Silhouette wrote:
I'm not even saying that in a trillion years someone may find something different, I'm saying we already did. Several times. Humility is your friend.
One can think in terms of platonic forms.If you actually read the enniads, he comes the the same conclusion as me, that all existents have platonic forms, including all humans.
Ecmandu wrote:Show it to me "genius"
Silhouette wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Show it to me "genius"
I never claimed to be a genius.
I never denied it eitherbut I think they exist and I believe they have existed in the past. One such example that is hard to doubt is Nietzsche. How about I draw on what he said in one of his books, say "Twilight of the Idols"?
You are asking me to show you that we already found something that doesn't need a hypothetical about a trillion years into the future. This "something" related to a doubt of Platonic forms that philosophers have already raised, such as Nietzsche. I have already shown you doubts from my own thoughts that you've not even addressed, but you're still asking to be shown, so maybe he will help? It's a real struggle to extract any sense from you about both your own explanations or even your requirements for proof, so all I can do is add to the pile of what I've already offered with the following.
Right at the beginning of the fore-mentioned book, in "The Problem of Socrates" Nietzsche writes that he "recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay" standing "in the same negative relation to life": "It was he who handed himself the poison cup". This continues to be advanced shortly later in "The Four Great Errors" that begins with "There is no more dangerous error than that of mistaking the consequence for the cause". An example of this error is mentioned just before in "'Reason' in Philosophy": "The 'apparent' world is the only one: the 'real' world has only been lyingly added..." as he draws from Heraclitus. Plato inverts this, mistaking the consequence of seeing similar "forms" caused by "the apparent" as "Platonic forms" that cause "the apparent". In true Nietzschean style, he is merely diagnosing sickness and decadence in the kind of intellect that demotes the real to mere illusion that is "in fact" caused by a "more real reality" that lurks beneath - which they aspire to reach in just the same way as the Christian does. Back to "The Problem of Socrates": "To have to combat one's instincts - that is the formula for décadence".
He goes on to sum up the mechanism by which the "monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo" turn away from life in "How the 'Real World' at last Became a Myth".
This is just the beginning of one book by one more recent philosopher - I only stick to Nietzsche because it's him that I know best. There are plenty of others to pick from, just pick one and go from there. I may attack your ideas, but I am not your enemy, I am trying to help.
I'm not vitriolic or hating, though I am uncompromising in the expression of my frustration with characters such as yourself who present themselves as having easy answers like some kind of prophet or saviour whilst having little to no real substance to back it up - as elucidated by the kind of rigorous deconstruction that I admittedly take joy in providing. It's hard not to develop an ego when you have put a lot of time and energy into getting particularly good at doing this, but I genuinely try to hold it back as much as I can - my apologies if it slips through.
Ecmandu wrote:
The number four cannot be found in space or time so it must exist outside space and time
phyllo wrote:
What does existence mean for stuff that is non physical
surreptitious75 wrote:phyllo wrote:
What does existence mean for stuff that is non physical
Thoughts are electrochemical signals occurring in the brain so they are physical
The thing that is being thought of however is not physical but merely imaginary
Ecmandu wrote:You didn't talk to what I spoke about.
Ecmandu wrote:These really ancient philosophers realized that you can be hit by four sticks, but you cannot be hit by the number four. The number four cannot be found in space or time, so it must exist outside space and time. An eternal realm that doesn't begin or end.
You truly are underestimating the brilliance of these people.
Ecmandu wrote:When you put a spoon in a bowl of soup, and put it to your mouth to slurp, has the spoon always existed?
Ecmandu wrote:If it has always existed, then motion cannot occur in existence, everything freezes, becomes nothing at all. Remember, this part is the world you said is verifiable and testable that comes from itself... a world that has to freeze in order for existents to not come from nothing at all, thus becoming nothing at all.
So either it comes from nothing at all, or it is nothing at all.
Ecmandu wrote:Edited my last post to respond better to the whole post instead of part of it.
Silhouette wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Edited my last post to respond better to the whole post instead of part of it.
Can you edit it again? Your 8-sectioned sentence lacks clarity.
You're saying a single particle moving to a new place is newness of all particles as a whole -> this is something coming from something else which is the same as something coming from nothing -> eternal states are also nothing (of which you're arguing in favour)... and somehow this string of quite clear contradictions doesn't change an unassailable logic?
I mean.......... what?!![]()
Also, if you keep having to edit your posts because you're launching into a defense of only the first part my posts without even reading it all yet, I suggest you take a more rationed attitude to debating. The first read can be hard because it attacks your investment - that's not the time to reply. Stand back after you've read it all, calm down, honestly consider the truth behind what the other person is saying, then respond with a view to the truth rather than saving your ego. Otherwise you'll never get anywhere in debate.
Ecmandu wrote:You either understand this concept or not:
Understand?
So once you understand this
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]