|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 20:24:36 GMT
1. Materialism as a teaching is in a big problem, so because of that physics long this consider coincidences or some events with some particles are as what can view us the tissue of the reality.
Briefly, the substance of the world can be seen through many process involving tiny particles. Big massive ones are atoms, molecules, and so one. One type of reality (e.g. atomic level or another one level) might have its own laws, or its own statistical regularities. Some levels of reality can be described using limited apparatus (Newton's mechanics), some cannot (particle-wave effect). No matter what many Earth processes can be ascribed using old and proved Newton's principles.
2. Thoughts are what we can take as a rock or a gun. It probably has the same type as a university, or a noun. It can be feel by a hand or tasted by a tongue, but it can be conceptually accepted. What do I mean saying "conceptually accepted", and in particular, what does it mean "conceptual"?
Actually, this is what cannot have absolute neutral and common definition, but it has been defined. Firstly, if to look at the notion subconsicousness and to consider there is something in us, that does influence in us, we can see that there are some processes we are being unaware of. So, we do something, but we do it either spontaneously, or non-intentionally. To look up at conceptual one we have to take an inverted subconsciousness. This would get us closer to this.
Thus, concepts occurs in us as all the processes behind us that intentionally support our image or a view. We're are the receivers of concepts, and we use them intentionally, while there are inner barriers or inner rally in us that as the obstacles form the finished concepts.
3. Another way to get it is to try to comprehend how is it possible for something to be defined? If I define something it usually means I give this something a name. But to separate a named thing I need to perform it somehow, but how? Wittgenstein was trying to problematize Augustine in his "Philosophical Investigations" (1951) saying that Augustine had been trying to allow that a person had an ability to speak before achieveing the actual ability of speaking. So, to speak on a language one must have another language before.
Anyway, how to separate one thing from another one? - To give a name. All the complementary processes that occur during this act of naming are just another, extra thoughts. We cannot even be sure whether or not those thoughts arise along with the first act of naming process. All what we can to do is to try to name something.
4. Some may view concepts as ideas. This view was well-shared long ago, perhaps even before Plato's philosophy. A group of some elements which structure can be maintain as a state of affairs receives a name and this last one is an idea itself. (Some sees this mechanism in some other way, saying that the name is just a from of the previous projection.)
I think such an idea has some flaws. From where ideas come? Some may answer: from dreams, from inspirations, etc. But it's not a real answer. If we want to answer: from where this wind is blowing? It's not serious to answer: from dream or from a someone's inspiration. No. That was a direct answer about directions. Even to asking questions we have to be alert not turning away from the point.
Another flaw is the view of idea or an idea itself. What is it? Can somebody answer it? If we make a loop saying that an idea is what inspires us during concept-making, then we will come to nothing. Idea is something unseen, and, probably, undefied. Plato in his "Parmenides" was trying to get through exactly ideas adventures. He wanted to find out whether or not ideas can be self-destructed, or can they stick with each other, and so one. Well, since "Parmenides" has no real answers (we don't even know what Plato wanted to say us by that work), we're stuck in guessing.
5. The real step-forward is to admire physical aspects of the processes of conceptualization. We don't know for sure, and we are not about to go throught it right now, but we can mathematically or logically count some things in our conceptual views. We can look at one group of concepts within another one, and so on, to get some extra info about it. I am sure about laws behind it, but - as physics - those laws could be nothing, but statistical regularities; and, in turn, looking for solid, one-phrase-defined definitions isn't necessary. We need to start comprehending mechanisms of calculating concepts. This task I find to be interesting to accept.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Oct 31, 2020 21:10:44 GMT
Thoughts are not physical but have a physical representation (implementation), much like software.
Names are classifications. William of Ockham got this right with his nominalism.
