In reality objective existence is not viewd on, has no perspective, no focus, is without POV, without an angle. — Haglund

But that statement certainly is. Namely, a sophomoric, silly perspective. Which happens to be complete nonsense.

And, non-trivially, I’ll emphasize that I have not once brought up “objective existence.” Being is not an object.

Given that people who want to spout absurdities don’t listen, this crucial point will no doubt continue to be ignored.

Rocks existing is a mental picture. — Haglund

:rofl:
:ok:

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet. — Olivier5

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war.

I've studied Heidegger. I have no idea what he means by "being." — Jackson

Rightfully so. He gives no interpretation himself. He wants to look at the basis for all interpretations— which is the human being. If human being is temporality, then being’s interpretation is related to time. Namely, as presence.

That’s my understanding.

Existence is culture dependent. — Haglund

You can’t have culture without existing. Rocks exist too— they have no culture.

It's not just some interesting objective feature of an objective reality that can have meaning and plays a role, it constitutes an objective reality. — Haglund

I never equated being with objective reality— whatever that means. In fact I reject the subject/object distinction you implicitly make.

Your objective story is another one than mine. In my story you are an indirect creature of God, claiming that existence is objective. — Haglund

You’re just making things up now. I never once made claims about objectivity.

That human beings are creatures of God, or that the world is created, is an interpretation. Fine. I’m not even arguing that.

Being is not an object, in my view. Is it God? Is it substance? Is it energy? That depends on who you ask. But to deny there’s a world, or that anything “is” — or to claim being is “culturally dependent,” is just talking nonsense.

Of course, you exist, I exist, our stomach digests. If you look at it in a certain way. Then what is "it"? You will, like me, probably say, the material structures in my belly". But that's already a culture dependent statement. But in another story you and I, maybe all creatures on Earth, are no more than specks of dirt (no offense!). — Haglund

The first sentence is all I’ve pointed out. It’s a truism. If you acknowledge that, then that’s the only point.

“If you look at it in a certain way”— no. It’s not about how you look at it, or interpret it, or think about it, or about the stories you tell about it. You start with it, and “in” it. You exist— period. Not controversial. The rest is, indeed, very much a matter of interpretation, culture, personal beliefs and values, etc. — but I’m not arguing that.

It’s as if we’re looking at a chair and you’re claiming “chair” is culturally dependent, but all I’m saying is “there is a being.”

Not that this is about postmodernism, but....Even Heisenberg said subjectivity can never be eliminated from the scientific experiment. — Jackson

The human being can not be eliminated from science. It all comes out of the human mind. There’s no doubt about that. Science is a human endeavor— as is philosophy, as is art. Thinking itself is a human activity.

Our consciousness, our thinking, our language, our logic — is all of this nothing? Does it refer to nothing whatsoever? If not, then it refers to something — something that exists, that “is.” Change, culture, human nature, truth, etc — are all, likewise, “things.” They’re mental or physical or emotional phenomena. They’re beings.

What is the beingness of beings? That’s being itself. The openness of being needs the human, and the human is only human insofar as he stands in the openness of being— according to Heidegger.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.”
— Xtrix

I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil. — Olivier5

I'm not sure how to take this. Is this what you believe or is it an attempt to mock what you think I believe?

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" by most people in the west. The Russians certainly haven't forgotten -- and rightfully so.

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

(And, once again, in case there's any doubt: I condemn Putin's actions without question. I condemned the actions of 9/11, as well; was it also not relevant to understand the role of US foreign policy, particularly with Israel, in that situation? Is understanding how the Iraq war created ISIS and its atrocities? Or was that water under the bridge too?)

But what that's like depends on the cultural medium it's in — Haglund

Maybe gravity and digestion and circulation depends on culture too. :roll:

Existence is not culturally determined. Reducing this to cultural determination is itself culturally determined and, it so happens, completely wrong. Existence precedes culture. Culture can determine how existence is interpreted -- and often does. A look at geography and history shows this quite well.

And what’s the argument, exactly? That nothing exists, that everything is a mental construction, or that any proposition or truth is impossible?
— Xtrix

The argument is that the given, the absolute, objective reality, is culture dependent. — Haglund

So the fact that we're alive, that we exist, is culturally dependent?

So the statement "objective reality is culture dependent" is also culture dependent.

To deny anything exists whatsoever is an absurdity. That apparently is what's happening.

No one is questioning that human beings are involved in interpreting the world, or that culture has an impact on one's beliefs and values. No one. The simple and non-controversial claim is this: change, if it's anything at all, "has" being. I don't see how or why anyone would object to this. It's truism.

Claiming it to be not only serves to favor one's own given. — Haglund

Claiming it is also serves one's own given -- the given of cultural relativity.

What you said:

if something is universal, it must be able to take into account subjectivity
taking into account subjectivity creates the consequence that it is not universal

In other words: if something is universal, then it is not universal.

Even in shorter way: if being is, then it is not. — Angelo Cannata

Your quote from Heidegger:

“First, each metaphysical question always encompasses the whole problematic of metaphysics and in fact is the whole of metaphysics. Secondly, to ask any metaphysical question, the questioner as such must also be present in the question, i.e., must be put in question. From this we conclude that metaphysical questions must be posed (1) in terms of the whole and (2) always from the essential situation of the existence that asks the question.” — Angelo Cannata

So again, I repeat: not once did Heidegger make a claim remotely like what you claim.

No one once denied that thinking and questioning presumes a human being. To claim something about "subjectivity" (which Heidegger would reject) or, further, to the "non-universality" of subjectivity, has nothing to do with Heidegger. Furthermore, the statement "if being is, then it is not" is also nonsensical. To claim this is reiterating -- in some way -- what Heidegger was saying is pure fabrication, as demonstrated by the fact that you cannot produce any citation that supports it.

What Heidegger is saying above you apparently don't understand, if you think it supports in any way what you've stated in the previous post. Do you know what he's talking about there? Briefly: With (1), he's talking about the question of being. With (2), he's talking about dasein -- temporality. If you haven't gathered that much, you shouldn't be quoting him.

Everything is a mental construction. Everything subjective. There’s no such thing as truth. Nothing exists. Everything changes— but change isn’t a thing.

“Philosophy,” folks.

I have just described in a structured way what has already been noticed by Heidegger, nothing new. — Angelo Cannata

Heidegger never ONCE made anything remotely like this claim. Either cite your source or stop with the fabrication.

Yeah, and also people who think it witty to subjectivize everything, and claim nothing exists.

No wonder post modernism is a laughingstock.

If it does, I do hope nuclear winter and global warming cancel each other out. — Benkei

:lol:

So the given is always a mental construction. — Haglund

A king of cheap skepticism, I suppose. Maybe life is a dream! Etc. Descartes dealt with this years ago— and Kant, in his own way, after him.

That we “exist” is a given. If it’s a mental construction, then the mental construction exists.

And what’s the argument, exactly? That nothing exists, that everything is a mental construction, or that any proposition or truth is impossible?

Seems utterly ridiculous to me.



For the third time you failed to answer my question. Instead opting to apparently talk to yourself.

There’s no contradiction whatsoever in what is said, beyond what you’ve made up. Yes, thinking and talking is something done by the human being — no one denies that. Thinking and talking are beings.

You’re mistaking being for an object. It’s not. It’s also not permanence, which you seemed to indicate early on. It’s also not change.

Denying anything exists is worth doing — in high school. You can go on doing so it your please. I have no interest in it.

I’m not sure either, frankly.

I fell behind this thread a while back and it’s too long for me to go through, but I’ve perused. And I see what you mean. I see a lot of people talking past each other. But I think we can all agree this is an awful situation — and exceedingly dangerous.

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made a promise he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge. — Olivier5

It’s not the reason I’m talking about it. I’ve known this for years— long before this crisis. I have no access to Russian propaganda— in fact quite the opposite, I’m surrounded, here in the US, by war hawks and jingoists.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.” It’s far more likely that that statement is a result of propaganda. I hear similar noises in the US media— when it’s mentioned at all (which is rare). That’s telling. I can see why the government would want us to forget. It’s preferable for the public to remain ignorant of the motivations of “foreigners.” They’re just terrorists, barbarians, sub-humans, etc. No sense doing anything except destroy them.

This is exactly the problem of metaphysics: how can you say that something is a given, since, in order to say it, you need to use your brain? — Angelo Cannata

No— in order to say it, or think it, you have to be. Anything we think, say, feel, or do presupposes existence.

I’ll repeat: unless change is nothing, it “has” being.

So again:

1) there is.
2) There is something.
3) Change is something.

Where does the disagreement lie? — Xtrix

If you’re arguing that nothing exists— or knowledge of any kind, or statements of any kind are impossible, which is what it sounds like, then that’s your own business. I can’t argue with absurdities.

If change is a thing, it’s part of existence. This is logic— this is truism.

Saying “change is something” is a human conceptualization, which is, metaphisics. — Angelo Cannata

Not really. To recognize anything whatsoever is not metaphysics. We see the world in terms of entities in that world. Beings. That’s simply consciousness, awareness, perception, experience, etc.

We can call it a conceptualization…but in that case everything is conceptualized. Not just a particular being, like change, but any being whatsoever. The world then becomes “conceptualized.” And here we’re back to an idealism.

As such, it is exposed to criticism. It is humanly impossible to guarantee that our reasonings are true and correct: we never know if tomorrow we might discover an error in our reasoning. — Angelo Cannata

But I’m not referring to “reasoning.”

I don’t understand what you’re arguing against — that things exist at all? Or that change is not a thing?

If neither, then fine — because both are absurdities. But it seems as if there’s disagreement somehow…yet if you truly understand what I’m saying, it’s not at all controversial. It’s essentially truism:

1) there is.
2) There is something.
3) Change is something.

Where does the disagreement lie?

So, you have no way to guarantee that your statement “change is something” is true or correct — Angelo Cannata

That there is something is a given, prior to (and assumed before) truth or falsity in the sense you’re using (viz., propositional logic).

The notion of truth you’re using, yes any statement whatsoever can be analyzed as true in terms of “correctness,” and so can be doubted. We can doubt the existence of everything we think and experience— as Descartes famously did. This already presupposes an ontology, a notion of truth, a subject/object distinction, and a notion of correctness.

It’s a ploy often used when one wants to get out of an otherwise weak argument or misunderstanding. Better to attempt to undermine truth, fact, and reality rather than “lose.” It’s an unhealthy habit— I’ve done it myself. Worth losing.

That's why I think it is wrong considering change as being. — Angelo Cannata

You aren’t listening.

Change is something. Therefore change “is.” Is-ness is being.

Unless you’re claiming change is nothing— which is an absurdity— then there’s no disagreement.

“Being” is not permanence.

The NATO thing has been done to death... — SophistiCat

Rightfully so. I’m very glad to hear it. I don’t think it can be done to death, though.

It's far more than just a fashion: almost a mandatory opinion, hammered hour after hour, day after day, week after week. — Olivier5

Not that NATO is “evil,” but that agreements were made (alas, informal - not that that matters much either way) and quickly broken. Of course Russian propaganda will embellish the point for their own purposes. Doesn’t make it any less relevant.

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had. — ssu

Was this before or after NATO expanded to Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia (both bordering Russia), etc.?

As I said before— I’m not excusing Putin’s crimes. But to analyze this situation by speculations about his psyche is useless. Whoever is in charge, Russia has good reason to be weary of NATO expansion, and has warned against it for years. It’s only a matter of time before someone does something stupid, given the context.

