|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 29, 2022 19:46:19 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is:
(1) Humans exist entirely within space-time.
(2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time.
(3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects.
Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2022 23:27:26 GMT
In the act of saying "no" one first must point to a phenomenon, in pointing to it the phenomenon must exist because of the act of pointing necessitates existence. Phenomena don't exist. If it did, then we were able to catch it. We don't. You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 1, 2022 23:45:41 GMT
Phenomena don't exist. If it did, then we were able to catch it. We don't. You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon. That Is Not A "Phenomenon", It's An Abstract Construct, The True "Phenomenon" Is Physical Reality Being Not Physical, Yet Perceived So.
Nothing Physical Is Actually Physical, That's A "Phenomenon", An "Illusion" That Is Worse Than An Abstract Construct, Because An Abstract Construct Is Between "Physical" And "Phenomenon".
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2022 23:57:33 GMT
You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon. That Is Not A "Phenomenon", It's An Abstract Construct, The True "Phenomenon" Is Physical Reality Being Not Physical, Yet Perceived So.
Nothing Physical Is Actually Physical, That's A "Phenomenon", An "Illusion" That Is Worse Than An Abstract Construct, Because An Abstract Construct Is Between "Physical" And "Phenomenon".An abstraction is a distinction. Distinctions occur as phenomena. An abstraction is a phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 0:01:22 GMT
That Is Not A "Phenomenon", It's An Abstract Construct, The True "Phenomenon" Is Physical Reality Being Not Physical, Yet Perceived So.
Nothing Physical Is Actually Physical, That's A "Phenomenon", An "Illusion" That Is Worse Than An Abstract Construct, Because An Abstract Construct Is Between "Physical" And "Phenomenon". An abstraction is a distinction. Distinctions occur as phenomena. An abstraction is a phenomenon. An Abstraction Is Not A Phenomenon, They Are Two Different Levels Of Malleability: Abstraction Is Like A Thought, A Thought Is Not A Phenomenon, But Being Able To Hear Our Own Thoughts IS A Phenomenon, Not An Abstract.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 2, 2022 6:01:38 GMT
Phenomena don't exist. If it did, then we were able to catch it. We don't. You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon. Any negative definitions are broken. So, by your statement you're violating the syllogism: PM :: Your writing - is a phenomenon SM :: The act of catching - is a phenomenon SP :: The act of catching is a phenomenon :: non sequitur If not catching is also a phenomenon, then everything is phenomenon, as this isn't true, your thought is false.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 6:17:03 GMT
You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon. Any negative definitions are broken. So, by your statement you're violating the syllogism: PM :: Your writing - is a phenomenon SM :: The act of catching - is a phenomenon SP :: The act of catching is a phenomenon :: non sequitur If not catching is also a phenomenon, then everything is phenomenon, as this isn't true, your thought is false. Precisely. To Say One Spectrum's Side Is The Same As The Other Side Of The Spectrum Means There Is No Spectrum. If The Radio ~ Gamma Frequency Chart Was Radio ~ Radio Or Gamma ~ Gamma It Wouldn't Be A Spectrum. If The Rainbow Was One Color To The Same Color, It's Not A Spectrum Anymore. To Say Catching And Not Catching Are Both A Phenomenon, As If Two Different Things Can Contradict The Variable Is Absurd!
