The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean. — Fooloso4
I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. — Fooloso4
Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence ... — TheGreatArcanum
... in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence — TheGreatArcanum
... so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not? — TheGreatArcanum
what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself — TheGreatArcanum
when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself. — TheGreatArcanum
the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. — TheGreatArcanum
This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, existence is not something that is, what is exists. — Fooloso4
Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4
Concepts are human artifacts. — Fooloso4
When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. — Fooloso4
When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. — Fooloso4
You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist. — Fooloso4
Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing. — Fooloso4
Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is alone. — Fooloso4
Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is? — Fooloso4
There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'? — Fooloso4
The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be. — Fooloso4
these processes are controlling the body; if it is not true that the will can set the brain in motion, all of your wills and the words and actions that result from them happen by necessity or by chance and not by your own volition. and if there is an observer, that observer is just watching the will and the effects which follow from it as a passive observer and not an active agent. and when the brain ‘makes you stop thinking,’ you have no say in the manner, because you don’t have a will if it cannot start or stop brain processes. you are not the active agent of your thoughts by the passive watcher of them. this can be disproven in a few seconds through some phenomenological observation. it’s one of the most absurd positions ever held, and even more absurd that it’s considered to be rational by educated people. — TheGreatArcanum
It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there. — Metaphysician Undercover
but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others. — TheGreatArcanum
My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides ... and Heraclitus — TheGreatArcanum
Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate — TheGreatArcanum
Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.
— Fooloso4
this is an assumption. — TheGreatArcanum
Concepts are human artifacts.
— Fooloso4
another assumption even more wild than the first. — TheGreatArcanum
it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it? — TheGreatArcanum
if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. — TheGreatArcanum
but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans. — TheGreatArcanum
What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. — TheGreatArcanum
here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . — TheGreatArcanum
However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. — TheGreatArcanum
I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time after I die. — TheGreatArcanum
I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you. — TheGreatArcanum
Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate. — Fooloso4
n any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4
As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4
There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified. — Fooloso4
Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists. — Fooloso4
The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating. — Fooloso4
Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something. — Fooloso4
I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger. — Fooloso4
This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being. — Fooloso4
This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness! — Fooloso4
I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter! — Fooloso4
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.