Dasein
 
  1  
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 07:53 am
@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.
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.

'Be'-ing and 'no-thing-ness' are the same and don't contradict each other at all. The only time Being (thing) and nothingness (thing) contradict each other is when you treat them as objects in opposition to each other and that only happens in your speaking.

Your memorization of the written word and the 'repeating' of what you have memorized is your way of presenting your 'self' as some authority so as to cover up the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and that you don't want others to find out.

Memorization is not the same as knowing.

As long as that is your 'life strategy' you will never uncover the fact that you "don't know that you don't know" and you will never remember that you do know.

Have you ever noticed that animals, when challenged, will stand erect, puff up their chests, and make loud noises to make themselves appear bigger than they are?

BTW - since your 'life strategy' is to protect your 'self' by hiding behind being some 'authority' this discussion will continue on as monologue - yours.
guigus
 
  1  
Sat 27 Aug, 2011 07:52 am
@Dasein,
Dasein 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.
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.

'Be'-ing and 'no-thing-ness' are the same and don't contradict each other at all. The only time Being (thing) and nothingness (thing) contradict each other is when you treat them as objects in opposition to each other and that only happens in your speaking.

Your memorization of the written word and the 'repeating' of what you have memorized is your way of presenting your 'self' as some authority so as to cover up the fact that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and that you don't want others to find out.

Memorization is not the same as knowing.

As long as that is your 'life strategy' you will never uncover the fact that you "don't know that you don't know" and you will never remember that you do know.

Have you ever noticed that animals, when challenged, will stand erect, puff up their chests, and make loud noises to make themselves appear bigger than they are?

BTW - since your 'life strategy' is to protect your 'self' by hiding behind being some 'authority' this discussion will continue on as monologue - yours.


If you want to discuss with me, then please refer to my arguments, otherwise any reasonable discussion becomes impossible. And among the many arguments I have already presented is this:

Code:Being is all being.
Being is each being.
Each being is not all being.


By which being negates itself.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Sat 27 Aug, 2011 08:08 am
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.


Despite your not referring to my arguments, I will refer to yours.

Your distinction between "being" as a verb and as a noun (which you present in the most confusing way) is, in the case at hand, meaningless, for the simple reason that the act or state of being is just the same as the subject of that act---which precisely allows us to turn that verb into a noun in the first place.
north
 
  1  
Sun 28 Aug, 2011 07:25 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Dasein wrote:
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.


Despite your not referring to my arguments, I will refer to yours.

Your distinction between "being" as a verb and as a noun (which you present in the most confusing way) is, in the case at hand, meaningless, for the simple reason that the act or state of being is just the same as the subject of that act---which precisely allows us to turn that verb into a noun in the first
place.


now we can get back to what " does nothing exists " thread

physically

nothing while may exist mathematically

does not exist physically

since we are of something , nothing would have to be the exact opposite of something

when we think or imagine the qualities of something , nothing would have none of those qualities

except in the situation of practilcality

such as nothing in the fridge

which does not negate the object(s) as far as existence , which should be found in the fridge

just that the objects are not there , thats all

guigus
 
  0  
Mon 29 Aug, 2011 09:17 am
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

Dasein wrote:
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.


Despite your not referring to my arguments, I will refer to yours.

Your distinction between "being" as a verb and as a noun (which you present in the most confusing way) is, in the case at hand, meaningless, for the simple reason that the act or state of being is just the same as the subject of that act---which precisely allows us to turn that verb into a noun in the first
place.


now we can get back to what " does nothing exists " thread

physically

nothing while may exist mathematically

does not exist physically

since we are of something , nothing would have to be the exact opposite of something

when we think or imagine the qualities of something , nothing would have none of those qualities

except in the situation of practilcality

such as nothing in the fridge

which does not negate the object(s) as far as existence , which should be found in the fridge

just that the objects are not there , thats all




I have already addressed this, but again:

By saying that "nothing does not exist" you are saying that everything exists, including whatever does not exist.
igm
 
  1  
Mon 29 Aug, 2011 10:18 am
@guigus,
Want to answer my last post to you?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 29 Aug, 2011 10:26 am
@igm,
...you cannot reason with guigus, I have tried in very good will to do so and failed...boy you are in for a treatment. Wink
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Mon 29 Aug, 2011 10:35 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

Dasein wrote:
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.


Despite your not referring to my arguments, I will refer to yours.


Your distinction between "being" as a verb and as a noun (which you present in the most confusing way) is, in the case at hand, meaningless, for the simple reason that the act or state of being is just the same as the subject of that act---which precisely allows us to turn that verb into a noun in the first
place.


now we can get back to what " does nothing exists " thread

physically

nothing while may exist mathematically

does not exist physically

since we are of something , nothing would have to be the exact opposite of something

when we think or imagine the qualities of something , nothing would have none of those qualities

except in the situation of practilcality

such as nothing in the fridge

which does not negate the object(s) as far as existence , which should be found in the fridge

just that the objects are not there , thats all




I have already addressed this, but again:

By saying that "nothing does not exist" you are saying that everything exists, including whatever does not exist.


what I,m saying is that nothing cannot exist other than in practical terms

and that the only thing(S) that exist are of something

so not every thing exists
guigus
 
  1  
Mon 29 Aug, 2011 04:49 pm
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

Dasein wrote:
First off, none of the so-called thinking you're doing has been thought through by you, you are 'reporting' on something you have read somewhere and presenting yourself as some authority. Otherwise, you would notice that 'Be'-ing and Being are not the same. 'Be'-ing is 'no-thing-ness not something called Being which is reflected off of some thing call nothingness.


