|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 8, 2021 16:15:27 GMT
What is imaginary is that which has been given image too. For example a unicorn is the image of a horn attached to the image of a horse. This image exists within the mind and as existing within the mind exists as a concept. The imaginary phenomenon is real as a concept given the concept is a thing which is observed albeit the mind. As such all imaginary phenomena are real given they are observed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2021 7:28:30 GMT
Here's an ambiguity of using the word 'existence'. I guess in some art or creative (a creative director; art creativity) it really is.
And in more philosophical sense is wrong. We can't put anything to the amount of truths, because only that exists which is truly exist. Not considering it leads us to contradictions that a thing exists and doesn't exist at the same time.
Another thing is – how those patterns exist? Or with which help? I think I can answer. Firstly, it's not almost truth that a unicorn is a corn + a horse. Such a view is rustry, Hime claimed it, but it is no more taken noe (G. Harman "Weird-realism: Lovecraft", 2010). The situation is even more complex – there is no sure about the components. A unicorn is not just plain conjunction, but something that much more different than its parts (imaginary ones). If it would be so simple we would know anything about everything as soon as would have all the basic elements and rules of addition. But those patterns are not "additive" we cannot just put a corn on a horse's forehead to achieve a unicorn (even not all the children think that).
Each phenomenon is unique in some sense and its uniqueness, perhaps, is tied up with its existence. Because to exist is to have some burdens, or it means to perform some rules of this Universe: nobody would stay alive in this Universe if he unaccepts its rules (but this question I find to be very productive to discuss! I see here many ways to think).
Anyway, what we see doesn't equal what exist. To find it out we gotta think. There's no thinking, where's no (philosophical) existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 14, 2021 21:51:01 GMT
Here's an ambiguity of using the word 'existence'. I guess in some art or creative (a creative director; art creativity) it really is. And in more philosophical sense is wrong. We can't put anything to the amount of truths, because only that exists which is truly exist. Not considering it leads us to contradictions that a thing exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Another thing is – how those patterns exist? Or with which help? I think I can answer. Firstly, it's not almost truth that a unicorn is a corn + a horse. Such a view is rustry, Hime claimed it, but it is no more taken noe (G. Harman "Weird-realism: Lovecraft", 2010). The situation is even more complex – there is no sure about the components. A unicorn is not just plain conjunction, but something that much more different than its parts (imaginary ones). If it would be so simple we would know anything about everything as soon as would have all the basic elements and rules of addition. But those patterns are not "additive" we cannot just put a corn on a horse's forehead to achieve a unicorn (even not all the children think that). Each phenomenon is unique in some sense and its uniqueness, perhaps, is tied up with its existence. Because to exist is to have some burdens, or it means to perform some rules of this Universe: nobody would stay alive in this Universe if he unaccepts its rules (but this question I find to be very productive to discuss! I see here many ways to think). Anyway, what we see doesn't equal what exist. To find it out we gotta think. There's no thinking, where's no (philosophical) existence. To observe an image is to observe a phenomenon as an image is a phenomenon. If we see something then something is there. |
|
