13
   

Existence of Everything.

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Thr irony is that the "good fresco" occasionally tries to lead him out of the pit, bur the "bad fresco" argues "naah...just leave him there to rot !"
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
CI wants desperately to be part of the discussion
He figures them other'n t'be smarter'n; so he joins'm.

You an me are just dental floss to them.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:34 pm
@neologist,
Hmmm ...a "changing permanent system" ! Smile Sounds a bit religious to me.
Why not "a permanently changing system" ?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:39 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

CI wants desperately to be part of the discussion
He figures them other'n t'be smarter'n; so he joins'm.

You an me are just dental floss to them.


Once again Fresco is dodging the question...something he does whenever he cannot answer one reasonably.

Quote:
Ahhh...so because a human being cannot come up with a "permanent entity" (whatever the hell that means)...and because you latest appeal to authority cannot do so...

...that means igm can logically assert that NOTHING IS PERMANENT.


Where is the "logic" in that?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:41 pm
@neologist,
I am part of the discussion; that's proven by people responding to my posts.

It's really a simple concept - for most who understands "reality."
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 02:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The latter-day solipsist now thinks his hpothetical audiemce is dodging questions on "logic", when in fact the actual audience who has previously quoted the metalogical position of the logician Quine, on the functional, contextual and relative meanings of concepts, sees "the question" to be too puerile to be worthy of a reply.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 03:44 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The latter-day solipsist now thinks his hpothetical audiemce is dodging questions on "logic", when in fact the actual audience who has previously quoted the metalogical position of the logician Quine, on the functional, contextual and relative meanings of concepts, sees "the question" to be too puerile to be worthy of a reply.



Interesting way of saying, "I can't, so I won't...but I don't have the balls to acknowledge that I can't, so I am going to pretend that the question is blah, blah, blah.

If you were anywhere near as versed in philosophy as you pretend you are, Fresco, you would not be in this forum discussing the subject. You would be somewhere where people are up in your level.

You are here because you are like "the audience." And we both understand what that means. Wink
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 03:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
igm wrote:

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.


Frank Apisa wrote:

And you KNOW "nothing is permanent"...HOW????


I look around and I can't see anything that is permanent... People tell me there is a permanent soul and a permanent heaven but I don't believe them and of course the soul and heaven are unfindable... Also, I look around at everything that appears and nothing remains the same... it is all impermanent.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 04:24 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

igm wrote:

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.


Frank Apisa wrote:

And you KNOW "nothing is permanent"...HOW????


I look around and I can't see anything that is permanent... People tell me there is a permanent soul and a permanent heaven but I don't believe them and of course the soul and heaven are unfindable... Also, I look around at everything that appears and nothing remains the same... it is all impermanent.


Maybe you, being a human being, just cannot recognize "permanent."

Maybe matter is permanent...maybe existence is permanent...maybe there are things not available to human senses that are not permanent. Maybe space or time or space/time are permanent.

But simply because you cannot see something does not make the statment "it is not" logical.

There probably are lots and lots of things in the universe (and in other universes and dimensions that may exist)...but that plays no part in the logic of your comment.

Why don't you just acknowledge that your comment was illogical?

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 04:39 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Hmmm ...a "changing permanent system" ! Smile Sounds a bit religious to me.
Why not "a permanently changing system" ?
It either is.
Or, it is not.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 07:17 pm
@igm,
'Nothing is permanent'
Stop talking total bollux m8!
Nothing doesn't exist!!!


And why is 'Red faced' Frank here?
He talks total bollux...........too.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Aug, 2013 01:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
I am a member of a permanent local philosophy discussion group whose members takes turns to present papers on philosophical developments. We follow standard procedure with referencing and subsequent debate. We come various walks of life and have differing ability levels, with the common aim of learning from each other and stimulating mental activity.

I am here in part to "work out" for my local meetings, but alas, as time goes on, the standard of "philosophical contribution" on A2K seems to have dropped (with a few notable exceptions). So I indeed get diminishing returns from "the current audience", yet I feel a slight responsibility to the "philosophy banner" of a respectable forum to attempt to maintain such standards, part of which is the disemination of interesting material.


0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Aug, 2013 01:47 am
@neologist,
Quote:
It either is.
Or, it is not.

You might be interested in checking out a reference to "E-prime" which is an attempt by philosophers to avoid problems with the word "is".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Alternatively, references to the abandonment of" the law of the excluded middle" (as in modern physics) tend to deflate the disjunction "either-or".
This point is perhaps illustrated by the sub-title to Brian Cox's recent book on quantum physics..."Everything that can happen does happen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quantum_Universe
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Aug, 2013 01:59 am
@fresco,
Good info on E-prime. Thanks for sharing it; it removes declarative sentences and makes it into an opinion. That's a good idea when discussing philosophy.
0 Replies
 
OnionPun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2014 12:11 pm
@Logicus,
You think, therefore you are. Everything else is experience in the confines of that experience. It cannot be proven that which has not been experienced truly exists and likewise, all that exists cannot be experienced. Ergo, the fundamental verb of you asking and being is the only sense of reality you truly have.

I will say that inherently in your question, you have undeniably revealed that you perceive yourself as excluded from the equation. It is not You+Everything. It is not "Prove to ME that EVERYTHING exists." It is "I exists and so too does everything that I experience." You are the proof.

Now, if we're going to get into semantics on what the nature of 'everything' is, then that's an entirely different conversation. You didn't ask us to prove that the universe exists, or that specific planets. You said everything. And everything is all that you experience and behold in its truest state.

Even if you are lied to, while it is perceived as truth, it is experienced as truth; when it is revealed to you as a lie, it is a lie. Because you understand it and perceive it, to you it exists and it is your experience with all that is that makes it so.
0 Replies
 
PhilipOSopher
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2014 04:14 am
@Logicus,
If you're using the word 'illusion', Logicus, does this imply that there is some standard of 'realness' that we have to refer to to define illusion? In which case - what impact does this have everything 'perceived', or the everything described in your OP? If (but only if) this standard of 'realness' is an objective concept that acts as a kind of scale on which everything can be placed, then everything can be placed on this scale of 'realness' in this way. Therefore - does this imply that to some extent everything is 'real' in some way? Even if something is at the bottom of this scale, i.e., being '0% real', does the fact that we can place it on this scale somehow paradoxically suggest that it is in fact some way real? I.e., it is impossible for everything to be 0% real - it must exist to some degree, even if it is a only concept that can be analysed in terms of 'realness'.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2014 06:29 pm
@PhilipOSopher,
Why are you replying to someone that hasn't been around for over a year? Just stop.
0 Replies
 
think rethink
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2017 01:36 pm
@Logicus,
To me,
The word exist, is abused and thrown around.

The rocks on the oceans bottom which have yet to be viewed by a human eye for the first time,

I don't consider such things, existing.

Even If these rocks impact my experience every day and I know that they are out there through sonar for instance,

They still do not exist to me.

The only existence is life, which means my life to me, yours to you.

Active Life, is consciousness being experienced.

These experiences ​give consciousness expression, so it is experienced in action beyond its passive state.

Things, we sense externaly, comprise these expressive actions.

When something externaly exists, it means it is stimulating existence, which is your living life.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2017 at 01:57:28