Ideas come from the mind, usually based on empirical input. In Hebrew the word "davar" means "idea", "concept", "thing", and "word". There is no distinction between these concepts because the idea of absolute truth existing in the world independent of the mind doesn't exist. The basis of all thought can only be what is already in your mind or what enters your mind through the senses.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Nov 1, 2020 19:46:56 GMT
No.
Some ideas have no origin nor existence in the physical world. These, Plato calls 'pure forms', and we know they exist because we use them to effect the physical world.
Perfect circles, zero and infinity are the easiest examples. Let us look at infinity.
Where did we get this idea? Nowhere does it exist in the physical world, but its an essential concept in physics and even in very rudimentary geometry.
Another example is 'perfection'. Some call this 'God'.
Certainly there are no perfect circles in the brain. So these forms must be an inherent aspect of our being.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 10:12:41 GMT
Thoughts are not physical but have a physical representation (implementation), much like software. Names are classifications. William of Ockham got this right with his nominalism. Ideas come from the mind, usually based on empirical input. In Hebrew the word "davar" means "idea", "concept", "thing", and "word". There is no distinction between these concepts because the idea of absolute truth existing in the world independent of the mind doesn't exist. The basis of all thought can only be what is already in your mind or what enters your mind through the senses. Surely. I didn't mean "thoughts" in de dicto sense. As a name it's just a name. I could say it as there's nothing idealistic in the universe, or everything is physician. But wait, how can "truth" be without those concepts? It means that the absolute truth exists despite of it can be conceptualized, come as an idea, or be thinked? Or it means that we cannot think it? Besides, the absolute truth is taken here in Hegelian sense, or in what?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 10:26:31 GMT
No. Some ideas have no origin nor existence in the physical world. These, Plato calls 'pure forms', and we know they exist because we use them to effect the physical world. Perfect circles, zero and infinity are the easiest examples. Let us look at infinity. Where did we get this idea? Nowhere does it exist in the physical world, but its an essential concept in physics and even in very rudimentary geometry. Another example is 'perfection'. Some call this 'God'. Certainly there are no perfect circles in the brain. So these forms must be an inherent aspect of our being. (I may be wrong, but your thought reminds me the work of Frege "The Thought: A Logical Investigation" where the philosopher brings more similar examples which concord to yours.) Well, those concepts of nothing or geometrical figures left me in silence. I don't really know how to understand them. First thoughts as "those objects are fake" don't help much, because this responds recalls another one - what is "to lie", or what doesn't it mean "to be false"? etc. There was a Russian singer Victor Tsoi in whose song's title "A Place To Step Forward" shows that there always must be something ahead us to being able to make another move. Briefly, the whole universe must have this spare or extra place to be able to come into that next condition. I mean if there were no such places everything would freeze. Because of this - a spare spot or an extra place to step forward - I believe in such things as having something above. However, there was another work, unfortunately I forgot the author's name, in where we were told a history about a man who had slept in his cold bed. He was dreaming of a place where he had had to be lynched. An executioner was about to put his axe to this dreamer's head, and as soon as he had performed it, the dreamer woke up. And then this man discovered that his neck touched a bad's iron surface. So, the book's author tried to explain it as there the reason of this was a minus time, or an imaginary time (like imaginary numbers, but the time).
