None of which shows that an eternal being exists necessarily.
To do that you would have to show that there are no possible worlds that are not eternal.
So, I posit a world that exists for ten minutes. Demonstrate that this involves a contradiction. — Banno
Spacetime is eternal. — Thunderballs
Onlu the gods can create this. Time and space don't exist for them. Time is maybe not even inherent to Nature. — Thunderballs
Points of singularity, whether in the physical world or mathematics, allow bizarre behavior in their neighborhoods. I dabble in the complex plane where these things appear now and then. Even in that well-trod territory there are minor differences of definition — jgill
Why?
Eternity is a temporal state, necessity, a logical. — Banno
The subject never even arises until or unless the system thinks about itself, insofar as the subject merely represents the first person nature of the system, by means of propositions the system constructs in accordance with its own rules. — Mww
The subject is that to which the thoughts belong, the subject is not itself the process. — Mww
The essence of the subject, though, is merely the manifold of his representations. — Mww
But hey........it’s your philosophy, do with it as you wish. Who knows; we might be witnessing another paradigm shift. — Mww
Exception taken as note: Is 'perception' tantamount to self-awareness? And of so, what is self-awareness, a metaphysical, or as so well articulated, an immaterial entity? — 3017amen
No exceptions taken there. However, what about the proposition : All events must have a cause. Assuming that is a classic synthetic a priori proposition, can you put that into context? — 3017amen
And, what are you thinking is transcendent of perception? — 3017amen
If I could paraphrase, is that another way of saying that each individual has volitional existence and/or their own sense of same (subjective truth)? — 3017amen
This is the what a system of thought does, considered in itself. There are no propositions, hence no circular reasoning involved therein, but are deriveable from it by means of it.
When I asked about the intrinsic circularity contained in the system, you answered with the circularity possible from the illogical employment of the system.
Can’t mix the two, in building a new philosophy. — Mww
This is the what a system of thought does, considered in itself. — Mww
There are no propositions — Mww
There are no propositions, hence no circular reasoning involved therein, but are deriveable from it by means of it. — Mww
When I asked about the intrinsic circularity contained in the system, you answered with the circularity possible from the illogical employment of the system.
Can’t mix the two, in building a new philosophy. — Mww
How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
Systems. Antecedent to propositions constructed by it. — Mww
Have you checked-out Kant's Metaphysics? For instance: How are the synthetic a priori propositions possible? — 3017amen
And what is to be done with the intrinsic circularity of such a system? — Mww
Basically what you're doing is pointing to your head and talking about the rich inner mental world that you can never describe. Why bother? — Zophie
Imagine nothing. Do not give the nothing a name. That seems to be the base unit of your mental analysis. And whatever it is, it's incommunicable. Yet it has a function. How is this coherent? — Zophie
Right, but nobody is telepathic. Yet. — Zophie
By "the rules of formal reasoning are systematically violated by human participants in trials quite regularly" I mean that psychological studies have found, and will probably continue to find, people engaging in thought processes do not use any known formal method for their reasoning as dictated by the cannons of deductive logic. — Zophie
Frege thought there were real things called "The True" and "The False" in which his concept of logic (based on arithmetic) constitutes what is or is supposed to be how humans do or should reason. Supposedly he is the precursor of modern logic as it's commonly understood. — Zophie
I'm also not sure "why people think it's necessary to understand the nuances of language and propositions to understand the essence of the mind", but I think it may have something to do with the way that nothing can be expressed in a non-language. — Zophie
the rules of formal reasoning are systematically violated by human participants in trials quite regularly — Zophie
I also understand there is also no such thing as any kind of recognized causal link between the neurological and the psychological, hence the mind-body problem. — Zophie
What do you want? Frege? — Zophie
thinking is a universalising activity...This is so because the object of thinking is universal, or the mind is operating universally. — Lloyd Gerson, Platonism vs Naturalism
Well, being creative here, perhaps if Will is not limited by space/time, perhaps what we think are separated entities of "wills" and objects (the flipside of Will?), is just maya or illusory. That is to say, the principle of sufficient reason, with its seeming causes of space/time, logical necessity, goal-seeking, and such is really frothy illusory foam that is really atemporal/non-spatial Will. However, even me just saying that, makes me think it begs the question as to why then is there this illusion then? Why the frothy foam of reality as Representation- that is to say, as objects and individual, seemingly non-connected wills? — schopenhauer1
My biggest question of his metaphysics right now is how is it that Will can have many "wills"? Why is it also that there is representation in the first place, if all is ultimately Will? I guess I never really got how the "objectification" of the representational reality really manifested or coincided as a "flip side" of Will. I can describe it, but I guess I don't understand how it fits together. — schopenhauer1
Try Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation.. His premise is basically the title of the four-volume work. — schopenhauer1
Oh. Ok.
Good luck with that. — Mww
I would be interested in an example? — Pop
Phenomenology may be a topic of interest to you. — Pop
Start at the beginning: Critique of Pure Reason. Make no mistake......whatever is said today, about what you’re asking, is grounded in one way or another, pro or con, by that complete metaphysical treatise on the human cognitive system.
As an added bonus, you get a real test of your comprehension abilities.
Have fun!!! — Mww
Not at all. Philosophy is not a secret cult that you need to become initiated into. It is for everyone. Anyone who loves wisdom, and who is willing to critically analyze their own presuppositions and to rationally argue for their beliefs is a philosopher. — Alvin Capello
A blank canvas of only one color is the foundation of patterns. — Gregory
Something comes from nothing. — Gregory
That's why we die says Heidegger. — Gregory
We were always at home until we existed and what was not is what it is — Gregory
Boo! God clearly doesn't exist. — Gregory
Haven't you seen a Christmas tree? — Gregory
People say they didn't feel like a person till their teens. — Gregory
I felt like a full person with free will and reason at age 3. — Gregory
The only thing towards which this world doesnt exist Is Pure nothingness — Gregory
I’m not claiming that the mystical experience doesn’t exist, but if you claim that it overrides any arguments, then you are no longer doing philosophy. — Alvin Capello
Wait, you are writing the next Critique of Pure Reason and you don't even believe the world is real? Are you saying there is a greater reality in comparison to which this one we live in doesn t exist? Is this God or a Form? — Gregory
I do not define the object in terms of the subject, for the properties of the unicorn are not dependent upon the brain. — Alvin Capello
Unicorns would still be horned horses, even if no humans had ever existed — Alvin Capello
And to say that unicorns exist as images in the mind is to make a common mistake. Surely ideas of unicorns exist in the mind, but unicorns themselves do not. — Alvin Capello
A unicorn and the idea of a unicorn are two very different things, so conflating them is a mistake (indeed, I think this is one of the central errors of idealism). — Alvin Capello
A unicorn and the idea of a unicorn are two very different things, so conflating them is a mistake (indeed, I think this is one of the central errors of idealism). — Alvin Capello
What I want to claim is that unicorns do not exist anywhere, and thus don't have existence in any sense. — Alvin Capello
I accept this point, but a nonexistent object and the idea of a nonexistent object are very different things. The idea of a nonexistent object exists in the mind, but the nonexistent object that it is an idea of does not. — Alvin Capello
It's rather hard to define in terms of other things, because objects are the absolute baseline of my philosophy. But if I have to give it a shot, I would say that an object is anything that can possess properties and stand in relations. Some objects, like horses, exist; while other objects, like unicorns, do not. Make no mistake though, unicorns still have four legs, fur, manes, etc. in exactly the same way that horses do; they just don't exis — Alvin Capello
I'm willing to grant on your own terms that concepts can exist in the absolute mind without becoming actualized in space. But if a concept (or object, as you mentioned earlier) exists in the absolute mind, then surely it exists. I'm claiming that many objects do not exist at all, in any sense of the term. Idealism does not allow for this; hence it must be rejected. — Alvin Capello
Can you let me know when that happens please? :smile: — Alvin Capello