If we have A that is and isn’t alongside B that is and isn’t then are either A or B true or false? — I like sushi
Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate. — Fooloso4
n any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4
As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4
There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified. — Fooloso4
Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists. — Fooloso4
The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating. — Fooloso4
Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something. — Fooloso4
I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger. — Fooloso4
This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being. — Fooloso4
This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness! — Fooloso4
I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter! — Fooloso4
It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there. — Metaphysician Undercover
This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, existence is not something that is, what is exists. — Fooloso4
Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4
Concepts are human artifacts. — Fooloso4
When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. — Fooloso4
When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. — Fooloso4
You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist. — Fooloso4
Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing. — Fooloso4
Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is alone. — Fooloso4
Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is? — Fooloso4
There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'? — Fooloso4
The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be. — Fooloso4
The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean. — Fooloso4
I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. — Fooloso4
I think that the brain is always active so I don't really agree with this idea of setting brain processes into motion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well I guess you are asking for a difficult thing. It sounds like you want a co-creator of the philosophy. Even if people were willing to do it, they'd be afraid that they wouldn't know how. — ghost
We learn most from rhetorical wounds scored fairly against us and from overhearing ourselves as we try to make ourselves understood to the stranger. — ghost
Who needs professors though? Is there some validation to be had from academia? That's the tension in your position for me. If it's reason alone, then it's philosophy. If there's an appeal to rare experience, then most people will want to call it religion or mysticism.
You could always just pay a skilled writer to organize it so that it sings. That writer wouldn't even have to understand or agree with everything. — ghost
It is unusual for people to pay to have their philosophy critiqued so it’s no wonder people are unwilling to believe you’re genuine (I don’t and I’m talking to you). — I like sushi
I'm surprised that you money isn't talking. Are you ambivalent about being critiqued? I'd think that there are lots of underpaid philosophy majors out there. — ghost
Thanks for the answers. I guess what I'm trying to specify is how much you associate rationality with mysticism. Clearly you are interested in concepts. So the truth as you see and value it has a conceptual aspect. So that leaves me trying to figure out where the mysticism comes in. — ghost
My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's golden and yet connected to brutality, a kind of holy violence that laughs at all things mortal. Personality becomes a transparent mask for the one greed for status. The mask is also the primary tool of this greed. — ghost
This is creepy, obviously, but it only describes an aspect of a personality who also loves deeply in the usual way and fits in with the world, just with an extra wicked gleam in the eye that comes and goes. A person can forget that they are only pretending to be someone or resume pretending that they are outside of all that is trapped inside. Perhaps you'd call this a left handed or demonic path. Altruism is not at its center. Yet it's not cruel without reason. Why should 'it' interrupt its self-satisfaction and sober joy for some low level bullshit? — ghost
Either way your philosophical proposal falls before it even starts as you attach absolute claims to sensible items. Logic is abstract not existent. That is how you open your and that is why it fails instantly. — I like sushi
By this, if it isn’t clear enough already, I mean that you flip from logical abstraction to objects of perception as if they are interchangeable. If A is a part of B and you then say both A and B are existing objects you’ve stepped outside of pure logic yet you continue as if you haven’t stepped outside of pure logic. — I like sushi
Claims of some mystical truth that will change the world followed by fear of plagiarism don’t add up. You mean to put your fame and pride before the benefits to humanity? That doesn’t sound like a particularly ‘loving’ or humane rationale. — I like sushi
If you’re coming from a phenomenological perspective then say so. The phenomenological approach is the only instance where the so called ‘real’ doesn’t matter. It is essentially a science of subjectivity and so cannot then be extended as an existent absolute. — I like sushi
Even if you do actually have something slightly original to say I fear your lack of attention to the concepts used will make it illegible - definitions of definitions and a requirement to address epistemic and semantic problems. It will be a very hard thing to do and require concentration and luck; and you’ll never be able to express something tangible to anyone else, ‘felt’, without physical evidence to back you up. — I like sushi
Humility will kill you, but clearly you need to die before you can get off that treadmill. That is my honest view (if I’m wrong then I guess we’ll see how things pan out for you over the next few years). — I like sushi
it sounds like an altered state of consciousness - something I’ve experienced myself. There are various triggers, what were yours? What was the lead up to this? — I like sushi
Would you say that you are still organizing that book? And that the ideas we see here will find their way into the final book? — ghost
That suggests to me that your perspective can indeed be communicated through concepts? — ghost
Do you understand the dark forces to have a grudge against your mission? Or are they ultimately well meaning people who just misunderstand the mission and accidentally oppose? Or ?
Thank you also for being open and answering my questions. — ghost
So did you begin to have a mystical experience and it has continued unabated? I ask sincerely. I am curious. Maybe it really is different from my experiences. — ghost
The mystic bluntly tells people that they just don't get it, that they are locked out of the secret (by a lack of faith or a cowardly conformity or...?) Why don't we get it? Are we locked out? Are you here to win us over? Enjoy your superiority? Look for the few others who are chosen ? — ghost
For me these 'mystic' states were tangled up with iconoclasm. The 'illusions' and limitations of mundane thinking and even perhaps mundane morality are 'seen through. — ghost
What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being? — Fooloso4
I think it was Hume who successfully devastated any and all teleological arguments for God. — zerotheology
In addition I would suggest that the OP's version relies on the infinite regress that is always possible with certain problematic concepts. — zerotheology
I would also point out that the only important thing about pointing out that existence is understood before non-existence is that it reflects the truth that belief precedes doubt. — zerotheology
The OP seems to subscribe to an essentialist or Platonic view of concepts that simply does not hold up after Wittgenstein — zerotheology
Lastly I would make the old argument that the attempt to make belief in God reasonable is a form of idolatry that distorts the God one is arguing for in a way that makes that God monstrous at worst and uninteresting at best. Job's friends come to mind. — zerotheology
It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot. — Relativist
Determined does not equate to intended.
Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know. — Relativist
You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. — Relativist
"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable. — Relativist
Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". — Relativist
1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it. — Relativist
Physicalism is possibly true. — Relativist
As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa
Stop being cute.
You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."
Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.
This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.
I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/ — Frank Apisa
But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa
Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.
It appears it just cannot be done. — Frank Apisa
instinctual drives — I like sushi