It also does not exhaust the requirements for a thing to exist in its entirety to its discovery. I know you cannot accept this disjunction. — Merkwurdichliebe
What have we discovered that did not exist in it's entirety prior to our discovery? — creativesoul
The invention of pens is no different from the discovery of pens. — Shamshir
He cannot invent it by seeing it.
— creativesoul
I respectfully disagree. — Merkwurdichliebe
Tommy can discover a pen, by seeing it for the first time. He cannot invent it by seeing it. — creativesoul
How do we factor in identification here? — Merkwurdichliebe
The better question is: what is it that we can actually presuppose exists in its entirety prior to our discovery of its existence in its prior entirety? — Merkwurdichliebe
"its existence in its prior entirety"? What is that saying?
I wouldn't know what "its existence in its entirety" would be saying, even, that "its existence" wouldn't suffice just as well for (in other words what is "its entirety" adding to "its existence"?), but then modifying "entirety" by "prior" is that much more confusing. — Terrapin Station
All notions of "identification" and/or "identity" are existentially dependent upon metacognition. Metacognition... language. Language... thought/belief.
Identification is required for successful reference.
The notion of "identity/identification" is overplayed... All identification presupposes existence, regardless of subsequent further qualification.
Howzit relevant? — creativesoul
So then, you would agree that existence as it is in its entirety prior to its discovery is absolute. And, that any particular relation of an existing thing to absolute existence is relative. — Merkwurdichliebe
It's good to get the terms straight. — Merkwurdichliebe
I wouldn't know what "its existence in its entirety" would be saying, even, that "its existence" wouldn't suffice just as well for (in other words what is "its entirety" adding to "its existence"?), but then modifying "entirety" by "prior" is that much more confusing. — Terrapin Station
That is what I'm saying. But, if we must, how do we reconcile this complex arrangement of terms? What is it trying to say, and how can it be said better or differently? — Merkwurdichliebe
Given the history of philosophy proper...
You can say that two times! — creativesoul
Existence is not the sort of thing that exists. It is not discoverable. It has no elemental constitution. Thus, it makes no sense on my view to talk in terms of "existence as it is in it's entirety". — creativesoul
existentially dependent upon being taken account of. — creativesoul
The interesting feature of this framework is that we can easily swap "being taken account of" with all sorts of other considerations. We can isolate the elemental constituents and assess whether or not any of them are existentially dependent upon any number of things. — creativesoul
In Merk's defense, he is attempting to use my framework, and in doing so is being very diplomatic in checking for my agreement. — creativesoul
Existence is not the sort of thing that exists. It is not discoverable. It has no elemental constitution. Thus, it makes no sense on my view to talk in terms of "existence as it is in it's entirety".
— creativesoul
I like that. Existence is a paradoxical concept and impossibly abstract, very much like thought. — Merkwurdichliebe
Whenever we think about existence, we suspend its actuality by translating it into thought.
Thought produces the universal
...existence is found only in particular being. If this were not true, then anything I could imagine could be said to exist including (the thought of existence)...
existentially dependent upon being taken account of.
— creativesoul
This is a very important point. Can you give me some examples of both (being existentially dependent and independent of an account)? — Merkwurdichliebe
When we acquire knowledge of something's elemental constituency(that's the result of a universal criterion), we find ourselves in a position to be able to determine whether or not that particular thing is capable of existing in it's entirety prior to our account of it, because we can isolate the basic elemental constituents, individually, and confidently assess whether or not any of those elements are existentially dependent upon being taken account of.
If any of them are, then the only conclusion that we can draw is that the thing in question is not capable of existing prior to our account of it. — creativesoul
...this seems like a very potent schematic (it takes account of creating, identifying, discovering, inventing, &c.) — Merkwurdichliebe
In Merk's defense, he is attempting to use my framework, and in doing so is being very diplomatic in checking for my agreement.
— creativesoul
It requires humility to attempt a foreign framework and to risk being wrong often. But it is one of the best ways to expand one's philosophical acumen. It also requires an interlocutor who is clear on what he knows, and patient, very patient.
By the way, you reflect a strong logic in your terminology... do you actually work out the logic formally on the side, or just intuit it in your writing? — Merkwurdichliebe
Talking in terms of conceptions is fraught. That's objection numero uno. It's based upon the following... All conceptions have linguistic form, and as such all are existentially dependent upon language. — creativesoul
'Existence' is a human concept, and like all concepts requires context in which it is meaningful. — fresco
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.