"Is" lends stability to being...............................The verb "to be" in Russian behaves differently than in Western European languages.................the emphasis is on change, becoming. — Astorre
I was very impressed by this post. It demonstrates things about language that most of us have to gesture at.Language shapes philosophy. — Astorre
That's a very good question. I don't know how to answer it. So I shall watch what people say with great interest.Moreover, the very linguistic distinction between the words "exist" and "to be" (in the sense of "бытийствовать"), "existence" and "being" points to a deeper conceptual cleavage. These words are not synonymous: language captures a distinction that remains, for now, unobvious. In further sections, we will endeavor to philosophically clarify whether this distinction is truly rooted in ontology or if it is merely a grammatical intuition. — Astorre
The verb "to be" in Russian behaves differently than in Western European languages. In the future tense, we say: "Он будет лечить" (He will treat) or "Он будет доктором" (He will be a doctor)—the emphasis is on change, becoming. In the past: "Он лечил" (He treated, where "to be" is replaced by a suffix) or "Он был доктором" (He was a doctor, indicating something no longer current). Similar features are noticeable in Ukrainian and Belarusian. However, in West Slavic languages like Polish (Jan jest lekarzem) or Bulgarian (Той е лекар), the obligatory copula "jest" or "e" returns, approaching the Western European model. Why this occurs is a question for separate research, but it hints at cultural and linguistic differences that generally influence one's worldview. The verb "to be" in Russian is not a frozen snapshot of a state, but a process, movement, becoming. — Astorre
Western philosophy, from Parmenides to Heidegger, sought the essence of being—eternity, phenomenon, givenness—relying on the formula "Being — is," rooted in a language where "is" fixes being. Even the understanding of God—from Kant's highest being to Heidegger's mystery of being—followed this logic — Astorre
We will strive to move beyond focusing on "presence" and instead consider reality as a network of processes. Being, in our view, becomes through the establishment of boundaries, through the interaction of presence and change. The question "Being — is. How?" is replaced by another: "Being — becomes. How does it become?" — Astorre
“one in which the connectivity and interrelatedness of the components give rise to global processes that subsume the components so that they are no longer clearly separable. In such a system, the distinction between preexisting parts and supervening whole becomes problematic. Not only does the whole emerge from the components, but also the components emerge from the whole.” “ Dynamic co-emergence means that part and whole co-emerge and mutually specify each other.”
The point is, as with Saint Augustine's "inner word," participation in Logos. Yet I'd hesitate to call this static. In a way it has to be most alive, lacking nothing. For Augustine and later thinkers in his tradition, it couldn't be a being, or even, univocally, "being," but was "beyond being" (or being/becoming). Dionysius says something on this to the effect of "It is false to say that God exists, but also false to say that God does not exist. But of the two, it is more false to say that God does not exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Can there be change without stasis? Aren't they two sides of the same coin? — frank
↪Joshs
Einstein said all motion is relative to a chosen frame of reference. You declare a point to be unchanging at the same time you perceive change.
It's not that everything is changing before you declare a frame of reference. There simply is no change without stasis. — frank
hat is a good summary of what we get from Einstein. Do you want to treat physics as the ground floor of your understanding of the world, — Joshs
like me, see Einstein’s thinking as the expression of an era of philosophy which has since been surpassed — Joshs
How could there be difference unless some difference is identified? Identity and difference co-arise―you can't have one without the other. — Janus
↪Joshs How can you say there is difference if it is not identified? How is it possible to think difference without thinking (identifying) the things which differ? — Janus
Don’t you mean perceived, rather than identified.The logic of thinking difference involves things which are identified as being different. I don't see how you can escape that.
“Subject to”.although the Buddha said there is nothing not subject to change
This reads to me as a specification of something that may well be possible. But without specific cases, one cannot assess what it really means.No aspect of the assemblage remains unchanged by the changes that occur in any part of it. There can be consistencies and patterns, but these are not static in the sense of being able to locate some static center around which the pattern is organized and which give it its sense. — Joshs
That seems about right to me. But I would have to add that change and stasis are relative. Heraclitus' river has constantly changing water relative to the bed and banks. But the water itself, not to mention other factors, cause the bed and banks to change constantly relative to the landscape it flows through.Can there be change without stasis? Aren't they two sides of the same coin? — frank
That also seems about right to me. The thing is, though, that identifying a difference is a rather different exercise from identifying an object.How could there be difference unless some difference is identified? Identity and difference co-arise―you can't have one without the other. — Janus
I can see how one might want to say that. But "different" is a relation, so it requires two objects to be compared. Of course, from another perspective, those objects might be dissolved into a bundle of differences, which then require a range of other objects to establish themselves.Thinking isn’t in the business of thinking ‘things’ (identities) that differ, but of producing differences that relate to other differences. — Joshs
If you don't identify the object you perceive, how do you know what you have witnessed?Don’t you mean perceived, rather than identified.
To be perceived, something merely needs to be witnessed, this does not require identification. — Punshhh
But if there is nothing fixed, how do we know that we are travelling? Or rather, how do we tell the difference between our travelling and the rest of the world travelling?We are fellow travellers, rather than fellow fixed states. — Punshhh
That seems about right to me. But I would have to add that change and stasis are relative. Heraclitus' river has constantly changing water relative to the bed and banks. But the water itself, not to mention other factors, cause the bed and banks to change constantly relative to the landscape it flows through. — Ludwig V
The whole universe could, I guess, be regarded as a single body. For a universe that consists of a single body, there is no way to differentiate rest and motion. (There's nowhere for an observer to observe from.)By the same token, it is not true that the whole universe is in motion, waiting for us to pick a frame of reference. — frank
But once the choice is made, there is a truth. That's the point of the choice.There's no truth of the matter about which one is in motion. It's a matter of choice. — frank
For a universe that consists of a single body, there is no way to differentiate rest and motion. (There's nowhere for an observer to observe from.) — Ludwig V
The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers.
Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe.
So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'. — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
Philosophy deals not with an object, but with its concept. — Astorre
Being does not demand confirmation; it simply is present. — Astorre
"Mountain exists." "Бар" (bar) is not "is" in the sense of being; "бар" is "that which exists"—a fact proven by presence. "Тау бар" means "The mountain is present." — Astorre
In Russian, being is present without fixation; in Kazakh, it becomes through a process ("болу"); and in Chinese, it manifests as a temporary presence (有) or the potential of emptiness (无), integrated into the flow of Dao — Astorre
If Western languages prompt us to ask what a table is, Chinese emphasizes its use (用, yòng)—its role in a specific situation. — Astorre
The Western tradition, relying on the copula "is," built an ontology of presence, in which the question of being became a question of its essence. — Astorre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.