Despite your not referring to my arguments, I will refer to yours.


Your distinction between "being" as a verb and as a noun (which you present in the most confusing way) is, in the case at hand, meaningless, for the simple reason that the act or state of being is just the same as the subject of that act---which precisely allows us to turn that verb into a noun in the first
place.


now we can get back to what " does nothing exists " thread

physically

nothing while may exist mathematically

does not exist physically

since we are of something , nothing would have to be the exact opposite of something

when we think or imagine the qualities of something , nothing would have none of those qualities

except in the situation of practilcality

such as nothing in the fridge

which does not negate the object(s) as far as existence , which should be found in the fridge

just that the objects are not there , thats all




I have already addressed this, but again:

By saying that "nothing does not exist" you are saying that everything exists, including whatever does not exist.


what I,m saying is that nothing cannot exist other than in practical terms


Why aren't you guys capable of thinking about what you say? Just think about what you just said, that "nothing cannot exist," which means that "everything can exist."

You are taking nothing for something precisely to deny that nothing can be something. The word "nothing" means not anything at all: you are confusing the word "nothing"---which is indeed something---with its meaning---which is no thing. So without that confusion what you are indeed saying is that "no thing cannot exist."

Once you stop confusing the word with its meaning, you will (finally) understand that you are already presupposing what you believe to deny.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 12:20 am
...obscurity exponentially grows among confused and confusing people around this forum...so lets clarify it a little bit shall we.
...it is or it should be quite obvious that every thing that exists, in its "thingness" naturally exists...it follows that everything exists is a formal necessary truth ! ...in turn that which does not exists cannot be spoken off...
...the problem is not with everything that exists existing, but rather in correctly classifying how it exists or what it really is in fact...
...even the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as a symbol Deity created to fight Gods and Religion by making a mockery of himself...saying it exists is correctly classifying it in what way it does exist and it can serve a purpose...
Everything exists is a trivial truth !
igm
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 05:39 am
@guigus,
Are you saying that all words exist and 'nothing' is a word therefore it must exist?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:10 am
@igm,
...the word nothing it certainly exists, whether it corresponds to anything more then a partial absence, a non actual object is the issue on the table, and on my part perfectly settled...
igm
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the word nothing it certainly exists, whether it corresponds to anything more then a partial absence, a non actual object is the issue on the table, and on my part perfectly settled...

All words are made of parts (none of which is the word itself) if you remove those parts is a 'word' that exists left over? The notion of a word depends on its parts but there is no truly existent word apart from its parts. A thing 'word' does not exist it is just an arbitrary linguistic designation arising as a temporary label for a collection of parts. It’s meaningless without those parts and unfindable amongst those parts.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:33 am
@igm,
...the way a word codify´s meaning is itself meaningless reason why there is a vast diversified amount of languages in the world...
...the term nothingness usually refers to the absence of an object or set of objects as actual reason why it cannot be taken into the extreme beyond which it becomes meaningless...
igm
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...But he seems to be saying that the word 'nothing' exists as a word and also the meaning of the word is that it doesn't. So I'm saying the 'word' itself cannot be said to exist for the reasons I've said in my previous post.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:46 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

...But he seems to be saying that the word 'nothing' exists as a word and also the meaning of the word is that it doesn't. So I'm saying the 'word' itself cannot be said to exist for the reasons I've said in my previous post.


I will presume that you are not expressing yourself correctly, as the word exists and is commonly used...what you are philosophically questioning is the so called implication of its meaning when taken in to the extreme...words exists when they are used by people and stop existing when people don´t feel the need to use them any more...all of this of course is independent on how they chose to write them down on paper...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:50 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...taking the battered example of the fridge, when one speaks that nothing is in the fridge one is referring to the usual collection of objects that normally can be found in the fridge and not to a truly total absence of all the actual objects that exist in the world....it certainly does not seem intended to mean for instance that no shoes are in the fridge...the use of the word is a practical and simple use and it should not be taken any more serious then that.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 06:52 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I will presume that you are not expressing yourself correctly

I am, e .g. a car is a collection of parts but you won't find a 'thing' car amongst those parts. If you remove those parts no 'car' will be left over. That's what I'm saying. In this example a 'car' does not truly exist. Not only that but each part of that car is a collection of parts ad infinitum....

Any 'word' doesn't exist for the same reason.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 07:00 am
@igm,
...you see but a car is not only the passive collection of its parts but instead the complete collection of its functions which are active...in that sense cars do work, thus meaning they do exist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Tue 30 Aug, 2011 07:03 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...I don´t believe space is a continuum rather it is at plank scale, or a bit further down discrete, similarly energy and matter or simply put information cannot infinitely be compressed into a small bit of space ad infinitum...what you have for infinity is an eternal loop of continuity instead...infinity only makes sense out of finity itself...
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 09:23:06