Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Challenge/support my thesis!

Epi
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

Wasn't this Descartes's idea? I would agree with the thesis statement.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 5:05:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

How can we challenge or support your thesis, it states that the subject matter is impossible to think about while implying that you've given it a lot of thought?

Maybe it's the thesis that is impossible.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:39:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

In the recent past, I would have agreed, with you, but, now, not so much.

It is a contradiction, to say something doesn't exist; in doing so, you are predicating something with nonexistence; and, to predicate something is to give it existence. For example, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", nonexistence is predicated by does not exist. You are saying nonexistence has action; you are saying it does not do something. Also, you are modifying nonexistence, with itself; you are describing nonexistence and giving it meaning. Anytime you define something, you give it limits; you say it is this, but it's not that; you give it meaning, and value. It's a contradiction to say something is nothing, thereby, giving it definition, meaning, and value.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:07:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

If non-existence is well enough defined to be contradicted by considering it, it is well enough defined to consider it in the first place.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since non-existence = zero information = undefined = zero constraint, we can make judgements about it from within existence. Although it (the objective predicate) is intrinsically undefined, it is defined from within existence .
Epi
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 7:39:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:

In the recent past, I would have agreed, with you, but, now, not so much.

It is a contradiction, to say something doesn't exist; in doing so, you are predicating something with nonexistence; and, to predicate something is to give it existence. For example, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", nonexistence is predicated by does not exist. You are saying nonexistence has action; you are saying it does not do something. Also, you are modifying nonexistence, with itself; you are describing nonexistence and giving it meaning. Anytime you define something, you give it limits; you say it is this, but it's not that; you give it meaning, and value. It's a contradiction to say something is nothing, thereby, giving it definition, meaning, and value.

I might agree with you there, but I believe the idea of "nonexistence" falls into the second category. "Nonexistence" can be made up of

1. The idea of existence, and
2. The concept of negation

Both of which already exists.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 2:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:14:21 PM, Epi wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:39:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:

In the recent past, I would have agreed, with you, but, now, not so much.

It is a contradiction, to say something doesn't exist; in doing so, you are predicating something with nonexistence; and, to predicate something is to give it existence. For example, in the sentence, "Nonexistence does not exist.", nonexistence is predicated by does not exist. You are saying nonexistence has action; you are saying it does not do something. Also, you are modifying nonexistence, with itself; you are describing nonexistence and giving it meaning. Anytime you define something, you give it limits; you say it is this, but it's not that; you give it meaning, and value. It's a contradiction to say something is nothing, thereby, giving it definition, meaning, and value.

I might agree with you there, but I believe the idea of "nonexistence" falls into the second category. "Nonexistence" can be made up of

1. The idea of existence, and
2. The concept of negation

Both of which already exists.

I agree.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 7:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
This is actually my first time posting on the forums, and would really appreciate it if you challenged or added support to my thesis for my learning/enlightenment. Anyway, my thesis:

"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

Considering we define nothing as the lack of something I would say that is probably true.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 10:24:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:06:03 PM, Epi wrote:
Hello Debate.org!
"It is impossible to think about what either doesn't exist or isn't made up of something that already exists."

Let's see,
1. "It is impossible to think about what doesn't exists."
2. "It is impossible to think about what isn't made up of something that already exists."

Actually, it is a self-evident claim. Let's assume X doesn't exist and is not made up of something that already exists. That means it is impossible to think about X. But, as soon as you think about X, it exists, at least in one's mind.

Fairies don't exist and they are not made up from something that exists, therefore it is impossible to think about fairies, but I think about beautiful and ..... fairies, therefore either premise (1&2) is false or fairies do exist.
This is red.