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:42:24 GMT
You writing that out is a phenomenon. The act of catching is a phenomenon. The act of not catching is also a phenomenon. Any negative definitions are broken. So, by your statement you're violating the syllogism: PM :: Your writing - is a phenomenon SM :: The act of catching - is a phenomenon SP :: The act of catching is a phenomenon :: non sequitur If not catching is also a phenomenon, then everything is phenomenon, as this isn't true, your thought is false. Each part of the totality is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of distinct parts thus everything within the totality is distinct furthermore making every part a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of phenomena. As to phenomenon of "not catching". It is a negative limit in the respect it defines further phenomena by what they are not. As a negative limit it is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:45:16 GMT
An abstraction is a distinction. Distinctions occur as phenomena. An abstraction is a phenomenon. An Abstraction Is Not A Phenomenon, They Are Two Different Levels Of Malleability: Abstraction Is Like A Thought, A Thought Is Not A Phenomenon, But Being Able To Hear Our Own Thoughts IS A Phenomenon, Not An Abstract.A thought is a distinction thus a phenomenon. As to "hearing our thoughts" one cannot hear what does not exist and what exists requires distinction for it to occur. "Existence" and "phenomenon/phenomena" equate.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2022 16:49:16 GMT
Any negative definitions are broken. So, by your statement you're violating the syllogism: PM :: Your writing - is a phenomenon SM :: The act of catching - is a phenomenon SP :: The act of catching is a phenomenon :: non sequitur If not catching is also a phenomenon, then everything is phenomenon, as this isn't true, your thought is false. Precisely. To Say One Spectrum's Side Is The Same As The Other Side Of The Spectrum Means There Is No Spectrum. If The Radio ~ Gamma Frequency Chart Was Radio ~ Radio Or Gamma ~ Gamma It Wouldn't Be A Spectrum. If The Rainbow Was One Color To The Same Color, It's Not A Spectrum Anymore. To Say Catching And Not Catching Are Both A Phenomenon, As If Two Different Things Can Contradict The Variable Is Absurd!Spectrums are relative as one extreme contrasts the other. As relative they are illusions given the totality is beyond extremes as the totality is without contrast. What is relative is an illusion thus what we understand of "reality" empirically and abstractly is a contradiction and/or a series of contradictions. Contradiction is being itself as being is the void of void (which is a contradiction).
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 17:07:00 GMT
Precisely. To Say One Spectrum's Side Is The Same As The Other Side Of The Spectrum Means There Is No Spectrum. If The Radio ~ Gamma Frequency Chart Was Radio ~ Radio Or Gamma ~ Gamma It Wouldn't Be A Spectrum. If The Rainbow Was One Color To The Same Color, It's Not A Spectrum Anymore. To Say Catching And Not Catching Are Both A Phenomenon, As If Two Different Things Can Contradict The Variable Is Absurd! Spectrums are relative as one extreme contrasts the other. As relative they are illusions given the totality is beyond extremes as the totality is without contrast. What is relative is an illusion thus what we understand of "reality" empirically and abstractly is a contradiction and/or a series of contradictions. Contradiction is being itself as being is the void of void (which is a contradiction). You Just Contradicted Your Own Argument, You Are Only Proving Eugene's And My Point (Not Yours). You Cannot Logically Say Both Non-Catching AND Catching Are Phenomenon, This Is Erasing Two Extremes And Replacing It With A Logical Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 2, 2022 19:29:44 GMT
Any negative definitions are broken. So, by your statement you're violating the syllogism: PM :: Your writing - is a phenomenon SM :: The act of catching - is a phenomenon SP :: The act of catching is a phenomenon :: non sequitur If not catching is also a phenomenon, then everything is phenomenon, as this isn't true, your thought is false. Each part of the totality is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of distinct parts thus everything within the totality is distinct furthermore making every part a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of phenomena. As to phenomenon of "not catching". It is a negative limit in the respect it defines further phenomena by what they are not. As a negative limit it is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon. If the totality has parts, then what makes you claim it? You can say that you know how to find a part among the others, or how to find a part within that totality. You can say that it's impossible, then - how do you or someone else knows that? If the totality has something by which those parts are being divided, that something can be or not be a part. But it's impossible for that something to be either a part, or not a part. If it's a part, then that part is special, but to separate or to limit it, there must be another special part, and so on till the dull endless. If it's not a part, then totality isn't done by phenomena only. You said about the distinct, and it as a phenomenon. It's impossible. Let me demonstrate it: phenomenon:distinction:phenomenon if the distinction between the phenomena wasn't distinction, but a phenomenon, we couldn't distinct phenomena, because about phenomenon:phenomenon is impossible to say that there are two, or one, or three, or anyhow phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 3, 2022 17:09:41 GMT