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Nov 3, 2020 1:52:40 GMT
Surely. I didn't mean "thoughts" in de dicto sense. As a name it's just a name. I could say it as there's nothing idealistic in the universe, or everything is physician. I don't follow this. In biblical Hebrew there is no concept of "truth" so all this meaningless. You don't have to agree with this, but it is another view. I do agree with this view which makes most problems in western philosophy simply disappear.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 3, 2020 7:38:49 GMT
Surely. I didn't mean "thoughts" in de dicto sense. As a name it's just a name. I could say it as there's nothing idealistic in the universe, or everything is physician. I don't follow this. In biblical Hebrew there is no concept of "truth" so all this meaningless. You don't have to agree with this, but it is another view. I do agree with this view which makes most problems in western philosophy simply disappear. Tarski and some others logical positivists took the truth as a technical term. For instance, semantical: (1) "Shnee Ist Weiss" equal to snow is white Or, in case of no need to use it – by Wittgenstein, F. Ramsey, and some others. The deflative concept of it: (2) «"Snow is white" is snow is white» – no "truths" need to get this phrase. Frege told about true, as far as I know, as an affirm, an intentional component; like those in math prove. (3) (It's true that) snow is white But I can't agree that Bible, at least Christian, doesn't have any concepts of true. First, what comes to my mind is the opposite meaning – claiming of foolishness or insanity (Greek, Slavs translations) of those who reject the truth: (4) The fool says in his heart «There is no God» (Psalms 14:1) And there are plenty of times in Gospels we can have: "Verily, verily...", "Amen". Moreover, there are direct points to it, like this one: (5) If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8) Could it be that because of Hebrew language in non-Christian Bible we have no word "truth" there? The greek influence was what made Christian Bible able to borrow this concept? And if so, then the more language is pure, the more it's correct? Are there anything in Bible about this – keeping language be unmixed?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 15, 2020 18:02:15 GMT
1. Materialism as a teaching is in a big problem, so because of that physics long this consider coincidences or some events with some particles are as what can view us the tissue of the reality. Briefly, the substance of the world can be seen through many process involving tiny particles. Big massive ones are atoms, molecules, and so one. One type of reality (e.g. atomic level or another one level) might have its own laws, or its own statistical regularities. Some levels of reality can be described using limited apparatus (Newton's mechanics), some cannot (particle-wave effect). No matter what many Earth processes can be ascribed using old and proved Newton's principles. 2. Thoughts are what we can take as a rock or a gun. It probably has the same type as a university, or a noun. It can be feel by a hand or tasted by a tongue, but it can be conceptually accepted. What do I mean saying "conceptually accepted", and in particular, what does it mean "conceptual"? Actually, this is what cannot have absolute neutral and common definition, but it has been defined. Firstly, if to look at the notion subconsicousness and to consider there is something in us, that does influence in us, we can see that there are some processes we are being unaware of. So, we do something, but we do it either spontaneously, or non-intentionally. To look up at conceptual one we have to take an inverted subconsciousness. This would get us closer to this. Thus, concepts occurs in us as all the processes behind us that intentionally support our image or a view. We're are the receivers of concepts, and we use them intentionally, while there are inner barriers or inner rally in us that as the obstacles form the finished concepts. 3. Another way to get it is to try to comprehend how is it possible for something to be defined? If I define something it usually means I give this something a name. But to separate a named thing I need to perform it somehow, but how? Wittgenstein was trying to problematize Augustine in his "Philosophical Investigations" (1951) saying that Augustine had been trying to allow that a person had an ability to speak before achieveing the actual ability of speaking. So, to speak on a language one must have another language before. Anyway, how to separate one thing from another one? - To give a name. All the complementary processes that occur during this act of naming are just another, extra thoughts. We cannot even be sure whether or not those thoughts arise along with the first act of naming process. All what we can to do is to try to name something. 