Point being, nothing you're quoting is remotely new, and so it isn't a very good explanation for the decision to invade. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It wasn’t an explanation of the decision to invade. But it’s one very important factor. You cannot understand this event without this historical context. The statement last September is a crucial piece.

that NATO expansion isn't a strategic threat because everything Western is totally benign — Benkei

Yes— American exceptionalism. Everything we do is for democracy and freedom. All military action is defensive (department of defense).

There’s little point in arguing with someone who’s already taken that view, I suppose. But it was worth pointing out anyway in the off chance it wasn’t mentioned. I haven’t followed every post on this thread.

In case this hasn't been posted yet, I'll link it below, with excerpts.

Supporting Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Aspirations: As the United States and Allies reaffirmed in the June 2021 NATO Summit Communique, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. We also remain committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing reforms.

Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership

Worth remembering that Russia was indeed led to believe that NATO wouldn't advance beyond 1990 borders.

Doesn't excuse Putin's war crimes. But if we're serious, we have to look at relevant antecedents. This was from last September.

:up:

If you consider “being” as "something”, but not permanent, how are you able to give it a name, which is, the word “being”? — Angelo Cannata

Being is not a being.

But beyond that -- if what you say is true, and we cannot assign a name to anything that changes -- then we can't name anything, including change itself.

It seems to me that we can use names only if we consider that something remains unchanged over time. For example, if what I call “sky” today is a “horse” tomorrow, it is completely impossible to me to give it a name, I cannot even figure what I am thinking about. — Angelo Cannata

There are many words, in many languages, that express the same concepts. In fact, we know very well that using codes, like binary code, can convey all kinds of information. So if tomorrow we call the sun "horse," it won't change that bright ball in the sky.

I repeat myself: being is not permanence, and it's not change. I never made either claim. It's not a being, and it's not a property. It's not what's left over when you take everything else away, for example. It's not like water or matter -- which can change forms, etc.

But you call it “being”, which means that, in this something that you call “being”, something remains the same over time, so that today and tomorrow you can still call it “being”. This seems to me that actually you are not conceiving “being” as something really completely changing, really not permanent. — Angelo Cannata

I never said being was "completely changing," I said we should not equate being with permanence. I also said, at least twice now, that being is also not therefore "becoming." Permanence and impermanence is not what "being" means. Take "being" to mean "existence," if that's more helpful. That gets closer to what I mean. We wouldn't say "existence" is an object or a property -- we wouldn't say existence is "change" or "permanence."

My recommendation: read Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics."

If you consider change as a kind of being — Angelo Cannata

Ask yourself this: is change a "thing" of any kind? I'd say "Yes, of course -- it's at least a concept, a word, etc." So it is a being -- it is "something." It has existence. It "is."

This is, as far as I can tell, not very controversial.

What would be the alternative? Is change nothing?

I think this is not really consistent, because, if you really want to be consistent with a perspective based on change, you must consider change also about your idea of change. In other words, if I say “everything changes”, I must admit that this very statement and its meaning must be included in the set of things subject to change. — Angelo Cannata

I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not denying that things change, nor did I say anything about a "perspective of change." The only point was that change -- whatever it is -- is, at bottom, "something." It's not nothing. Whether a physical process or a word or a thought or concept or an abstraction, it's something. Thus, it's a being.

The sentence "everything changes" is itself subject to change -- so what?

If you think about change as a way of being, then you are assuming that, along the change, being remains being. But, if it remains being, then you are excluding it from change, you are excluding your statement from the field of things that change. — Angelo Cannata

I didn't say change was a "way of being," I said that it was a being. "Being remains being," or "being is excluded from change" is, again, equating "being" with permanence. That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Being is not permanence and it is not change. Being is not "a" being at all.

So I'm not excluding being from change, and I'm not equating being with change.

Heidegger was able to include change in the category of being because he actually modified the meaning of being: being in Heidegger is not absolute, but conditioned by time, by the human condition. — Angelo Cannata

I wouldn't put it that way. To say being is "conditioned by time" is meaningless to me. Rather, my understanding of Heidegger is this: human beings are temporal beings, and when they interpret being they do so with time as their standpoint. They interpret being in terms of time. Hence why the distinction between "being and becoming" is so ancient. Change itself assumes time. No time, no change.

This way Heidegger forced the meaning of “being” to something that actually means human condition, subject to time and death. In this context we cannot say that change is an expression of being, because being itself hasn’t any stable meaning. — Angelo Cannata

Again, I don't agree with your formulation. The meaning of being as "something that actually means the human condition" doesn't ring true to me, except in the sense that it can be interpreted as what I said above -- that humans interpret being (and beings) in terms of time, because (at least in Heidegger's analysis) we "are" time (or, in his vocabulary, "temporality").

Regardless, being doesn't have a stable meaning -- true. There are many meanings and interpretations. But the same is true for change. The point, though, that change is "something" -- which is all I'm claiming -- and is thus a thing, and thus a being, etc., seems fairly obvious.

Along history metaphysics was criticized by historicists, because, by trying to understand how things are, it looses sight of the fact that things, rather than being, are becoming (Heraclitus). — Angelo Cannata

I think we need to shake the traditional views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. This "being versus becoming" is a false one. Why should we presume that "being" means something opposed to "becoming"? This essentially equates being to permanence.

Beings exist. Beings change. Change -- becoming -- itself is a being. Not a "physical object," of course, but a process. Processes exist. Change exists. Thus, change is "in" being as much as permanence is "in" being.

It's a false dichotomy. Heraclitus and Parmenides are saying the same thing. Here I agree with Heidegger.

Emojis are about all that some people are worth.

Write in one paragraph a concise statement on why Kant's CPR is speculative metaphysics. — Constance

Won’t happen. Because he’s never read a word of Kant. Just like he’s never read a word of Kuhn. He’s just a liar who wants to posture. Who knows why. I assume he’s a teenager or young adult.

It’s glaringly obvious when someone is just bullshitting. No specifics, no citations — just vague generalizations about “metaphysics” and “objectivity.”

It’s psychologically interesting— so I guess there’s some value to it.

:rofl:

:lol: :up:

And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance

Indeed. Both the plutocracy and the evangelical community often love her.



Look! He’s doing her greatest hits! How quaint.

And intellectually unevolved. What's particularly dangerous isn't Rand herself, but the cult-like following of her. She's only somewhat responsible for that, but not entirely. I think she herself would mostly be against the dogmatism and zealotry of her followers. Having once given her due attention, I've since moved beyond her -- although there are still aspects I like. I like that she echoes Aristotelian virtue ethics, for example. But her views on ontology, epistemology, and politics is very limited indeed.

Her devotees on this forum so far have done her legacy no favors.

Ayn Rand devotees are cute.

Agreed.

:rofl:

Trolls are amusing. Imagine not knowing what “cognate” means — or “derive”. Lol

translated in Greek — Nickolasgaspar

I didn’t say it was cognate.

That is a factually wrong statement. — Nickolasgaspar

There are no “facts” involved. So this statement is just stupid.

Look - you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s obvious. You’re pretending otherwise fools no one but yourself. You’re a liar, and you communicate like a child who pretends to have all the answers. Much like Ayn Rand herself.

I doubt if one person on this forum takes you seriously. A normal person would look at this feedback and perhaps reflect…but self-deluded liars like you apparently can’t.

But keep going…trolls provide many laughs.

let me get this straight now.... the term Nature derives from the Greek physis(φυση)lol???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. Natura is the Latin translation of phusis.

First we interact empirically with your environment — Nickolasgaspar

No. First we are.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, you can.

I’ll skip the rest. Lying children don’t deserve serious responses. Go read more Rand.

A little synopsis:

Thinking is an activity that human beings do.

Thinking defined by the universal nature of its questions— especially the question of being — is called philosophy.

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology.

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis.

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method
— Nickolasgaspar

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method".
— Nickolasgaspar

Again— best not to engage seriously with children.