Reply
Mon 28 Apr, 2008 08:52 pm
Think about the concept "everything"...
Then some might ask "what's outside of everything?"...
...and at first it sounds like a reasonable question.
The question is reasonable if "everything" refers to a delivery that's been made that is incomplete.
But if "everything" refers to EVERYTHING as in "all things that exist, nothing left out", then the question is just dumb.
Still people are asking what's outside the universe...
What was before the beginning of time... Same thing.
Is there life after death?
Stupid questions, because the answer lies in the definition of the words. The questions only seem reasonable because we are not understanding the terms correctly.
Death means "end of life".
How then does it become meaningful to speak of life after death?
My point is just that a lot of the questions we are pondering exist because we do not apply language with consistent rules.
We compare small things that are finite and defined to the abstract concepts that we seek to understand... Our concept of infinity is derived from our notion of a second...
It's like puzzling together a picture with pieces that don't match.
Cyracuz,
See discussions of Russell's Paradox for insights into how "language" and "logic" depart from each other.
I guess the best portion of philosophy is the examination of questions (with respect to our use of language) compared to the pursuit of answers.
Cryacuz, with regard to the notion of "everything." It occured to me in another forum (?) that we cannot, even hypothetically, ever leave the universe (another word for everything). Even if I had all the time, fuel, and other resources, I could not exit the universe because--and notice how I am stuck with my language--I and my vehicle ARE intrinsic to the universe; we are not just IN it. When I get to the end of the universe and attempt to pass beyond it, it seems to me that I will really only extend it, not leave it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace