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

The Absolute

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:57:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Absolute "And this is why"

http://www.debate.org...
The Big 4, at least as far as the mind is concerned, are Physicalism, Dualism, Idealism, and Neutral Monism. Which one makes the most sense to you and why?

Socialpinko: None of them?

The Fool: What is "that" which is none of them?
A.k.a. what is X, which is "The None" of them.

Perhaps you are actually engaging in philosophy, and you just don"t know it.
For "that" which is nothing, in particular, is absolutely everything.

And so, by that I understand, in a Hegelian sense, that The Absolute, is The Truth, "and if you want to add), all that exists, And all that exists, is The Truth, and so everything is then, synonymous in every way with The Absolute.

And that"s about as complicated as I see the problem, in the sense that, there is no actual problem, other than the one which is created by supposing, that any particular thing, can account for all things, when "all-things" is no-thing in particular.

Kind of like the Tao/Dao. The Logos, or Brahma.

1. For even a child knows, what "everything" is.
To a child, a ball is a ball.

2. To an adult, a ball is material, object made of atoms, which for the most part, acts in certain ways.

3. And lastly when an adult becomes wise, a ball, is a "ball", is a "bawl" again.
<(8D)

Against The Ideologist
"Tat-tat-tat"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 3:44:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/13/2014 12:00:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

AnDoctuir: I disagree

The Fool: I disagree with many things, and agree with others. But what is a disagreement, or an agreement without an argument? Perhaps a fart in the wind, which happens to blow it in your own direction.

<(86)
I mean it does that sometimes...

The Absolute Argument
My general argument here is it each and everything, are themselves, and insofar as "they are" anything, they are part of that which is, "all things"

By The Absolute, I mean the summation of "all things".
Now this is different from the (set of all things), because the (set of all things) presupposes, a sort of "container of all", but this container, insofar as it is anything, cannot be exclusive from "all things", and so must share a property with "all things". But "that" which pervades all things, cannot be distinguished at any particular thing on its own.

And so, insofar as it is synonymous with "all things", it can only be realized as a result summation of "each and everything".

Argument against, Idealism, Physical-ism and Dualism.
By corollary, any attempt to "particularize the essence of all things", as this or that thing, and not the other, is by necessity, incomplete, and false, in so far as their attempt to constitute what is all. For a particular is limited by another part and could never constitute the total essence of all things.

In other words, things like mind or physicality are defined by each other. And so if one does not exist, then the other cannot exist, in the way we understand them to be. Whatever is, the essence of all things, will be completely ambiguous, as it includes ourselves, as a part, and so can never be recognized in any other way but, and "a priori" understanding that the summation of all things, is nothing in particular. And so for the most part, is uninformative.

The All Pervasive Absolute
The Absolute, as a fundamental ontology, is a reoccurring conclusion throughout Western and Eastern philosophy. In Western philosophy, it shares of "affinities" with Parmenides ontology, the logos of Heraclitus, Spinoza's God, and in Eastern tradition, the notion of Brahma, The Tao/Dao, and that which has "no name". Or at least that"s what a Bodhisattva once told me.

Against The Ideologist
But I was "high" at the time..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 6:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 3:44:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2014 12:00:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

AnDoctuir: I disagree

The Fool: I disagree with many things, and agree with others. But what is a disagreement, or an agreement without an argument? Perhaps a fart in the wind, which happens to blow it in your own direction.

<(86)
I mean it does that sometimes...

The Absolute Argument
My general argument here is it each and everything, are themselves, and insofar as "they are" anything, they are part of that which is, "all things"

By The Absolute, I mean the summation of "all things".
Now this is different from the (set of all things), because the (set of all things) presupposes, a sort of "container of all", but this container, insofar as it is anything, cannot be exclusive from "all things", and so must share a property with "all things". But "that" which pervades all things, cannot be distinguished at any particular thing on its own.

And so, insofar as it is synonymous with "all things", it can only be realized as a result summation of "each and everything".



Argument against, Idealism, Physical-ism and Dualism.
By corollary, any attempt to "particularize the essence of all things", as this or that thing, and not the other, is by necessity, incomplete, and false, in so far as their attempt to constitute what is all. For a particular is limited by another part and could never constitute the total essence of all things.

