JLNobody
 
  1  
Sat 20 Aug, 2011 10:25 pm
I imagine that when I die I will become both nothing and everything, and without contradiction.
guigus
 
  1  
Sun 21 Aug, 2011 02:48 pm
@north,
north wrote:

but if I'm looking for a tomato and its not there , is it an object of nothing in the fridge or a no-thing ?


Because being and nothingness, despite identical, negate each other, our tomato exists as a contradiction between its existence as a non-being and its nonexistence as a being. Stop trying to eliminate that contradiction: you will always fail.
guigus
 
  1  
Sun 21 Aug, 2011 02:53 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Does nothing exist? -Yes.... Erm... wait... what? That makes no sense...


Nothing exists, because all being is nothing, so it does make sense.

Cyracuz wrote:
Does nothing exist? -No... Erm... wait... what? That makes no sense either....


Everything exists (nothing does not exist), since nothingness exists, which does make sense as well.

Cyracuz wrote:
Good philosophy.. Wink


Mine is.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Sun 21 Aug, 2011 02:56 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I imagine that when I die I will become both nothing and everything, and without contradiction.


You already are both nothing and everything, but not without contradiction.
hamilton
 
  1  
Sun 21 Aug, 2011 04:31 pm
@guigus,
so if it's a contradiction, which should we believe?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Sun 21 Aug, 2011 05:08 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

north wrote:

but if I'm looking for a tomato and its not there , is it an object of nothing in the fridge or a no-thing ?


Because being and nothingness, despite identical, negate each other, our tomato exists as a contradiction between its existence as a non-being and its nonexistence as a being. Stop trying to eliminate that contradiction: you will always fail.


you didn't answer my question

I wasn't talking about being and nothingness

I was was discussing the difference between the absence of the object in the fridge and whether because it was absent it becomes a no-thing

so does the absence of the tomato in the fridge make the tomato a no thing ?
guigus
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 08:08 am
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

but if I'm looking for a tomato and its not there , is it an object of nothing in the fridge or a no-thing ?


Because being and nothingness, despite identical, negate each other, our tomato exists as a contradiction between its existence as a non-being and its nonexistence as a being. Stop trying to eliminate that contradiction: you will always fail.


you didn't answer my question

I wasn't talking about being and nothingness

I was was discussing the difference between the absence of the object in the fridge and whether because it was absent it becomes a no-thing

so does the absence of the tomato in the fridge make the tomato a no thing ?


You are having a problem accepting the identity between being and nothingness, which makes you try to privilege either one over the other, in this case, nothingness over being. There is no "final victory" of either being or nothingness: the tomato, as an absent being, is both a being and a non-being---and it remains as this contradiction.
north
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:01 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

but if I'm looking for a tomato and its not there , is it an object of nothing in the fridge or a no-thing ?


Because being and nothingness, despite identical, negate each other, our tomato exists as a contradiction between its existence as a non-being and its nonexistence as a being. Stop trying to eliminate that contradiction: you will always fail.


you didn't answer my question

I wasn't talking about being and nothingness

I was was discussing the difference between the absence of the object in the fridge and whether because it was absent it becomes a no-thing

so does the absence of the tomato in the fridge make the tomato a no thing ?


Quote:
You are having a problem accepting the identity between being and nothingness, which makes you try to privilege either one over the other, in this case, nothingness over being. There is no "final victory" of either being or nothingness: the tomato, as an absent being, is both a being and a non-being---and it remains as this contradiction.


well I disagree

this is about why you would call the tomato a being yet a non-being at the same time

so define what being means to you
guigus
 
  1  
Mon 22 Aug, 2011 09:39 pm
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:
You are having a problem accepting the identity between being and nothingness, which makes you try to privilege either one over the other, in this case, nothingness over being. There is no "final victory" of either being or nothingness: the tomato, as an absent being, is both a being and a non-being---and it remains as this contradiction.


well I disagree


And what is your disagreement precisely?

north wrote:
this is about why you would call the tomato a being yet a non-being at the same time


Are you asking me what are the reasons for that? Those were already given in previous posts.

north wrote:
so define what being means to you


The only "definition" of being you are missing is that it is the same as nothingness. As I told you before, an absent tomato is both a being and a non-being. There is no "pure" (absolute) being, which means that such a being is "pure" (absolute) nothingness, which in turn means that "pure" (absolute) nothingness is "pure" (absolute) being: an absent tomato and a present one are different moments of nothingness, as much as different moments of being.
igm
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 03:49 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

There is no "pure" (absolute) being, which means that such a being is "pure" (absolute) nothingness, which in turn means that "pure" (absolute) nothingness is "pure" (absolute) being:

What you've said means this:

no pure (absolute) being = pure (absolute) nothingness = pure (absolute) being

Basically you are saying: no pure (absolute) being = pure (absolute) being

I think I’ve spotted a flaw in the form of a contradiction in your reasoning. Can you explain?
Dasein
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:39 am
@igm,
You have uncovered a 'flaw' in Guigus' thinking. Guigus is saying that no matter how hard he tries he can't prove that he (pure 'Be'-ing) exists.

He is saying that he would rather hide behind what he can prove instead of taking a leap-of-faith and stand on his own 2 feet.

Authenticity is a rigorous moment-to-moment choice you make. 99.999999% of the people in the world are entangled in the provability (definability and measurability) of the labrinth we call the world and don't know that who they are and the world they live alongside are 2 seperate entities.