Spectrums are relative as one extreme contrasts the other. As relative they are illusions given the totality is beyond extremes as the totality is without contrast. What is relative is an illusion thus what we understand of "reality" empirically and abstractly is a contradiction and/or a series of contradictions. Contradiction is being itself as being is the void of void (which is a contradiction). You Just Contradicted Your Own Argument, You Are Only Proving Eugene's And My Point (Not Yours). You Cannot Logically Say Both Non-Catching AND Catching Are Phenomenon, This Is Erasing Two Extremes And Replacing It With A Logical Fallacy.And reality exists through contradictions as I have said elsewhere. The beginning of this contradiction is being itself as the void of void thus being paradoxically is a void. As to the phenomenon: 1. Non-catching is a negative limit; it defines something by what it is not. 2. Catching is a positive limit; it defines something by what it is. 3. Negative limits and positive limits are both limits. 4. Limits are phenomena. 5. Catching/Non-Catching are both phenomena as they are both positive and negative limits.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 3, 2022 17:18:18 GMT
Each part of the totality is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of distinct parts thus everything within the totality is distinct furthermore making every part a phenomenon. The totality is the sum of phenomena. As to phenomenon of "not catching". It is a negative limit in the respect it defines further phenomena by what they are not. As a negative limit it is distinct, as distinct it is a phenomenon. If the totality has parts, then what makes you claim it? You can say that you know how to find a part among the others, or how to find a part within that totality. You can say that it's impossible, then - how do you or someone else knows that? If the totality has something by which those parts are being divided, that something can be or not be a part. But it's impossible for that something to be either a part, or not a part. If it's a part, then that part is special, but to separate or to limit it, there must be another special part, and so on till the dull endless. If it's not a part, then totality isn't done by phenomena only. You said about the distinct, and it as a phenomenon. It's impossible. Let me demonstrate it: phenomenon:distinction:phenomenon if the distinction between the phenomena wasn't distinction, but a phenomenon, we couldn't distinct phenomena, because about phenomenon:phenomenon is impossible to say that there are two, or one, or three, or anyhow phenomena. 1. The totality is a summation, as a summation it has parts as a summation is dependent upon parts. The totality is dependent on all its parts thus is self referential as "all parts" equates to "totality". We know parts exists because of the act of contrast; this conversation is an example as contrasting words. 2. If a distinction is a phenomenon and a phenomenon is a distinction then both equate and mean the same thing. 3. Pointing to a phenomenon is a phenomenon thus phenomenon exist through phenomenon and the nature of phenomenon is repeated thus giving it form in contrast to. 4. Phenomenon through phenomenon is the phenomenon as no-thing given it is self referential and has no comparison. As no-thing the phenomenon is everything given no-thing is everything; no-thing is everything as everything is without contrast given only everything exists. This is a contradiction but contradiction are real as evidenced by the foundation of being further explained as "the void of void".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 3, 2022 19:53:04 GMT
If the totality has parts, then what makes you claim it? You can say that you know how to find a part among the others, or how to find a part within that totality. You can say that it's impossible, then - how do you or someone else knows that? If the totality has something by which those parts are being divided, that something can be or not be a part. But it's impossible for that something to be either a part, or not a part. If it's a part, then that part is special, but to separate or to limit it, there must be another special part, and so on till the dull endless. If it's not a part, then totality isn't done by phenomena only. You said about the distinct, and it as a phenomenon. It's impossible. Let me demonstrate it: phenomenon:distinction:phenomenon if the distinction between the phenomena wasn't distinction, but a phenomenon, we couldn't distinct phenomena, because about phenomenon:phenomenon is impossible to say that there are two, or one, or three, or anyhow phenomena. 1. The totality is a summation, as a summation it has parts as a summation is dependent upon parts. The totality is dependent on all its parts thus is self referential as "all parts" equates to "totality". We know parts exists because of the act of contrast; this conversation is an example as contrasting words. 