In other words, things like mind or physicality are defined by each other. And so if one does not exist, then the other cannot exist, in the way we understand them to be. Whatever is, the essence of all things, will be completely ambiguous, as it includes ourselves, as a part, and so can never be recognized in any other way but, and "a priori" understanding that the summation of all things, is nothing in particular. And so for the most part, is uninformative.


The All Pervasive Absolute
The Absolute, as a fundamental ontology, is a reoccurring conclusion throughout Western and Eastern philosophy. In Western philosophy, it shares of "affinities" with Parmenides ontology, the logos of Heraclitus, Spinoza's God, and in Eastern tradition, the notion of Brahma, The Tao/Dao, and that which has "no name". Or at least that"s what a Bodhisattva once told me.

Against The Ideologist
But I was "high" at the time..



Out of interest, how high are you when you make these posts? I mean, sure, without a subjective 'here and now' everything is undifferentiated, but how do you manage to inject the part where mind, body and soul and interdependent?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 11:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*cough*nerd*cough*
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:47:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any Questions?

Wocambs: Out of interest, how high are you when you make these posts?

The Fool: Enough to touch the sky.

Ma Monkey: How sick?
<(89)

Wocambs: I mean, sure, without a subjective 'here and now' everything is undifferentiated, but how do you manage to inject the part where mind, body and soul and interdependent?

The Fool: I cannot tell by your question, whether or not you understand which part is the rational formal argument. Are you familiar with Hegel"s phenomenology of the spirit?

My general thesis here is that the answer to the question, what is the essential essence, or being, of all things will simply result in existence itself.

Thus, The Truth is The Absolute, and The absolute is The Truth alone. (Hegel) This has logical and epidemiological implications, but for the most part, is trivial.

Partial Truths and Reality
I think we have a shared understanding in that to say something is true, is simply to say that, well , it exist in some sense.(That is the case) but in this "each and every" particular thing, as an individual thing, are partial truths and have partial existence. So in the very same sense, they are true and existing within their particular domain, and false where they are not.

The Interdependence of Particulars
Particulars which share a common characteristic, are interdependent and share a domain of interaction in at least one set, world, category, class or whatever you want to call it. This explains for the interaction between anything, and has common sense where like interacts with like. But that, nothing can be absolutely isolated from everything else, for they are all eventually interrelated through the absolute.

In fact, the absolute, can be thought of as, (incompletely but pedagogical) as an unbounded solution where all particulars dissolve, into, and form out of. (This is consistent with conservation of energy)

And I use term "thing", in the most broader sense, including energy, space, representations, mind, physicality, God"s and whatever you like. And grant they exist in some sense.

The New Question
The result is that ontological questions, should not be a matter of whether things exist at all, but in what sense do they exist? What is the relevant relation? And how can it be justified?

For instance, somebody may claim that God exists, or some ideological principle, and we may grant them, that they exist, at least as ideas, but whether they exist in the sense that someone else should and ought see it as implications upon them, would require, a demonstration, that they exists more than merely ideas, and in the particular way which is relevant to the matter at hand.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 11:07:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
*cough*nerd*cough*
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 3:44:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:47:35 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Any Questions?

Wocambs: Out of interest, how high are you when you make these posts?

The Fool: Enough to touch the sky.

Ma Monkey: How sick?
<(89)

Wocambs: I mean, sure, without a subjective 'here and now' everything is undifferentiated, but how do you manage to inject the part where mind, body and soul and interdependent?

The Fool: I cannot tell by your question, whether or not you understand which part is the rational formal argument. Are you familiar with Hegel"s phenomenology of the spirit?

My general thesis here is that the answer to the question, what is the essential essence, or being, of all things will simply result in existence itself.

Thus, The Truth is The Absolute, and The absolute is The Truth alone. (Hegel) This has logical and epidemiological implications, but for the most part, is trivial.

Partial Truths and Reality
I think we have a shared understanding in that to say something is true, is simply to say that, well , it exist in some sense.(That is the case) but in this "each and every" particular thing, as an individual thing, are partial truths and have partial existence. So in the very same sense, they are true and existing within their particular domain, and false where they are not.

The Interdependence of Particulars
Particulars which share a common characteristic, are interdependent and share a domain of interaction in at least one set, world, category, class or whatever you want to call it. This explains for the interaction between anything, and has common sense where like interacts with like. But that, nothing can be absolutely isolated from everything else, for they are all eventually interrelated through the absolute.

In fact, the absolute, can be thought of as, (incompletely but pedagogical) as an unbounded solution where all particulars dissolve, into, and form out of. (This is consistent with conservation of energy)

And I use term "thing", in the most broader sense, including energy, space, representations, mind, physicality, God"s and whatever you like. And grant they exist in some sense.

The New Question
The result is that ontological questions, should not be a matter of whether things exist at all, but in what sense do they exist? What is the relevant relation? And how can it be justified?

For instance, somebody may claim that God exists, or some ideological principle, and we may grant them, that they exist, at least as ideas, but whether they exist in the sense that someone else should and ought see it as implications upon them, would require, a demonstration, that they exists more than merely ideas, and in the particular way which is relevant to the matter at hand.

Against The Ideologist

This might help you out:

https://forum.turn2me.org...

Also.

I think we have a shared understanding in that to say something is true, is simply to say that, well , it exist in some sense.(That is the case) but in this "each and every" particular thing, as an individual thing, are partial truths and have partial existence. So in the very same sense, they are true and existing within their particular domain, and false where they are not.

To say that 'something is true' is to say that you ought to believe it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 3:44:20 PM, Wocambs wrote:


This might help you out:
https://forum.turn2me.org...

The Fool: Now why all the unprovoked hostilities.
If you cannot tell, the serious rational argument, from the foolish rhetoric, perhaps philosophy is not your thing.

Wocambs: also

I think we have a shared understanding in that to say something is true, is simply to say that, well , it exist in some sense.(That is the case) but in this "each and every" particular thing, as an individual thing, are partial truths and have partial existence. So in the very same sense, they are true and existing within their particular domain, and false where they are not.

Wocambs:: To say that 'something is true' is to say that you ought to believe it.
The Fool: I said, I think we have a shared understanding with the use of that term, which I am basing off, the posts in regards to basic logic, a long time ago. But but it seems I was way off.
For should be common sense, that if you disagree, and have a counterclaim, that you provide an argument for your claim. Or else you might as will be, preaching in the forum.

This is my argument, a.k.a. Demonstration. LEARN.

Positive Argument
First and foremost "To say something is true, is to say that something is true."
Do you disagree?
<(8D)

The expression "it is true", can be substituted with "it is the case". Without changing the meaning of the proposition.
For example: The following statements have similar meaning.
1.There "is" a car in front of my house.
2."It is the case", "that" there is a card for my house.
3."It is true" that there is a card for my house
4."It exist" that there is a card for my house.

Therefore, "to say something is true, is simply to say that, well , it exist in some sense.(That it is the case)" and this is a sense that I was getting at.
QED

Counter Argument
The Fool: For you said that, "to say that 'something is true' is to say that you ought to believe it."

But there is no information in the proposition "X is true" implying that there is a "you" or Mind states, and their Outness.
Perhaps the proposition is not justified, or perhaps the proposition is false.
QED

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To Prevent further POC violations .(Edited)

Wocambs:: To say that 'something is true' is to say that you ought to believe it.

The Fool: I said, I think we have a shared understanding with the use of that term, which I'm basing off my memory, in regards to a post on basic logic long ago. It's not complicated anyways.

Moreover, it's just be common sense, that if you disagree, and have a counterclaim, that you provide an argument for your claim. You might as well be preaching in the religious forum.

You shouldn't even have to be asked for that, in the philosophy forum!!

This is my Argument, a.k.a. Demonstration. LEARN.

This Is a Positive Argument
First and foremost "To say something is true, is to say that something is true."

Do you disagree?
<(8D)

The expression "it is true", can be substituted with "it is the case" or "it exists", without a change in the Meaning of the proposition.

Proof
The following are examples of their Substitutions Without changing the meaning:

There "is" a car in front of my house:
1."It is the case" that there is a card for my house.
2."It is true" that there is a car for my house.
3."It exist" that there is a car for my house.

Therefore, "to say something is true, is simply to say that, well, it exist in some sense. (That it is the case) And that was a correct usage.
QED

This Is a Counter Argument
The Fool: For you said that, "to say that 'something is true' is to say that you ought to believe it."

Firstly, there is no information in the proposition "X is true" that implies anything specific like "you" or "beliefs", and/or their Oughtnesses.

Thus the expression "you ought to believe it", cannot have the same meaning, "X is true" because it's saying a lot more than "X is true".
Moreover, the proposition may in fact be false, and/or deceptive, or unjustified, where one ought not believe it.
QED

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL