|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 17:05:09 GMT
To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation.
Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation.
This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change.
The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing,
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 21:46:07 GMT
The inability to observe all phenomenon in its totality necessitates the thing in itself as the point of change from one observation into another. In observing a thing in itself the thing in itself changes from a thing in itself to not a thing in itself. A thing in itself is the event change from one observation into another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 22:08:41 GMT
Inability to count all the dead santa clauses in their drunkenality mustissitates the santa-in-claus as the pony of challenge from one binoculars to another. In binoculing a santa-in-claus the santa-in-claus stranges from a santa-in-claus to not a santa-in-claus. A santa-in-claus is the invent hange from one binoculation in to the over.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 22:17:03 GMT
Inability to count all the dead santa clauses in their drunkenality mustissitates the santa-in-claus as the pony of challenge from one binoculars to another. In binoculing a santa-in-claus the santa-in-claus stranges from a santa-in-claus to not a santa-in-claus. A santa-in-claus is the invent hange from one binoculation in to the over. Your mockery only proves where your ability to think through something falls short. You are insulting yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 23:18:24 GMT
Inability to count all the dead santa clauses in their drunkenality mustissitates the santa-in-claus as the pony of challenge from one binoculars to another. In binoculing a santa-in-claus the santa-in-claus stranges from a santa-in-claus to not a santa-in-claus. A santa-in-claus is the invent hange from one binoculation in to the over. Your mockery only proves where your ability to think through something falls short.Β You are insulting yourself. Is that so? I shall continue to play those "philosophical" games of invent new philosophical combinations of words or new words? No, thanks. I see here a tinies trace of thinking. You want to think, just prove or solve some real problems, not those self-invented for the 'philosophy' players. There are plenty of problems, the real ones. You can pick up whichever you like to. Each of such problem is much more difficult, than the most hard philosophical problem ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 23:56:27 GMT
The real problem with the concept is that
"the thing IN itself"
has just one model. What about these ones:
"the thing OUT itself",
or
"the thing NOT IN itself"?
None of these concepts can't be reached with a mind, as you said, because it seems to be diluted as soon as it's been approached. And while we change constantly our comprehending (?) to get something to us (to our minds/ or to fill them) we cook or prepare those concepts as the fried fish. And yead - those changes do have pauses!
So, I'd compare your "not things in itself" (etc) with "the gaps" in the modern werid-realism or the speculative realism. And also I'd say that those gaps are really necessary needed in epistemology. Really, I can't imagine a non-stop act of getting some information.
I can't agree on the last conclusion. I see no real reason why the thing-in-itself must be conctructed while its definition is against it. Something's wrong with that last conclusoin.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 17, 2021 0:00:12 GMT
The real problem with the concept is that "the thing IN itself" has just one model. What about these ones: "the thing OUT itself", or "the thing NOT IN itself"? None of these concepts can't be reached with a mind, as you said, because it seems to be diluted as soon as it's been approached. And while we change constantly our comprehending (?) to get something to us (to our minds/ or to fill them) we cook or prepare those concepts as the fried fish. And yead - those changes do have pauses! So, I'd compare your "not things in itself" (etc) with "the gaps" in the modern werid-realism or the speculative realism. And also I'd say that those gaps are really necessary needed in epistemology. Really, I can't imagine a non-stop act of getting some information. I can't agree on the last conclusion. I see no real reason why the thing-in-itself must be conctructed while its definition is against it. Something's wrong with that last conclusoin. The question of a thing in itself directly pertains to whether or not God exists as beyond our understanding...so the question has practical applications. The thing in itself, once observed, causes an event change within the perspective of the observing. In simpler terms, God causes a change in the observation of the observer when observed. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 17, 2021 0:01:14 GMT
Your mockery only proves where your ability to think through something falls short. You are insulting yourself. Is that so? I shall continue to play those "philosophical" games of invent new philosophical combinations of words or new words? No, thanks. I see here a tinies trace of thinking. You want to think, just prove or solve some real problems, not those self-invented for the 'philosophy' players. There are plenty of problems, the real ones. You can pick up whichever you like to. Each of such problem is much more difficult, than the most hard philosophical problem ever. See above. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 17, 2021 3:08:09 GMT
Inability to count all the dead santa clauses in their drunkenality mustissitates the santa-in-claus as the pony of challenge from one binoculars to another. In binoculing a santa-in-claus the santa-in-claus stranges from a santa-in-claus to not a santa-in-claus. A santa-in-claus is the invent hange from one binoculation in to the over. A little bit of drink came out of my nose while reading this there should be a warning label not to be drinking or eating while reading this thread  π |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 8:03:45 GMT
Inability to count all the dead santa clauses in their drunkenality mustissitates the santa-in-claus as the pony of challenge from one binoculars to another. In binoculing a santa-in-claus the santa-in-claus stranges from a santa-in-claus to not a santa-in-claus. A santa-in-claus is the invent hange from one binoculation in to the over. A little bit of drink came out of my nose while reading this there should be a warning label not to be drinking or eating while reading this thread LOLπ ;) And that's the "great and undeniable" essence of many philosophical texts. As you rightly said they hold their truths as some "holy scriptures" or kinda. And instead if philosophers stop being so smart, and start being some silly - just like Erasmus from Rotterdam - they'd get much more better and even superior position to their own. Brifely, they should be more clever to learn that self-laughing, I mean to laugh at themselves, isn't so bad if it works to help any animals to understand things. I mean I don't really know are there any animals who really laugh? I saw none. And a human is the only laughing primate. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 17, 2021 18:28:56 GMT
Idk but i do know that i milked at cat once
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 30, 2021 22:56:12 GMT
Bump
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 27, 2021 11:12:08 GMT
To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation. Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation. This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change. The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing, I agree with most of that, for sure a thing in itself stop being it if we just reveal it, and instead we would deal with a thing not in itself. Our observation goes through many acts (in general) of those changes. But I still can't be sure I understand the very last statement. We take 'a thing in itself' as a concept, so we previously accept it. Maybe there is no things in itself. So, do I understand correctly: when we dare to observe 'a thing in itself' all what we encounter is 'a thing not in itself', and at the same time that set of 'things not in itself' (if we take all those 'things in itself' in their totality) we would get 'a thing in itself'? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2021 0:28:51 GMT
To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation. Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation. This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change. The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing, I agree with most of that, for sure a thing in itself stop being it if we just reveal it, and instead we would deal with a thing not in itself. Our observation goes through many acts (in general) of those changes. But I still can't be sure I understand the very last statement. We take 'a thing in itself' as a concept, so we previously accept it. Maybe there is no things in itself. So, do I understand correctly: when we dare to observe 'a thing in itself' all what we encounter is 'a thing not in itself', and at the same time that set of 'things not in itself' (if we take all those 'things in itself' in their totality) we would get 'a thing in itself'? We know a thing in itself, which is independent of observation, exists given the change in observation. First a thing is unobserved then it is observed. This is the change in observation. Change occurs through the thing in itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2021 3:50:49 GMT
I agree with most of that, for sure a thing in itself stop being it if we just reveal it, and instead we would deal with a thing not in itself. Our observation goes through many acts (in general) of those changes. But I still can't be sure I understand the very last statement. We take 'a thing in itself' as a concept, so we previously accept it. Maybe there is no things in itself. So, do I understand correctly: when we dare to observe 'a thing in itself' all what we encounter is 'a thing not in itself', and at the same time that set of 'things not in itself' (if we take all those 'things in itself' in their totality) we would get 'a thing in itself'? We know a thing in itself, which is independent of observation, exists given the change in observation.Β First a thing is unobserved then it is observed.Β This is the change in observation.Β Change occurs through the thing in itself. Thanks! I see now. In other words, the unseen becomes seen through the series acts of change in the observation of ours. And because there are things in themselves anything can change. Yes, I do agree with that. There was a song of Victori Tsoy (Russia singer of late 80's) who sang "A Place For The Next Step". Which means: there always the next step, and there is something to where the world goes. I don't know how good I describe it, but it can be said as this also: each our next step there is always a thing in itself. (Because it is impossible to imagine that we can find anything without a single change. Even to comprehend that we have to be able to move.) |
|
π