4. Some may view concepts as ideas. This view was well-shared long ago, perhaps even before Plato's philosophy. A group of some elements which structure can be maintain as a state of affairs receives a name and this last one is an idea itself. (Some sees this mechanism in some other way, saying that the name is just a from of the previous projection.) I think such an idea has some flaws. From where ideas come? Some may answer: from dreams, from inspirations, etc. But it's not a real answer. If we want to answer: from where this wind is blowing? It's not serious to answer: from dream or from a someone's inspiration. No. That was a direct answer about directions. Even to asking questions we have to be alert not turning away from the point. Another flaw is the view of idea or an idea itself. What is it? Can somebody answer it? If we make a loop saying that an idea is what inspires us during concept-making, then we will come to nothing. Idea is something unseen, and, probably, undefied. Plato in his "Parmenides" was trying to get through exactly ideas adventures. He wanted to find out whether or not ideas can be self-destructed, or can they stick with each other, and so one. Well, since "Parmenides" has no real answers (we don't even know what Plato wanted to say us by that work), we're stuck in guessing. 5. The real step-forward is to admire physical aspects of the processes of conceptualization. We don't know for sure, and we are not about to go throught it right now, but we can mathematically or logically count some things in our conceptual views. We can look at one group of concepts within another one, and so on, to get some extra info about it. I am sure about laws behind it, but - as physics - those laws could be nothing, but statistical regularities; and, in turn, looking for solid, one-phrase-defined definitions isn't necessary. We need to start comprehending mechanisms of calculating concepts. This task I find to be interesting to accept. I bolded one of your statements because I have had his problem myself. How can we really speak before speaking? We can't. I recognize that we do not iniate our thinking of something; however, we have topics of interest that we wish to discuss... and Plato said that thinking is conversation with oneself, but my point is that we do not pre-think what we are going to think. The thinkinking goes on by itself; it is not I that thinks, but, said St. Paul, it is the Lord that speaks in me. Well, today we say: It is the MIND or the Subconscious Mind that thinks. So, I witness the thinking and can even criticize and correct it. The thinking rests in the "passive mind" or MEMORY. Similarly, Understanding happens in me; I am not its author. I do not pre-understand what I wish to understand. Now, to come to the point of this thread: As we view our thoughts, ideas, or conceptions, we find that they do not have physical characteristics: weight, size,shape, taste, aroma, etc. Our mental viewing itself is not done by our physical senses (the eyes, ears, tongue, hand, eyc.) Therefore, we can say that the viewing I is not physical. That's why Plato said that there are two types of existences: the physical and the non-physical [the psychic]. However, Bruno (who was excuted in 1600) did not accept any dualism, such as the one between Parmenidian Being [existing all at once, unbegotten,infinite; later identified with God] and the Heraclitean Universe (changeable in time, pluralistic, whose parts have a beginning and an end.)In effect he said that there are two points of view rather than two types of existents:If you view the parts of the unverse, you see things that are born and die -- physical things, and things that are mauring rather than existing as matured from their beginning, finite things in every sense of the word.etc. If you consider the universe as a WHOLE, thenyou will have to say, with Parmenides, that it did not have a beginning and cannot have an end, that it is infinite in space and time, etc. (As Eurigena put it, the universe is, at once, Natura Naturata (matured) and Natura Naturans (in the process of maturing). // We can apply Bruno's perspectivism t the human being: Seen from the outside, from the senses, it is material/physical; seen from within -- introspectively -- it is immaterial. But this implies that I and my body are really one entity,rather than a soul and a body. Dualists (not monists) occasionally ask : How is is possible for entities of different kinds co-exist? Trinitarians (not unitarians) may ask: How is it possible for human nature and divine nature to co-exist? The theory of "consubstantiality" is a merely verbal solution.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 15, 2020 20:25:59 GMT
