Amazing, you do not engage but just claim; you make it up as you go along without any understanding of what you're talking about. — tim wood
It is - you are - extremely vexing and annoying, which is too bad because you seem smart. All yours, and out. — tim wood
Be as nasty as you like, but just answer the questions you're asked instead of evading them, and when asked for discussion, don't resort to unsupported and nonsensical claims or outright misdirection or misrepresentation. That is, just Be the civil person you claim you want to be and skip the trollery.I'll take this as a learning experience and try to work harder on finding that careful and considerate way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Plato demonstrated the appearance of incompatibility between Heraclitus' becoming, and Parmenides' being, and Aristotle showed conclusively that this is the case with a number of arguments, one I presented already in this thread. Apprehension of these arguments leads one away from accepting any postulates which stipulate that being and becoming are one and the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
If this is really what Heidegger says, I think he is wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover
Even today, in accounts of the inception of Western philosophy, it is customary to oppose Parmenides' teaching to that of Heraclitus. An opt-cited saying is supposed to derive from Heraclitus: panta rhei, all is in flux. Hence there is no being. All "is" becoming.
[...]
Of course, when someone asserts the opposite, that in the history of phlosophy all thinkers have at bottom said the same thing, then this is taken as yet another outlandish imposition on everyday understanding. What use, then, is the multifaceted and complex history of Western philosophy, if they all say the same thing anyway? Then one philosophy would be enough. Everything has always already been said. And yet this "same" possess, as its inner truth, the inexhaustible wealth of that which on every day is as if that day were its first. —
It may be the case, that Parmenides describes "phusis" with "being", and Heraclitus describes "phusis" with "becoming", but this does not mean that being and becoming are one and the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
So for example, if one person describes a substance as solid, and another person describes the same substance as liquid, this does not indicate that "solid" and "liquid" have the same meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe you do not see this as a problem, but I do, as I think it makes it impossible to understand the thing being described. Therefore, I believe that this problem of contradiction needs to be exposed, as Socrates and Plato did, and addressed in a rational manner, as Aristotle did, before we can proceed toward an understanding of the thing which is being described in contradictory ways. — Metaphysician Undercover
What part of the universe isn't nature? — Xtrix
We're trying to explore the basis for the word itself -- which was a Latin translation of the Greek word "phusis." — Xtrix
Every "part" of the universe is nature. — BraydenS
We're trying to explore the basis for the word itself -- which was a Latin translation of the Greek word "phusis."
— Xtrix
I don't see what you'll be getting out of your foray into etymology intellectually besides context, but carry on as you wish. — BraydenS
Then why bother distinguishing the two and say nature happens "in" the universe? — Xtrix
asking what one "gets out" of philosophy is implying it has to have some use, which is reminiscent of those among us who can't see the value of anything that can't be monetized. — Xtrix
Then why bother distinguishing the two and say nature happens "in" the universe?
— Xtrix
Because we cannot talk about or sense the universe in any way, only parts of it. — BraydenS
asking what one "gets out" of philosophy is implying it has to have some use, which is reminiscent of those among us who can't see the value of anything that can't be monetized.
— Xtrix
But you just exclaimed that your use of understanding the etymology of the word was for "understanding science", which is a philosophical system of thought built on it's ability to be applied practically and pragmatically. — BraydenS
No, it just means we're in one phase of "restricting" being, which has an interesting history, and begins with this distinction and then, later, "being and seeming," "being and thinking," etc. — Xtrix
"Heraclitus, to whom one ascribes the doctrine of becoming, in start contrast to Parmenides, in truth says the same as Parmenides. — Xtrix
don't see this particular issue as a problem, no. There are many ways of interpreting things. The wave-particle business you mentioned is a good example. So's the proverbial glass being "half-empty" and "half-full." Is either a "problem"? Well maybe, but what's not an issue is that something is being interpreted. — Xtrix
They're interesting to think about, but the both of you taking a position and trying to defend that position is fruitless. — Xtrix
We can't talk about the universe in any way, yet you are talking about it. — Xtrix
That means many minds, much greater than yours, have struggled with the question of what science is. — Xtrix
You could be right or wrong, but simply declaring it accomplishes nothing. — Xtrix
I'm always struck by people who want to quickly and confidently proclaim a definitive answer, or some solid definition, for something or other -- without any context. I'm further struck to watch as they're satisfied by this, as if by doing so they've settled anything. — Xtrix
Spouting empty nonsense won't be tolerated -- it'll be, properly, ignored. — Xtrix
I am talking about the idea of everything, not everything. — BraydenS
An idea of everything is itself natural, that is, within the universe, that is, limited. That is why you cannot talk about the universe/everything. — BraydenS
But a definition isn't something you find. It's something you create. — BraydenS
You could be right or wrong, but simply declaring it accomplishes nothing.
— Xtrix
I believe exactly the opposite. Not declaring a definition accomplishes nothing. Declaring a definition accomplishes something. — BraydenS
I have settled something, I have settled some defintion, my definition, of a word. — BraydenS
I have no doubt it appears like nonsense to those who look for definitions endlessly outside of themselves, — BraydenS
believe the idea of everything is the same as everything — BraydenS
who belittles on impact from anger (which always springs from some weakness), — BraydenS
who thinks things are "interesting for their own sake" (and not for some power) — BraydenS
who gets on his high horse while talking about the "philosophy of science", — BraydenS
In fact, I even have the virility left to properly define science as a philosophical system of thought — BraydenS
Science is applied epistemology. — BraydenS
Having contradictory interpretations is not the same as "half-empty"/ "half-full", as these two are not contradictory. Do you see the difference, between interpretations which are different, yet consistent with each other, and interpretations which contradict each other? It is the latter which I see as a problem, the former is not a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it just means we're in one phase of "restricting" being, which has an interesting history, and begins with this distinction and then, later, "being and seeming," "being and thinking," etc.
— Xtrix
I don't see where this comes from, nor what you mean by it. Can you explain? What do you mean by restricting being? — Metaphysician Undercover
They're interesting to think about, but the both of you taking a position and trying to defend that position is fruitless.
— Xtrix
What about your thesis that all philosophy is saying the same thing? How can any philosophers disagree? — Metaphysician Undercover
you're essentially equating the "universe" with Kant's thing-in-itself
— Xtrix
Skimmed over your post, and you got this right! Only, the universe is not a thing. — BraydenS
The point remains: something is being interpreted. We all agree. I'm not denying that there are conflicting interpretations -- in fact the history of how these interpretations evolved is the point of this discussion, in part. — Xtrix
Things that manifest, that emerge, that "grow," come to take two on different aspects -- that which persists in stability and that which is unstable, which arises and perishes. — Xtrix
Yes, this is what I was saying, something is being interpreted, and this is what you have named "phusis". As I explained there are two distinct descriptions of this thing, one under the terms of "being", the other under the terms of "becoming". If these two distinct descriptions were consistent with each other, like "half empty" and "half full" are consistent with each other, there would be no problem. But Plato and Aristotle demonstrated that these two descriptions are not consistent with each other. Whatever it is which is described as "being" cannot be the same thing which is described as "becoming". So, Aristotle proposed that this one thing, "phusis", has two distinct aspects which he called matter and form, to account for these two distinct descriptions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Things that manifest, that emerge, that "grow," come to take two on different aspects -- that which persists in stability and that which is unstable, which arises and perishes.
— Xtrix
Right, these are the two distinct aspects. Stability relates to being, and instability relates to becoming. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are also many spiritualities. Look at the Car's Jr. star and try to imagine it NOT having a smiling face. This is what Kant did for the world, and he enjoyed it. — Gregory
how does ANY of this relate to phusis or anything anyone on here is talking about?
— Xtrix
You are just bringing up a cryptic word and thinking it's going to get somewhere in a conversation. — Gregory
Concepts are what count. — Gregory
We have no sure knowledge of what ancient texts mean. — Gregory
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.