Does "everything" include potential entities that could and could not happen, exist in our world or not exist, and are abstract, fictitious, or imaginary? — wax1232
Do we include "everything" in addition to material things, non-material things, spiritual things, etc.?
So what would it mean for something to be 'actual'? I could think of no objective way to frame that answer. Best I could do is "the thing is a member of set such and such". The set of all existing (actual) things is a circular definition, and thus useless. The set of all sets is similarly without distinction of any kind.It would be usual to distinguish between every thing potential and every thing actual. — apokrisis
It would be usual to distinguish between every thing potential and every thing actual. One would be a subset of the other. — apokrisis
Does "everything" include potential entities that could and could not happen, exist in our world or not exist, and are abstract, fictitious, or imaginary?
Do we include "everything" in addition to material things, non-material things, spiritual things, etc.? — wax1232
Do you not agree that the actual is some numerical subset of all the possible forms of organisation plus all their possible material accidents? — apokrisis
The mutual definition of the categories themselves is a different issue - which I also highlighted. — apokrisis
I don't know if I could persuade our good friend Mariner to give his explanation for why materialists and non-materialists aren't as different as they appear to be. But who knows?
14 hours ago ReplyShareFlag — Mongrel
Our languages were developed from everyday concerns and perceptions. They were not designed for metaphysical inquiry, and we should keep that in mind when we use them for that purpose. — Mariner
You miss my point. I am not talking about things that are actual in a world (or more plainly, are members of the set of things in that world/universe/container), I am talking about things that are actual period. What does it mean, ontologically, that that container itself is actualized, and not just potential. Let's assume it is not a container/universe to which we have access, to prevent idealism from defining its actuality. So not asking how we could know it is actualized, just what the actualization would mean to the set in question of which the actual-things are members.↪noAxioms If we are talking about actual things in a world then the essential difference is that the possible forms are materialised. We are speaking of substantial being. — apokrisis
I'm talking about what makes the world actual, not some member of it. And I'm certainly not talking about 'material things', which is just how things manifest themselves to us in this particular world.How could any entity that was actually actual - ie: a materially individuated form - not be individuated within a world. Where would this material thing be? How could it be considered individuated except by virtue of a context of all that which it is not? — apokrisis
Does "everything" include potential entities that could and could not happen, exist in our world or not exist, and are abstract, fictitious, or imaginary?
Do we include "everything" in addition to material things, non-material things, spiritual things, etc.?
I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, though it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things that they are nothing but power
When we speak of that which is not, it seems that we do not mean something contrary to what exists but only something different.
WHAT is being asked here is not a profound metaphysical question needing deep philosophical insight. All that is being asked is how one ought use the word "everything".Does "everything" include potential entities that could and could not happen, exist in our world or not exist, and are abstract, fictitious, or imaginary?
Do we include "everything" in addition to material things, non-material things, spiritual things, etc.? — wax1232
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.