Comments
-
Existence is relative, not absolute.Then the mistake, imo, is that we can escape from the domain of 'language' at all. As 'thinkers' all we have is 'language'... — fresco
Language becomes essentially meaningless and useless in the absence of linguistic thought, which is dependent on an existing thinker.
Yes, we are not just thinkers, we are existing thinkers. Thinking depends on the existence of something with the capability to think, otherwise Descartes was right.
So, an existing thinker can escape language by not thinking, and just existing. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.in English, existence is I suppose more likely to be asserted using is, as in "there is a tree", or "is there a tree?". — Banno
Good for English. But this is philosophy, and in philosophy, "exist" is likely to be asserted as a fancy word for "is" or "to be". -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Or at the least, there will be much to do in order to show it to be a useful thing to do. — Banno
I have done very little, and already shown its usefulness.
Also , what you say presupposes that usefulness is what we should be aiming at, and that's debatable. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.The there is the further question as to what kind of existence the tree must have, whether mind-independently physical or merely mental (in some unknown "shared" way), in order that it should be perceptible to all. These kinds of questions may be ultimately unanswerable, but I don't think that means they are therefore unequivocally nonsense questions. — Janus
If asking those questions is nonsense, then so is philosophy. Although such epistemological/metaphysical concerns may have no practical or ethical application to life, I still find an unquantifiable value in working out the answers to these philosophical questions. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.We distinguish between hallucinated or imagined trees and actual trees on the basis that the latter can physically act upon us... — Janus
The natural tree is physically dependent upon many factors (water and light amongst the basic). The conditions that allow for the possibility of a tree are necessary for the existence of any natural tree. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Yes, the question as to whether there is anything independent of human or animal experience is a reasonable question about absolute existence. If there were not, then existence would be relative to percipience and there would be nothing at all beyond that. The only problem is that we can never answer the question definitively. — Janus
Exactly.
Let me add: we can never answer the question independent of our own percipience, which suggests that existence for us is relative. But when you consider your own percipient experience, it seems to be a closed system, complete into itself, which would make it absolute. It is very paradoxical to exist as a human being. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.
"True" is a much more problematic term than "necessary". And I could swear you were the one talking against muddling things up? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Well, here we disagree. — Banno
My argument is that the question: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?" makes sense, and can be answer sensically. Whereas, the question: "is existence red?" is complete nonsense. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.It's still a dreadful question. Look at how necessity and existence are used in modal logic.
It's still asking if existence is red. — Banno
How so? Could you please elaborate?
Modal logic or not, to ask: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?" is nothing like asking: "is existence red?" -
Existence is relative, not absolute.'Splonk' is a term (perhaps no longer) used in the automotive body repair industry (in Adelaide at least) to refer to the two part body fillers that are used to fill dents. — Janus
I thought splonk was a term used in auto repair that refers to the reinsertion of a johnson rod back into its housing . :snicker: -
Existence is relative, not absolute.The question "what makes it exist as a tree?" is full of philosophical presumption. — Banno
You could put the question another way: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?" -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Relative and absolute are not the sort of thing it makes much sense to predicate to existence. — Banno
It just needs to be unmuddled. Consider a thing that exists. What makes it exist as a tree? Does its existence as a tree depend on its relations to other things? Or is its existence as a tree restricted to its own device and independent of any relation? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.when reciting the classics goes unnoticed? — Banno
Even more classic are "the meaning of life" and "holy grail". -
Existence is relative, not absolute.I think that the person who would say that is very confused. Not the least reason for which is that "Actually exists" isn't a proposition. — Terrapin Station
Very good sir. I concur. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.
What do you think about the proposition:
"actually exists" does not include the term "actually"?
??? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.AShe is. — Banno
Are you asking if she is a "virgin", or if she is "actually" a virgin? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Well, if it's not a personal question, are you a virgin? — Banno
It depends why you're asking. You wanna wrassle? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Only the true Messiah denies His divinity. — Banno
And this is how he verifies it for the rest of the world. . .Aummmmmmmmm :pray: -
Existence is relative, not absolute.I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly! — Banno
That's what Jesus said. And it's what the prophets said he would say. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Well, he hurt my foot! — Banno
Did Jesus have a peg leg? And an eyepatch and jean jacket with the jolly roger silk screened on the back? -
Existence is relative, not absolute.A miracle! He is the Messiah! — Banno
This thread is really going off the rails. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.I say, those are my juniper bushes. — Banno
Ok Nietzsche, enough with the esoterics. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.
-
Existence is relative, not absolute.Well, what about the juniper bushes over there? — Banno
That's not an answer. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.I didn't bring you here! You just followed me! — Banno
I was already here, then I noticed a ridiculous comment you made and called you out on it. You have no answer. That's our answer. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Oh, just go away! Leave me alone! — Banno
Very unphilosophical. Just tell me what it means and I will leave. -
Existence is relative, not absolute.Well, I'm sorry. Shhh. — Banno
That's sad. I just tooled you, and that's your only response. I expect much more from my interlocutors. You get an F+.
Merkwurdichliebe
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum