Apparently, try as you might, you're not engaging with what I've actually written or my speculations (re: OP), so I'll leave it to you to sort out what you can or to not do so.

:death: :flower:

↪TheGreatArcanum
Apparently, try as you might, you're not engaging with what I've actually written or my speculations (re: OP), so I'll leave it to you to sort out what you can or to not do so. — 180 Proof

Sorry, I'm not well versed in philosophical propaganda (i.e. postmodern philosophy). We're speaking different languages here.

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality

Potentiality is too like actuality to be its source. Sorry Plotinus. Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being. Hegel and Schopenhauer got it

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality — Gregory

I know, all actuality is born of willing, and potentiality is identical to the essence of subjectivity itself. It's common sense.

Just edit one post, and quote the comment that you're referring too. stop spamming and talking to nobody.

Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being. — Gregory

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being.

If you think what I am (you can't get much more anti-p0m0 than me) saying here is "postmodern", then you're not "versed" at all.

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being. — TheGreatArcanum

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian — Gregory

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative.

I can't be classified as a follower of any philosopher. I've created my own system of philosophy.

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative. — TheGreatArcanum

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible. Only nothingness therefore qualifies. There is no unfathomable being or substance out there. All can be known. Aquinas's error was thinking such a substance existed, and this ultimately let him down. He was a good theologian and a poor philosopher. As well, Aristotle was a fine logician and a poor philosopher. Really good philosophy didn't start untill Descartes

You've created an idol for yourself. Nothingness can never be an idol. It is both eminently comprehensible (we know what it means) and incomprehensible (all we know is being phenomenologically). It's like a figure of 8

This is just Einstein's philosophy. — Gregory

No. My philosophy and Einsteins philosophy are not the same. He thinks that time is solely relative, I think that time is both relative and absolute and that relative time is contingent upon absolute time.

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible. — Gregory

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe.

Only nothingness therefore qualifies. — Gregory

I'm not sure what you're talking about, nothingness doesn't possess any potentiality at all and thus cannot contain, nor be the reason for the existence or source of anything because it can become and contain nothing other than nothing, but there is something, there is awareness,and thus there cannot be absolutely nothing. these are the basics of philosophy.

There is no unfathomable being or substance out there. — Gregory

the ground of being is fathomable because you can fathom yourself, and knowing isn't limited to what is immediately present, and the laws of logic extend their reach backwards in time into eternity.

All can be known. — Gregory

One cannot know the qualitative state of all entities in existence at the same time. Absolute knowledge is not possible.

hese are the basics of philosophy — TheGreatArcanum

Of a two year old

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe. — TheGreatArcanum

So?

↪A Seagull Thanks. And I agree with your analysis of how logic works. I would call the two types you described as analytical logic and applied logic. But only becasue I am old skool. I like descriptive names that mean what they say. User-friendly naming conventions — god must be atheist

Yes, analytical and applied logic are good ways of distinguishing the two types. Too often the two are conflated and this can cause problems.

1. Define concepts rigorously.
2. Do no conceptual harm.
:chin:

Of course, all philosophical systems have first principles, but the difference between one system of philosophy and another is that they have differing first principles. What I am asking is, however, is if it is the case that all first principles are presuppositional in the sense that they may or may not be true at this present moment in time, or may or may not be true in some future or past moment of time, or may or may not be true from one perspective and not another; or, if there are eternally true propositions (i.e. eternal truths) that are not presuppositional, but absolutely necessary (i.e. First Principles?) If not, why not? And if so, why, and what are they? — TheGreatArcanum

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. — William Kingdon Clifford

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy — Hamlet

The first quote is true to the extent the second quote is false and vice versa. If one is in search of truth or, what philosophers love, wisdom, then one mustn't be so narrow-minded to think only reason will lead us to it and if one is, again, in search of truth, one mustn't make the silly mistake of ignoring reason.

I think the first principle of philosophy is that Platonism comes first in the process. Hegel said matter is a "non-sensuous element of sense", which is paradoxical. "Matter is not a thing that exists. it is being in the sense of universal being, or being in the way thouhhts are being... an incorporeal yet objective existence. " Plato started philosophy among us

Hegel said that the world can always be broken "asunder" more so a countable infinity rules over the world. The Eleatics led Hegel in the "heaven of the forms", much like "Cantor's paradise" perhaps. Those are the first questions I think

The first principle could be dialectic debate (Socratic dialogues) aiming at unity of the subjects, Arithmetic, Geometry, Solid geometry, Astronomy and Harmony, with the objective of freeing oneself from unrecognized errors. Plato - Republic (Book VII). All with the intention of turning inwards using reason to ascend to pure intelligence (in the only place it can be found).

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God.

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God. — Borraz

The goal of metaphysics is to ascertain the a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence, represent them using words and language, and then use them to build a system of philosophy that is true for all intelligent beings anywhere throughout all of time (i.e. a Perennial Philosophy); but of course, many philosophers today disagree, and this is why most today do not deserve the title.

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read.
You assume that there are structures, that they are immutable (Plato lives) and "a priori" (Kant lives), and that they belong to a quality (which, moreover, is eternal) of what exists (Plato lives your thought, intensely). But when we look at experience, we observe that we must appeal to tradition (because in metaphysics, all we probably have is tradition) and we notice that we must deal with the world, the soul and God, but not for any reason, but necessarily, although by convention.Otherwise, perhaps we should not even speak (Aristotle lives in me).

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God. — Borraz

Well, "world" (object), "the soul" (fiction) and "God" (fiction) can be abductively inferred by differentiating objects from fictions.

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read. — Borraz

I don't assume them, I've developed my own philosophical system and method, and that method is rooted in self-evident truths that cannot be denied without contradiction. I am not a follower of Plato, or Kant, I am my own philosopher, and right now I am writing the book that will perhaps change philosophy forever, and this is because it is so far beyond all prior philosophy books that it professional philosophers will have to acknowledge its existence and comment on its ideas.

Well, "world" (object), "the soul" (fiction) and "God" (fiction) abductively inferred from differentiating objects from fictions. — 180 Proof

The notion that the world is an object (presupposition), the notion that there is no soul (because you do not yet experience it) (presupposition), and the notion that there is no God (presupposition). Can you provide logical reasoning for your opinions? If not, they are no better than piles of shit.

Contemplate the shitpiles :eyes:

Contemplate the shitpiles :eyes: — 180 Proof

some of us are living in heaven on earth, others are swimming in shit. Just because you're dead inside doesn't mean that others are.

I love how you think yourself to be a wise philosopher, but are the first and most likely to presume (i.e. make claims to truth that you cannot even begin to support).

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [Santayana]

Ok. If I were Saint Thomas (or simply, F. Copleston) I would tell you that the only non-fictional object is God. And your abduction, in that case, would be a Martian abduction.