1. Materialism as a teaching is in a big problem, so because of that physics long this consider coincidences or some events with some particles are as what can view us the tissue of the reality. Briefly, the substance of the world can be seen through many process involving tiny particles. Big massive ones are atoms, molecules, and so one. One type of reality (e.g. atomic level or another one level) might have its own laws, or its own statistical regularities. Some levels of reality can be described using limited apparatus (Newton's mechanics), some cannot (particle-wave effect). No matter what many Earth processes can be ascribed using old and proved Newton's principles. 2. Thoughts are what we can take as a rock or a gun. It probably has the same type as a university, or a noun. It can be feel by a hand or tasted by a tongue, but it can be conceptually accepted. What do I mean saying "conceptually accepted", and in particular, what does it mean "conceptual"? Actually, this is what cannot have absolute neutral and common definition, but it has been defined. Firstly, if to look at the notion subconsicousness and to consider there is something in us, that does influence in us, we can see that there are some processes we are being unaware of. So, we do something, but we do it either spontaneously, or non-intentionally. To look up at conceptual one we have to take an inverted subconsciousness. This would get us closer to this. Thus, concepts occurs in us as all the processes behind us that intentionally support our image or a view. We're are the receivers of concepts, and we use them intentionally, while there are inner barriers or inner rally in us that as the obstacles form the finished concepts. 3. Another way to get it is to try to comprehend how is it possible for something to be defined? If I define something it usually means I give this something a name. But to separate a named thing I need to perform it somehow, but how? Wittgenstein was trying to problematize Augustine in his "Philosophical Investigations" (1951) saying that Augustine had been trying to allow that a person had an ability to speak before achieveing the actual ability of speaking. So, to speak on a language one must have another language before. Anyway, how to separate one thing from another one? - To give a name. All the complementary processes that occur during this act of naming are just another, extra thoughts. We cannot even be sure whether or not those thoughts arise along with the first act of naming process. All what we can to do is to try to name something. 4. Some may view concepts as ideas. This view was well-shared long ago, perhaps even before Plato's philosophy. A group of some elements which structure can be maintain as a state of affairs receives a name and this last one is an idea itself. (Some sees this mechanism in some other way, saying that the name is just a from of the previous projection.) I think such an idea has some flaws. From where ideas come? Some may answer: from dreams, from inspirations, etc. But it's not a real answer. If we want to answer: from where this wind is blowing? It's not serious to answer: from dream or from a someone's inspiration. No. That was a direct answer about directions. Even to asking questions we have to be alert not turning away from the point. Another flaw is the view of idea or an idea itself. What is it? Can somebody answer it? If we make a loop saying that an idea is what inspires us during concept-making, then we will come to nothing. Idea is something unseen, and, probably, undefied. Plato in his "Parmenides" was trying to get through exactly ideas adventures. He wanted to find out whether or not ideas can be self-destructed, or can they stick with each other, and so one. Well, since "Parmenides" has no real answers (we don't even know what Plato wanted to say us by that work), we're stuck in guessing. 5. The real step-forward is to admire physical aspects of the processes of conceptualization. We don't know for sure, and we are not about to go throught it right now, but we can mathematically or logically count some things in our conceptual views. We can look at one group of concepts within another one, and so on, to get some extra info about it. I am sure about laws behind it, but - as physics - those laws could be nothing, but statistical regularities; and, in turn, looking for solid, one-phrase-defined definitions isn't necessary. We need to start comprehending mechanisms of calculating concepts. This task I find to be interesting to accept. I bolded one of your statements because I have had his problem myself. How can we really speak before speaking? We can't. I recognize that we do not iniate our thinking of something; however, we have topics of interest that we wish to discuss... and Plato said that thinking is conversation with oneself, but my point is that we do not pre-think what we are going to think. The thinkinking goes on by itself; it is not I that thinks, but, said St. Paul, it is the Lord that speaks in me. Well, today we say: It is the MIND or the Subconscious Mind that thinks. So, I witness the thinking and can even criticize and correct it. The thinking rests in the "passive mind" or MEMORY. Similarly, Understanding happens in me; I am not its author. I do not pre-understand what I wish to understand. Now, to come to the point of this thread: As we view our thoughts, ideas, or conceptions, we find that they do not have physical characteristics: weight, size,shape, taste, aroma, etc. Our mental viewing itself is not done by our physical senses (the eyes, ears, tongue, hand, eyc.) Therefore, we can say that the viewing I is not physical. That's why Plato said that there are two types of existences: the physical and the non-physical [the psychic]. However, Bruno (who was excuted in 1600) did not accept any dualism, such as the one between Parmenidian Being [existing all at once, unbegotten,infinite; later identified with God] and the Heraclitean