|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 31, 2023 17:52:31 GMT
If there is only one thing, i.e. a monism, then all illusions are part of this reality thus are no longer illusions. But then there is an illusion that there are illusions. Under these terms reality is a contradiction and as a contradiction is beyond the senses. We cannot say what reality is or is not without ending in contradiction. And yet this prior statement is a statement about reality thus it contradicts itself. This contradiction exists. In reality there is only everything then. And this everything includes all things and conscious experiences as things. In summary my self-refuting argument is a pointer to how little we know of reality as the expanse of things exists beyond individual comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 7, 2023 18:01:31 GMT
If there is only one thing, i.e. a monism, then all illusions are part of this reality thus are no longer illusions. But then there is an illusion that there are illusions. Under these terms reality is a contradiction and as a contradiction is beyond the senses. We cannot say what reality is or is not without ending in contradiction. And yet this prior statement is a statement about reality thus it contradicts itself. This contradiction exists. In reality there is only everything then. And this everything includes all things and conscious experiences as things. In summary my self-refuting argument is a pointer to how little we know of reality as the expanse of things exists beyond individual comprehension. I might be wrong, but didn't you say that: 1) there's one thing; and then you added 2) illusions (not an illusion). So is there only one thing or more?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 7, 2023 19:08:23 GMT
If there is only one thing, i.e. a monism, then all illusions are part of this reality thus are no longer illusions. But then there is an illusion that there are illusions. Under these terms reality is a contradiction and as a contradiction is beyond the senses. We cannot say what reality is or is not without ending in contradiction. And yet this prior statement is a statement about reality thus it contradicts itself. This contradiction exists. In reality there is only everything then. And this everything includes all things and conscious experiences as things. In summary my self-refuting argument is a pointer to how little we know of reality as the expanse of things exists beyond individual comprehension. I might be wrong, but didn't you say that: 1) there's one thing; and then you added 2) illusions (not an illusion). So is there only one thing or more? "If there is only one thing." "If" is the key word. It is contradictory Eugene: 1. If there is a monism then there are no illusions and these illusions are real as truth and illusion are one. 2. However if there are no illusions then the phenomenon of illusion is in itself an illusion. 3. The 'illusion that there are illusions' results in a dichotomy of 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' thus there is no monism. 4. However if there is 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' then a relationship of contrast occurs and there is a monism. 5. Absurdity results. We cannot state that there is "one" or "many".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 8, 2023 2:29:37 GMT
I might be wrong, but didn't you say that: 1) there's one thing; and then you added 2) illusions (not an illusion). So is there only one thing or more? "If there is only one thing." "If" is the key word. It is contradictory Eugene: 1. If there is a monism then there are no illusions and these illusions are real as truth and illusion are one. 2. However if there are no illusions then the phenomenon of illusion is in itself an illusion. 3. The 'illusion that there are illusions' results in a dichotomy of 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' thus there is no monism. 4. However if there is 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' then a relationship of contrast occurs and there is a monism. 5. Absurdity results. We cannot state that there is "one" or "many". I see. Thanks. Doesn't 'monism' also mean 'it is false that there are two realities', 'it is false that there are three realities ', ...? Also, presumably different realities exist in different ways. An illusionary (for us) one works false (for us) in one way, but truly (for the ones from that realities) in different way. Let's say "Most trees have green leaves" is true for our reality. We may say that there's such a thing as a truthmaker by which this sentence becomes truth, or the truthmaker makes the sentence be true. (Important to note: to be true ".) A truthmaker from another reality, not ours, makes our statement false for any sentiel being (i.e. a consciousness one). To the monism: If there was only one truthmaker from one reality, that truthmaker would make any irrelevant for our reality facts false. It works similarly to the set theory function 'to belong to': x belong to A where x is whatever fact, A is our reality; This can't be true that whatever x is, x belong to A because in this case A has everything, and then A is all realities, not one. That's why if A is one reality, then A has its own truthmaker, so only some x belong to A However, I might add your notification is additional: let's say a certain y doesn't belong to A what does it mean? This means either a) the truthmaker makes y be false, or b) the sentence 'y belong to A is true' false. So, we can start asking further wondering what 'falsely' means then? Does anything from the reality of ours is anything that false? – No... But how can it be? Only one route seems to be possible and this route is that: to equal falsely to some abstractions. And what that abstractions? – False things. Not from our reality. That are presented here... Therefore there are some realities, and therefore no monism.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 9, 2023 2:48:06 GMT
Good old xxxxxxxx still mind phuucked by the English language and thinking that reality has to be a certain way and when language can't grab it he then thinks that theirs a contradiction then thinks that pointing it out will make him sound like a philosopher when the ball pit at McDonald's is where you will find others of like mind and intellect
|
|
rexa
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 16
|
Post by rexa on Apr 9, 2023 21:10:44 GMT
Good old xxxxxxxx still mind phuucked by the English language and thinking that reality has to be a certain way and when language can't grab it he then thinks that theirs a contradiction then thinks that pointing it out will make him sound like a philosopher when the ball pit at McDonald's is where you will find others of like mind and intellect . He never fails to dissapoint us. Philosophy section is a joke. I was gonna say . So basically you made absolute zero sense again and don't know the whole point of this thread , but man yours was so hilarious. I bet we will get along great in this community
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 11, 2023 21:16:19 GMT
Good old xxxxxxxx still mind phuucked by the English language and thinking that reality has to be a certain way and when language can't grab it he then thinks that theirs a contradiction then thinks that pointing it out will make him sound like a philosopher when the ball pit at McDonald's is where you will find others of like mind and intellect Lol. He never fails to dissapoint us. Philosophy section is a joke. I was gonna say . So basically you made absolute zero sense again and don't know the whole point of this thread , but man yours was so hilarious. I bet we will get along great in this community We don't have here many visitors for last years, and didn't intend to create the thread only for the pro philosophers. Yes, it appear to be deliberate, but it's not. Some of the members of ours posted many posts before, and let's say they've got their Modus Operandi. For an outsider their posts might be seen unusual or kinda if to view only the last of them. Usually they started posting them long ago. If you have any propositions, wishes, any comments, you're welcome to say them. People see things differently. That's definitely not an academic thread, but not a joke either.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 18:56:14 GMT
Good old xxxxxxxx still mind phuucked by the English language and thinking that reality has to be a certain way and when language can't grab it he then thinks that theirs a contradiction then thinks that pointing it out will make him sound like a philosopher when the ball pit at McDonald's is where you will find others of like mind and intellect
Language forms reality as evidenced by a set of schematics for a building. Where language contradicts so does reality.
You are contradicting yourself again as usual. If I believe reality has to be a certain way and you believe that me believing reality has to be a certain way is false then you contradict yourself as your belief that my belief that '"reality has to be a certain way" is false' is believing that reality has to be certain way. Continually seeing falsity in other beliefs is believing reality must be certain way.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 19:09:20 GMT
"If there is only one thing." "If" is the key word. It is contradictory Eugene: 1. If there is a monism then there are no illusions and these illusions are real as truth and illusion are one. 2. However if there are no illusions then the phenomenon of illusion is in itself an illusion. 3. The 'illusion that there are illusions' results in a dichotomy of 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' thus there is no monism. 4. However if there is 'illusion' and 'non-illusion' then a relationship of contrast occurs and there is a monism. 5. Absurdity results. We cannot state that there is "one" or "many". I see. Thanks. Doesn't 'monism' also mean 'it is false that there are two realities', 'it is false that there are three realities ', ...? Also, presumably different realities exist in different ways. An illusionary (for us) one works false (for us) in one way, but truly (for the ones from that realities) in different way. Let's say "Most trees have green leaves" is true for our reality. We may say that there's such a thing as a truthmaker by which this sentence becomes truth, or the truthmaker makes the sentence be true. (Important to note: to be true ".) A truthmaker from another reality, not ours, makes our statement false for any sentiel being (i.e. a consciousness one). To the monism: If there was only one truthmaker from one reality, that truthmaker would make any irrelevant for our reality facts false. It works similarly to the set theory function 'to belong to': x belong to A where x is whatever fact, A is our reality; This can't be true that whatever x is, x belong to A because in this case A has everything, and then A is all realities, not one. That's why if A is one reality, then A has its own truthmaker, so only some x belong to A However, I might add your notification is additional: let's say a certain y doesn't belong to A what does it mean? This means either a) the truthmaker makes y be false, or b) the sentence 'y belong to A is true' false. So, we can start asking further wondering what 'falsely' means then? Does anything from the reality of ours is anything that false? – No... But how can it be? Only one route seems to be possible and this route is that: to equal falsely to some abstractions. And what that abstractions? – False things. Not from our reality. That are presented here... Therefore there are some realities, and therefore no monism. There is no dualism either as to conceptualize everything under the term 'dualism' is to show a single thing, i.e. the concept of dualism. Reality is neither dualistic nor monistic.
As to abstractions...they exist as to negate them is to first point to them. Abstractions exist as abstractions.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 14, 2023 21:04:59 GMT
But no illusion is ever entirely unreal, it must have its basis in something real or we would not be deluded by it.
And can we reverse that and suggest that no reality is without some aspect of illusion?
Nah. The axiomatic truths of Euclid and Pythagoras; Plato's forms, the ethic of Jesus, and most of Newton.
Are without illusion.
But the illusion that tries to deny this, has ulterior motives beyond seeking truth.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 15, 2023 4:44:35 GMT
But no illusion is ever entirely unreal, it must have its basis in something real or we would not be deluded by it. And can we reverse that and suggest that no reality is without some aspect of illusion? Nah. The axiomatic truths of Euclid and Pythagoras; Plato's forms, the ethic of Jesus, and most of Newton. Are without illusion. But the illusion that tries to deny this, has ulterior motives beyond seeking truth. Personally I also think that some of illusions are impossible to take away or to remove from us. At least there are two of them: dreams and imagination. If removing dreams how to explain some people's motivations? Plenty of people be woke by their dreams, and sometimes dreams will be granted (they predict the things). And imagination with thinking: without that ability there's impossible to explain people's acts. Yes, not everyone think before doing, not everyone think properly, and not all the people think clear and correctly, but positively that they are thinking or at least imagine something in their heads. Especially it is fair about architects, artists, composers. (However, maybe there are muses and inspiration along with intuition, that in sum it doesn't mean no imagination and thinking are presented in such acts.) Therefore, removing imagination we would have completely mechanical, soulless, and even brainless zombie types, and that doesn't seem to be correspond to the reality or what things are.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 15, 2023 5:07:38 GMT
Good old xxxxxxxx still mind phuucked by the English language and thinking that reality has to be a certain way and when language can't grab it he then thinks that theirs a contradiction then thinks that pointing it out will make him sound like a philosopher when the ball pit at McDonald's is where you will find others of like mind and intellect
Language forms reality as evidenced by a set of schematics for a building. Where language contradicts so does reality.
You are contradicting yourself again as usual. If I believe reality has to be a certain way and you believe that me believing reality has to be a certain way is false then you contradict yourself as your belief that my belief that '"reality has to be a certain way" is false' is believing that reality has to be certain way. Continually seeing falsity in other beliefs is believing reality must be certain way. What ? What is what but what could what be without the what what of the what yet what was what what ing ?omg contradiction I can't comprehend contradiction !! (Head explodes) that's pretty much what your posts are like
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 15, 2023 11:10:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ip060903 on Apr 15, 2023 19:21:28 GMT
At the highest levels of reality, all laws of logic and any form of order disintegrates.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 16, 2023 23:22:50 GMT
At the highest levels of reality, all laws of logic and any form of order disintegrates. 100% on point
|
|