If you spend your life on the planet using the world's criteria of length, width, depth, mass, and locality in an attempt to prove your existence you will think you are a 'thing' of this world and never know who you are.

It is hilarious to note that members of the 'Philosophy Forum' are using philosophy to prove to the world that they can hide out for a lifetime.
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:32 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

guigus wrote:

There is no "pure" (absolute) being, which means that such a being is "pure" (absolute) nothingness, which in turn means that "pure" (absolute) nothingness is "pure" (absolute) being:

What you've said means this:

no pure (absolute) being = pure (absolute) nothingness = pure (absolute) being

Basically you are saying: no pure (absolute) being = pure (absolute) being

I think I’ve spotted a flaw in the form of a contradiction in your reasoning. Can you explain?



Do you really think being and nothingness can be the same without any contradiction? What is the problem with you guys? How many times I have repeated that you cannot escape contradiction? Contradiction is in the heart of both being and nothingness: it is what makes them themselves, hence each other---it is their very essence, rather than some "flaw."
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:42 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

You have uncovered a 'flaw' in Guigus' thinking.


He hasn't "uncovered" anything: he just (finally) noticed the fundamental contradiction by which being and nothingness are the same, which I have uselessly yelled at your ears since my first post in this thread. It is nice to see you agreeing with him that this contradiction is a "flaw," because it shows how classical your thinking is, despite all that Heidegger reading.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:50 pm
Just clarifying things (once more):

1. Being and nothingness are the same.
2. This is a contradiction, and it must be.

The very reason why being is the same as nothingness is because it negates itself, which is the mother of all contradictions.
north
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:19 pm
@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Just clarifying things (once more):

1. Being and nothingness are the same.
2. This is a contradiction, and it must be.

The very reason why being is the same as nothingness is because it negates itself, which is the mother of all contradictions.


I got to say this is the most baffling argument I have ever come across , it makes absolutely no sense at all

but here I am trying to understand because I have to

so here I go again

guigus

define being

then define nothingness

not compartively , just on their own definitions

so just give me a definition of both , thats all I ask , for know
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:02 pm
@north,
north wrote:


guigus wrote:

Just clarifying things (once more):

1. Being and nothingness are the same.
2. This is a contradiction, and it must be.

The very reason why being is the same as nothingness is because it negates itself, which is the mother of all contradictions.


I got to say this is the most baffling argument I have ever come across , it makes absolutely no sense at all

but here I am trying to understand because I have to

so here I go again

guigus

define being

then define nothingness

not compartively , just on their own definitions

so just give me a definition of both , thats all I ask , for know


And you talk about nonsense...

Do you realize that "nothing" is the negation of being? Now tell me: how could you define the negation of being without defining being?

Conversely, being is whatever exists, as opposed to whatever does not. Just like there is no figure without a background, there is no being without nothingness.

Being and nothingness can only be defined in relation to each other. Therefore, the definitions you are demanding from my poor self will simply never see the light.

Please think.
north
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:11 pm
@guigus,

guigus wrote:

north wrote:


guigus wrote:

Just clarifying things (once more):

1. Being and nothingness are the same.
2. This is a contradiction, and it must be.

The very reason why being is the same as nothingness is because it negates itself, which is the mother of all contradictions.


I got to say this is the most baffling argument I have ever come across , it makes absolutely no sense at all

but here I am trying to understand because I have to

so here I go again

guigus

define being

then define nothingness

not compartively , just on their own definitions

so just give me a definition of both , thats all I ask , for know


And you talk about nonsense...

Do you realize that "nothing" is the negation of being? Now tell me: how could you define the negation of being without defining being?

Conversely, being is whatever exists, as opposed to whatever does not: just like there is no figure without a background, there is no being without nothingness.


Quote:
Being and nothingness can only be defined in relation to each other. Therefore, the definitions you are demanding from my poor self are sheer nonsense.


actually not nonsense at all

lets go from nothingness to being how does this happen then

you have gone from being to nothingness

now lets do the reverse

how does nothingness concieve of being , what is the process ?

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 10:04 pm
@north,
I think someone is trying to explain you that "nothingness" as meant in normal usage is something thus that there is no nothingness in absolute, but only the negation of actuality´s, itself a partial and not total negation of that which is possible...(he just does n´t know that he knows it)
north
 
  1  
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 10:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I think someone is trying to explain you that "nothingness" as meant in normal usage is something thus that there is no nothingness in absolute, but only the negation of actuality´s, itself a partial and not total negation of that which is possible...(he just does n´t know that he knows it)


interesting but I guess we shall see

sure has been bizarre perspective

it sure seems though that going the other way , nothingness to being has stumpted him so far , but we'll see
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 05:16 am
@guigus,
Can you answer this simple question: let’s take an object e.g. a pebble.

Is a pebble:

1. Existent?
2. Non-existent?
3. Both?
4. Some other alternative?

There are no other possibilities (ignore Occam’s Razor let's just keep it simple). Please just choose one of the possibilities above and ONLY answer with either a: 1, 2, 3 or 4. If you could just do this then I would have more confidence in your ability to clarify your argument. If not then I will give up on ever understanding your argument and conclude that you are only able to restate it not explain it.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/16/2024 at 09:12:03