Universe (changeable in time, pluralistic, whose parts have a beginning and an end.)In effect he said that there are two points of view rather than two types of existents:If you view the parts of the unverse, you see things that are born and die -- physical things, and things that are mauring rather than existing as matured from their beginning, finite things in every sense of the word.etc. If you consider the universe as a WHOLE, thenyou will have to say, with Parmenides, that it did not have a beginning and cannot have an end, that it is infinite in space and time, etc. (As Eurigena put it, the universe is, at once, Natura Naturata (matured) and Natura Naturans (in the process of maturing). // We can apply Bruno's perspectivism t the human being: Seen from the outside, from the senses, it is material/physical; seen from within -- introspectively -- it is immaterial. But this implies that I and my body are really one entity,rather than a soul and a body. Dualists (not monists) occasionally ask : How is is possible for entities of different kinds co-exist? Trinitarians (not unitarians) may ask: How is it possible for human nature and divine nature to co-exist? The theory of "consubstantiality" is a merely verbal solution. Oh, I am very grateful to your very - I'd say exhaustively - deep analysis of this. Some of those ideas that you've written - about equivalence of God and Parmenides's being, and also plenty of connections with metaphysical concepts of time. But I didn't try to had dove so deeply. Now I can barely see how can it be done. First of all, your mention of Paul's words are brilliant. Time to time xxxxxxxxx, an Arktos' member, said about trinity type of our thinking or something like that - I mean about the idea of triodical or something like that type of inside thinking. - Here, it can be said is that for an act of thinking, or to start thinking at least three atributes we must have. Similar idea was read by me in Jovanna Boraddori's book "An American Philosopher: Interview with Quine, Davidson...". So, in the chapter with D. Davidson Johvanna asked him something about conceptual thinking, and he asked her, that he thought about our thinking required at least three elements, and one of them was kinda listener, one speaker, and the last one... I don't remember. Anyway, it must be obvious that we might not need any premiseless begining to think about thinking, or how it works. - And (!) it may lead us to a thought that as matter so the non-matter are needed to start thinking. So, all your conclusions about wholeness of thinking might be relevant here. - And, also, - about the beginning and the end - it's not necessary, I guess, to think linear way here. Such concepts of the beginning an the ends are rather dialectical, than formal. When I want to demonstrate something that originate something, it doesn't mean that there must be the end. Some processes are guessed as those that have the start point, and the end point; some that have only the start point; some have only the end point; and some of processes might not have either start, or the end point. For the last class, I guess, we have to say that there's only one deity - is God. (And I guess there might be many more interpretations of how the beginning and the end work. So, "the start of thinking" as a start of anything else can be only a point; but how to interpret this point - is another question, and it depend on a context.) Another way of thinking what thinking is - that I like really much - is the way to say that the thinking is like having a third eye, or having the sixth sense. Indeed, in contrary with using rest senses we use thinking as not viewed; however, it can be viewed by its consequences. For instance, an ability to smell something isn't seen, but there's no one who denies it. The same for taste or kinesthetic feeling. So, thinking might be a tool that works in such a way. And as a tool we don't to argue about it so much like it is something important. Yes, I can comprehend another thing - about reasoning. Surely, that as Kant so Hegel were right trying to conceptualize the work of the reason itself as something to be very grateful. But let's look to if from the other point of view - there were periods of time when the mankind was worshipping a hand - a hand was a sign of power, a sign of force, etc. And now, I think, that the thinking is under similar situation. So, the surround, or the reality shows us our inner state of affairs: the reality is not what we're thinking it is, but the way how we think about it - we see ourselves. (As in the mirror.)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2020 1:58:43 GMT
Thoughts are material in the respect what represents them is physical.
This physical representation of the thought is in itself as thought given it is assumed and imprinted upon the mind.
The change of thought reflects the change of the material world where thoughts change as matter changes.
This does not limit the thought to being merely physical yet does not deny it being physical in and of itself. The physical aspect of thought reflects itself under the manifestation of perfect forms which manifest under a gradation in the physical world.