2. If a distinction is a phenomenon and a phenomenon is a distinction then both equate and mean the same thing. 3. Pointing to a phenomenon is a phenomenon thus phenomenon exist through phenomenon and the nature of phenomenon is repeated thus giving it form in contrast to. 4. Phenomenon through phenomenon is the phenomenon as no-thing given it is self referential and has no comparison. As no-thing the phenomenon is everything given no-thing is everything; no-thing is everything as everything is without contrast given only everything exists. This is a contradiction but contradiction are real as evidenced by the foundation of being further explained as "the void of void". Your thesis 1 contradicts to the 2nd. Your will to devour everything into a dwell of phenomena isn't new. It's a possible way, but it's too idealistic, and such views were criticized by Aristotle in his very first chapters of Metaphysics, where he objected to those natur-philosophers, who told that "everything is water" or "everything is made my atoms", but didn't explain a tiny bit of how those things could bring everything else. Distinctions, repeating, etc - what is this? You're talking about thise things as something given, while nobody sees this. How can you pass so easily that logical prescription about the disctinction between phenomena? You haven't answered this question. Introducting the endless sequences doesn't solve this task, but only make it be more complicated, that's about it. If you want to hold the idealistic views about the nature - so, it's up to you. Your choice. While this isn't what is interesting, the most interesting is how you want to correlate a phenomenon with another phenomenon, or how is it possible for phenomena to create everything else (if there are something non-phenomenological). Besides, your thesis is anti-realistic. But this way doesn't answer the question about the other minds, nor about the mistakes. How can you be so sure without falsifying your own thoughts? Such a way it's like driving a car having no working brakes in it. This is no go.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 21:33:14 GMT
1. The totality is a summation, as a summation it has parts as a summation is dependent upon parts. The totality is dependent on all its parts thus is self referential as "all parts" equates to "totality". We know parts exists because of the act of contrast; this conversation is an example as contrasting words. 2. If a distinction is a phenomenon and a phenomenon is a distinction then both equate and mean the same thing. 3. Pointing to a phenomenon is a phenomenon thus phenomenon exist through phenomenon and the nature of phenomenon is repeated thus giving it form in contrast to. 4. Phenomenon through phenomenon is the phenomenon as no-thing given it is self referential and has no comparison. As no-thing the phenomenon is everything given no-thing is everything; no-thing is everything as everything is without contrast given only everything exists. This is a contradiction but contradiction are real as evidenced by the foundation of being further explained as "the void of void". Your thesis 1 contradicts to the 2nd. Your will to devour everything into a dwell of phenomena isn't new. It's a possible way, but it's too idealistic, and such views were criticized by Aristotle in his very first chapters of Metaphysics, where he objected to those natur-philosophers, who told that "everything is water" or "everything is made my atoms", but didn't explain a tiny bit of how those things could bring everything else. Distinctions, repeating, etc - what is this? You're talking about thise things as something given, while nobody sees this. How can you pass so easily that logical prescription about the disctinction between phenomena? You haven't answered this question. Introducting the endless sequences doesn't solve this task, but only make it be more complicated, that's about it. If you want to hold the idealistic views about the nature - so, it's up to you. Your choice. While this isn't what is interesting, the most interesting is how you want to correlate a phenomenon with another phenomenon, or how is it possible for phenomena to create everything else (if there are something non-phenomenological). Besides, your thesis is anti-realistic. But this way doesn't answer the question about the other minds, nor about the mistakes. How can you be so sure without falsifying your own thoughts? Such a way it's like driving a car having no working brakes in it. This is no go. 1. No it does not and even if it did it still holds truth value as contradictions do exist as real. As to why it is not a contradiction: Parts are distinctions. 2. Aristotle contradicted himself in reverting to empiricism but creating logical form which is an idea or set of ideas. 3. Distinction is the observation of something as a single. We observe singles other wise we not only would not have a multitude of facts (as many singles) but we cannot observe anything without first localizing it from the surrounding phenomena. 4. The empirical senses point to a sense beyond the senses as one cannot empirically see empirical senses (one cannot see sight or hear hearing or see hearing). As such the empirical senses alone fall flat on there face and "realism" is an illusion.
|
|