Existence of Everything.

@cicerone imposter,

You failed to see the word "if"

1 Reply

@neologist,

Your "if" is of no consequence in your assumption.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your "if" is of no consequence in your assumption.

It sure the heck is, since I postulated something in which I do not believe

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I wrote:

Yeah, but why do you bother to unzip yer pants when you have to take a leak?

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . Because like everyone else, I operate from a view point of naive realism...

True, Frank. It's a shame the intellectuals believe naive realists must necessarily be naive. Maybe they're not so smart after all.

Frank Apisa wrote:

ASIDE: During the summer months when I wear shorts, I do not unzip my pants when I take a leak. (My main worry is that my thing does not hang out after I am done.)

Too much information, Frank.

0 Replies

@neologist,

"If" it's something you do not believe, why even "postulate it?" Meaningless garbage.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"If" it's something you do not believe, why even "postulate it?" Meaningless garbage.

It had been the subject of prior posts. I'm sorry you didn't notice.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You wrote,

Quote:

It had been the subject of prior posts.

Why repeat something that's meaningless?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Nothing is meaningless, unless you believe it is. Meaningless is a subjective term.

1 Reply

@Logicus,

As are 100% of opinions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Point taken.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Yeah, but I don't believe everything could be an illusion.

Belief does not come into it!

The concept of "illusion" is predicated on the concept of "reality" against which we can compare it just like the concept "illness" is based on that of "health" etc.

Concepts have functionality NOT "existence".

This is the blindingly obvious reason why this thread is totally futile

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, but I don't believe everything could be an illusion.

Belief does not come into it!

The concept of "illusion" is predicated on the concept of "reality" against which we can compare it just like the concept "illness" is based on that of "health" etc.

Nonsense.

The REALITY can be that what we call the physical universe...MAY BE AN ILLUSION.

The dichotomy you are trying to build is an absurdity…and you should be able to see that.

Quote:

Concepts have functionality NOT "existence".

This is the blindingly obvious reason why this thread is totally futile

If you consider it futile...why do you persist in posting in it?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The physical universe may be an ILLUSION to Frankie boy, but not to people who knows where they live! LOL

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe everything could be an illusion.
Belief does not come into it!

The concept of "illusion" is predicated on the concept of "reality" against which we can compare it just like the concept "illness" is based on that of "health" etc.

Concepts have functionality NOT "existence".

This is the blindingly obvious reason why this thread is totally futile

OK, I don't aver everything could be illusory.
BTW, if the thread is futile, will your enlarged print make your point more succinctly?

I'm a naive realist, nothing more.I scoff at the pleonasms of wannabe intellectuals.

1 Reply

@neologist,

The point I was hammering home here was that we would consider a structurally analogous statement like "health could actually be another form of illness" to be totally ridiculous.

The confusion here by "naive realists" like Frank, is to assume that concepts like "reality" or "existence" can be defined in absolutist terms rather than relative ones like "health" and "illness".

(Wannabe intellectuals are invited refer to Quine's "Ontological Relativity" for the background to this. Quine was a leading logician of the 20th century).

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The point I was hammering home here was that we would consider a structurally analogous statement like "health could actually be another form of illness" to be totally ridiculous.

The confusion here by "naive realists" like Frank, is to assume that concepts like "reality" or "existence" can be defined in absolutist terms rather than relative ones like "health" and "illness".

(Wannabe intellectuals are invited refer to Quine's "Ontological Relativity" for the background to this. Quine was a leading logician of the 20th century).

TRANSLATION: I have offered some perfectly good theories suggested by competent individuals in all my APPEALS TO AUTHORITY...and Frank refuses to accept that as valid evidence that what I say has to be correct.

C'mon, Fresco. Even in your self-induced blindness you should be able to see that it is possible that your experts may be wrong...just as your assertions may be wrong.

I do not KNOW the true nature of REALITY. But it may be more complex than anyone writing here (or endlessly appealing to authority here) thinks that it is. We appear to be minor league animals just recently come down out of the trees. To suppose we can speak with authority about what actually is...IS MUCH TOO SILLY FOR SOMEONE LIKE YOU TO PROCLAIM.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...there is nothing wrong with what you have been saying so far regarding existence...the tautology "whatever is the case IS" is perfectly sound. Rather it seams to me Fresco confuses conceptual relativism with Ontological status...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...to put it in a more clear perspective lets just say that if relations themselves didn't had a clear ontological status relativism would not be an issue of debate in opposition to absolutism...that properties can mingle relate and cause effects doesn't make them any less of what they are.

...reality is the source of conceptual frames and not the opposite.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...there is nothing wrong with what you have been saying so far regarding existence...the tautology "whatever is the case IS" is perfectly sound. Rather it seams to me Fresco confuses conceptual relativism with Ontological status...

Fil & Frank,

Nothing is permanent.

Therefore reality is not permanent.

Therefore it never remains long enough to affix the... 'is'... to it.

Therefore the tautology, 'reality is what it is' ....is empty of meaning due to the impermanence of reality.

Trying to affix the 'is' to reality, is like trying to write your name with paint on the surface of a fast flowing river.

5 Replies

@igm,

Precisely.
.

1 Reply

Existence of Everything.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know