For example the idea of a perfect square manifests itself under the gradation of the square as a building. What is perfect is thus reflected under the physical as grades.
This gradation necessitates one thought, as manifested through the physical and assumed as a thought, as an approximation of another thought.
One singular form is approximated through many where the thought of anything perfect is reflected under a multiplicity of forms.
This multiplicity of forms necessitates the perfect thought as expressed under a series of changes as the progression of one form into another.
The perfect thought, such as a perfect square, exists as the potential form expressed through a series of changes, such as the imperfect square represented through a building.
Perfection and imperfection thus represent a dualism in thought where one is a potential state and an actual state.
The imperfect reflects itself under the actualization of a potential thought under a form of change where what is physical, as a thought, is directed towards the potential, as another thought. In these respects the thought is both physical, as changing actuality, and non-physical, as unchanging potentiality.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2020 15:02:29 GMT
Thoughts are material in the respect what represents them is physical. This physical representation of the thought is in itself as thought given it is assumed and imprinted upon the mind. The change of thought reflects the change of the material world where thoughts change as matter changes. This does not limit the thought to being merely physical yet does not deny it being physical in and of itself. The physical aspect of thought reflects itself under the manifestation of perfect forms which manifest under a gradation in the physical world. For example the idea of a perfect square manifests itself under the gradation of the square as a building. What is perfect is thus reflected under the physical as grades. This gradation necessitates one thought, as manifested through the physical and assumed as a thought, as an approximation of another thought. One singular form is approximated through many where the thought of anything perfect is reflected under a multiplicity of forms. This multiplicity of forms necessitates the perfect thought as expressed under a series of changes as the progression of one form into another. The perfect thought, such as a perfect square, exists as the potential form expressed through a series of changes, such as the imperfect square represented through a building. Perfection and imperfection thus represent a dualism in thought where one is a potential state and an actual state. The imperfect reflects itself under the actualization of a potential thought under a form of change where what is physical, as a thought, is directed towards the potential, as another thought. In these respects the thought is both physical, as changing actuality, and non-physical, as unchanging potentiality. Thank you for answering. I wanted to answer later on your comments, because now I don't have enough time to this – to not answer quickly, but to answer properly. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you what do you think of speculative realism? Have you heard about it? They stick to object oriented ontology mostly.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2020 17:00:59 GMT
Thoughts are material in the respect what represents them is physical. This physical representation of the thought is in itself as thought given it is assumed and imprinted upon the mind. The change of thought reflects the change of the material world where thoughts change as matter changes. This does not limit the thought to being merely physical yet does not deny it being physical in and of itself. The physical aspect of thought reflects itself under the manifestation of perfect forms which manifest under a gradation in the physical world. For example the idea of a perfect square manifests itself under the gradation of the square as a building. What is perfect is thus reflected under the physical as grades. This gradation necessitates one thought, as manifested through the physical and assumed as a thought, as an approximation of another thought. One singular form is approximated through many where the thought of anything perfect is reflected under a multiplicity of forms. This multiplicity of forms necessitates the perfect thought as expressed under a series of changes as the progression of one form into another. The perfect thought, such as a perfect square, exists as the potential form expressed through a series of changes, such as the imperfect square represented through a building. Perfection and imperfection thus represent a dualism in thought where one is a potential state and an actual state. The imperfect reflects itself under the actualization of a potential thought under a form of change where what is physical, as a thought, is directed towards the potential, as another thought. In these respects the thought is both physical, as changing actuality, and non-physical, as unchanging potentiality. Thank you for answering. I wanted to answer later on your comments, because now I don't have enough time to this – to not answer quickly, but to answer properly. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you what do you think of speculative realism? Have you heard about it? They stick to object oriented ontology mostly. All phenomenon as observed from multiple angles are objects given the uniting of multiple subjective states is objectivity. Getting back to the question of perfection, or rather the perfect thought: A perfect thought is the summation of all thoughts under a singular point. For example the perfect square is a summation of all possible squares thus representing a unity of grades with these grades each representing a singular part of the whole. Another example is the color red where multiple grades of red are United under the singular color red. Perfection is the potential unity of all actual grades, or rather parts, of a phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 18, 2020 15:20:49 GMT
Thank you for answering. I wanted to answer later on your comments, because now I don't have enough time to this – to not answer quickly, but to answer properly. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you what do you think of speculative realism? Have you heard about it? They stick to object oriented ontology mostly. All phenomenon as observed from multiple angles are objects given the uniting of multiple subjective states is objectivity. Getting back to the question of perfection, or rather the perfect thought: A perfect thought is the summation of all thoughts under a singular point. For example the perfect square is a summation of all possible squares thus representing a unity of grades with these grades each representing a singular part of the whole. Another example is the color red where multiple grades of red are United under the singular color red. Perfection is the potential unity of all actual grades, or rather parts, of a phenomenon. Must say there's no need for perfection to have all possible things, in itself. I think you will agree on it. Just look: if a perfection of a certain X would sum all the possible X's, then it would have all the bad, weird and abnormal properties of it. Like a perfect sportsman would have all the traimas or all the illnesses of his comrades. No, it doesn't seem to be the one. There's another objection to it: having all the possible properties for X is to neutralise it, or transforming X into a not determined X, and, in turn, making X to be less X, than it's been. Like a light thay has all the colours it transforms to neutral color – white. So, white is a color that has all the previous colors. According to ya logic white color would be perfect among the other colors. Perfection is literally what does not have any flaws.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 18, 2020 16:52:24 GMT
All phenomenon as observed from multiple angles are objects given the uniting of multiple subjective states is objectivity. Getting back to the question of perfection, or rather the perfect thought: A perfect thought is the summation of all thoughts under a singular point. For example the perfect square is a summation of all possible squares thus representing a unity of grades with these grades each representing a singular part of the whole. Another example is the color red where multiple grades of red are United under the singular color red. Perfection is the potential unity of all actual grades, or rather parts, of a phenomenon. Must say there's no need for perfection to have all possible things, in itself. I think you will agree on it. Just if a perfection of a certain X would sum all the possible X's, then it would have all the bad, weird and abnormal properties of it. Like a perfect sportsman would have all the traimas or all the illnesses of his comrades. No, it doesn't seem to be the one. There's another objection to it: having all the possible properties for X is to neutralise it, or transforming X into a not determined X, and, in turn, making X to be less X, than it's been. Like a light thay has all the colours it transforms to neutral color – white. So, white is a color that has all the previous colors. According to ya logic white color would be perfect among the other colors. Perfection is literally what does not have any flaws. All being is perfect in contrast to Nothingness. Existence always holds some degree of perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 18, 2020 17:12:30 GMT
Must say there's no need for perfection to have all possible things, in itself. I think you will agree on it. Just if a perfection of a certain X would sum all the possible X's, then it would have all the bad, weird and abnormal properties of it. Like a perfect sportsman would have all the traimas or all the illnesses of his comrades. No, it doesn't seem to be the one. There's another objection to it: having all the possible properties for X is to neutralise it, or transforming X into a not determined X, and, in turn, making X to be less X, than it's been. Like a light thay has all the colours it transforms to neutral color – white. So, white is a color that has all the previous colors. According to ya logic white color would be perfect among the other colors. Perfection is literally what does not have any flaws. All being is perfect in contrast to Nothingness. Existence always holds some degree of perfection. I cannot disagree with that. Yes, existence is good. Even a tiny moment of existence is good. Although, not many would agree that such existence was perfect. The most famous of them: Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. They didn't thought everyone had to live in a perfect existence, and they claimed that there are sort of people who lived in not a perfect existence - not supermen.
|
|