worsen. Sorry if this comes off as rude, it isn't intended to be.

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus

Basically, king meant something other than how we now understand the term. It calls for caution when we read historical texts for words seem to have different meanings and connotations back when they were written.

I was just thinking about how the conventional meaning of "king" could apply to philosopher-king. If a king and his heirs are brought up in the right philosophical environment, I'm sure we can have a line of hereditary rulers deeply interested in philosophy. Catch 'em young, as they say. I just hope that it doesn't devolve into some kind of brainwashing scheme for children though.

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus

:up:

Liberal theology has come along way since the formulation of God as omniscient( see process theology, open theism). — Joshs

:ok: :up: