Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 29, 2021 0:48:57 GMT
So, there is no limitations on our imagination, but what about the being, as a philosophical concept?
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Jun 29, 2021 11:45:22 GMT
I see imagination as a part of my being. If I can't imagine myself somewhere else in time or space, I don't really exist here and now. I am a process, I am my process.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 29, 2021 14:58:30 GMT
I see imagination as a part of my being. If I can't imagine myself somewhere else in time or space, I don't really exist here and now. I am a process, I am my process. Sure, there is existence in being. A flower, a stone, grass, sky, sun. But all these things are entities, not beings. Being is more correlative, more like the stones on a bridge or the clouds in the sky. There are infinite entities in our imagination, angels and demons, or heavens or unicorns, all kinds of things (because things are entities, and entities is all which have some property). The number of entities, because the reasons I say, are infinite. But what about the limit of grass on a field, or apples on a tree? Sure there are a existencial limit, there are certain quantity of apples on a tree in a chose moment of our intellect, but what about a finite limit, a co-delimitation of being as a general entity of entities? It's possible? Because if there are limitations in being, sure being became a entity, a pattern, if you like. But no man have made the experiment of trying to delimitate being. It's possible? That is my question. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 29, 2021 15:01:03 GMT
We can have the insight of being, but not the definition of being. Obviously, we can correlate being and say being as a entity, but what about to try to undertand a entity as a being?
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Jun 29, 2021 15:54:46 GMT
What you're talking about to me sounds like categorization for the most part. Real or imaginary. Beings or entities. What's the "news" so to say in this?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 29, 2021 18:11:23 GMT
The imagination . the thing that has been called the most high God, the all creator ,
Marry in the new testament and many other allegories throughout history and the one thing that still eludes the awareness of mankind today
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 30, 2021 17:08:44 GMT
What you're talking about to me sounds like categorization for the most part. Real or imaginary. Beings or entities. What's the "news" so to say in this? Most of out errors are commited in categorization. We use some categories which is not apropriated. But, Kant is true of saying that there is no popular interest in philosophy. Sadly, there is no popular consciousness. We can only have the same consciousness if we were in the same ground, speaking of the same things. So, there is no common ground between us, as you say, not in words, but by your understanding. Details are essential in philosophical reason, patterns only leads to nowhere. If we don't have a philosophical mind, there is no philosophy to us. Well, I am not creating a virus, but only trying to understand better somethings and conquering my our intelligence. So, sorry to take your here, in this topic. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 30, 2021 17:15:43 GMT
The imagination . the thing that has been called the most high God, the all creator , Marry in the new testament and many other allegories throughout history and the one thing that still eludes the awareness of mankind today Imagination have no bounds, but the world is a concrete and objective thing, and our undertanding is propotional to what we reason and perceive. So, to extend our knowledge of the world is better, for me, than only explore imaginary possibilities. I understand that images can be funtional tools to the understanding considered in itself, but what about world knowledge? I can think the world as a singularity of reciprocities but what I am truly meaning by that? |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 3, 2021 15:53:34 GMT
The imagination . the thing that has been called the most high God, the all creator , Marry in the new testament and many other allegories throughout history and the one thing that still eludes the awareness of mankind today Imagination have no bounds, but the world is a concrete and objective thing, and our undertanding is propotional to what we reason and perceive. So, to extend our knowledge of the world is better, for me, than only explore imaginary possibilities. I understand that images can be funtional tools to the understanding considered in itself, but what about world knowledge? I can think the world as a singularity of reciprocities but what I am truly meaning by that? Is world knowledge fundamentally valuable? I don't think so, or at least not without wisdom because with wisdom a person can apply the knowledge in a specific way and achieve a specific outcome therefore it is at least a usable tool rather that be for good or for bad . But if we are all separate and my perspective will never be exactly like yours then what's the point in trying to convey my learned experience with other people? Because they can't reproduce what i am teaching them and worst of all they will have blinders on when they go out into the world like a race horse so to not get distracted while on a mission to find the thing i told them about and in doing so they will pass up their own authentic organic experience thinking that the pseudo experience I have conveyed to them is the organic experience to have? |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 5, 2021 20:45:45 GMT
Imagination have no bounds, but the world is a concrete and objective thing, and our undertanding is propotional to what we reason and perceive. So, to extend our knowledge of the world is better, for me, than only explore imaginary possibilities. I understand that images can be funtional tools to the understanding considered in itself, but what about world knowledge? I can think the world as a singularity of reciprocities but what I am truly meaning by that? Is world knowledge fundamentally valuable? I don't think so, or at least not without wisdom because with wisdom a person can apply the knowledge in a specific way and achieve a specific outcome therefore it is at least a usable tool rather that be for good or for bad . But if we are all separate and my perspective will never be exactly like yours then what's the point in trying to convey my learned experience with other people? Because they can't reproduce what i am teaching them and worst of all they will have blinders on when they go out into the world like a race horse so to not get distracted while on a mission to find the thing i told them about and in doing so they will pass up their own authentic organic experience thinking that the pseudo experience I have conveyed to them is the organic experience to have? Nature can be plenty of wisdom. There is no wisdom that cannot be considered as natural. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 6, 2021 8:07:46 GMT
Is world knowledge fundamentally valuable? I don't think so, or at least not without wisdom because with wisdom a person can apply the knowledge in a specific way and achieve a specific outcome therefore it is at least a usable tool rather that be for good or for bad . But if we are all separate and my perspective will never be exactly like yours then what's the point in trying to convey my learned experience with other people? Because they can't reproduce what i am teaching them and worst of all they will have blinders on when they go out into the world like a race horse so to not get distracted while on a mission to find the thing i told them about and in doing so they will pass up their own authentic organic experience thinking that the pseudo experience I have conveyed to them is the organic experience to have? Nature can be plenty of wisdom. There is no wisdom that cannot be considered as natural. i agree |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 6, 2021 16:31:31 GMT
So, there is no limitations on our imagination, but what about the being, as a philosophical concept?
The only real limit beyond our own misunderstandings,
is time.
Given enough time, any being is unlimited in what it can be and achieve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 9, 2021 16:30:48 GMT
Parmenides said that the being existed and non-being didn't exist. Also he said that that being could not make a move (i.e. to "where" it can move?), and that there was one being (i.e. there couldn't be more, than one being). Plus, he said that the being was conceivable, because we couldn't think of anything that couldn't exist.
I want to remark last point of his continuing that if there were more, than two being we would able to think about something that wouldn't be the being, so since that there would be more than one being.
Going further: the last conclusion leads to a thought that being able to think of something that isn't that being makes us thinking with no limits... and with limits also. Why so? Here:
If the being had limits its limits would touch something that was not those limits of the being. So we would have as being so non-being. Taking into account that all what we mention as being is anything that exists in any wide sense – the being has our imagination.
(I know that this long explanation might be shorter saying that "the being is also that exists in all the senses".)
So, I guess firstly we have to have an agreement about what to take as the being. Is it the same to the Parmenides's? And even in this there's still no agreement about whether or not the being has imagination's matter of ours in itself.
|
|
