15
   

Existence of Everything.

 
 
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 04:47 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Then I am one of those people who try to unveil the confusion, even if my attempts are futile.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:04 pm
@Logicus,
Keep it up Log.
Don't allow the concedists to shut you out.
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:11 pm
@mark noble,
I admit, it is difficult to discuss these matters, but if I get more knowledge out if it, so be it.
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:18 pm
@Logicus,
Every single candle lights a corner of the dark
Cipherius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:19 pm
@mark noble,
But it is impossible to truly get rid of the darkness. Once the candles melt, darkness will consume all.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:25 pm
@Cipherius,
Nothing is impossible.
But it was a metaphor relative to Log's perseverance...
Cipherius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:27 pm
@mark noble,
Ah. I appreciate his perseverance. We need more people like him.
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:29 pm
@Cipherius,
We?
I hate this pathetic site.
I am just studying you all.
Cipherius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:31 pm
@mark noble,
The arrogance...
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:32 pm
@Cipherius,
Now now, Cipherius. Isn't that what we're all doing?
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:36 pm
@Cipherius,
Really?
Enjoy your virtual family.
Logicus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:37 pm
@mark noble,
They aren't all virtual, Mark.
mark noble
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2013 06:39 pm
@Logicus,
Fuckoff idiot!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 12:41 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:

If reality is an illusion, then it's no longer 'reality.'
Once you define 'nothing', it becomes something.


Such observations are central to "post-modernism". They can be traced via Hegel's dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) , Wittgenstein's "language games", through to Derrida's "aporia". The movement is iconoclastic with respect to traditional (analytic) philosophy and has consequently many opponents, despite respectable protagonists such as Richard Rorty.

Interestingly to me, its implicit rejection of "the law of the excluded middle" seems to reflect some findings in modern physics such as "wave-particle duality". (Hence the background to the Niels Bohr quotation above).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 02:53 am
@fresco,
Without the the law of the excluded middle the first thing you would have to admit is that both your interpretations are at best true and not true...but I never saw any inclination of you to even remotely consider it so...your displease with logic is at best discretionary, as when it suits you take it but when it doesn't you flash it of...finally, on the contrary if the only reality we had was an illusion then it would no longer be an illusion because there are no illusions per se without a referent reality...once more your use of logic is sloppy, but then that is probably the reason you avoid it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 05:47 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I think you are arguing with yourself. This thread is basically vacuous, for the reasons given by Lustig, myself and others. I am merely commenting on Lustig's stated "avoidance of philosophy". Philosophy has moved on and its direction has often been metalogical.
As for my "discretionary interpretation" (presumably elsewhere)I suggest you (re)read this comment on Von Glasersfeld on Maturana, whom as you know is one of my prefered authors.
Quote:
The comprehensive conceptual flow-chart that Maturana often shows during his lectures, has on the left (from the audience's point of view) the break-down of explanation with objectivity, and on the right side, explanation without objectivity. Whether, in one's own describing, one chooses to be on the left or the right side is, according to Maturana, a matter of emotion.

(emphasis mine)
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 08:31 am
@fresco,
One of the things that makes life interesting is the variety of our learning curves.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 04:11 pm
@Logicus,
Logicus wrote:

I do not think I have been convinced yet. In fact, Fil has made me want to believe more that reality is an illusion.


Belief, in this situation, is nothing more than a blind guess. Guess whichever way you want...there is no unambiguous evidence in either direction. Guess using a coin toss.

But keep in mind that if what we call the physical universe is an illusion...THAT IS THE REALITY.

If you are talking about what we call the "physical universe"...call it that. Do not call it reality...and then suggest that it may be an illusion...BECAUSE IF WHAT WE CALL THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS AN ILLUSION...

...THAT IS THE REALITY.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 04:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You are absolutely correct...I tried to explain just that 2 or 3 posts above.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 05:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You are absolutely correct...I tried to explain just that 2 or 3 posts above.


Yup.

One of the reasons I emphasized was because your point was not taken.
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
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 2.9 seconds on 11/21/2024 at 05:18:16