Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.

A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.

Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.

edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]

I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.[/quote]

Oh, sooner or later, this line of reasoning will certainly become a circle.
But at this point, it’s not yet the case. These definitions do add some informations, or at least they raise new questions.
[/quote]
a thing is what it is not, we can only sense a thing by the contrast between it and its surroundings. You could argue everytyhing less than the whole of reality has only contingent existence.

142

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?

143

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.

A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.

Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.

edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]

I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.[/quote]

Oh, sooner or later, this line of reasoning will certainly become a circle.
But at this point, it’s not yet the case. These definitions do add some informations, or at least they raise new questions.
[/quote]
a thing is what it is not, we can only sense a thing by the contrast between it and its surroundings. You could argue everytyhing less than the whole of reality has only contingent existence.[/quote]

You used the words “background” and “surroundings”.
What it is ?
Is this background real ? Does it exist ? Is it inside of your mind or outside ?

Do you suggest that “the whole of reality” has a non-contingent existence ?

144

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.

A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.

Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.

edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]

I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.[/quote]

Oh, sooner or later, this line of reasoning will certainly become a circle.
But at this point, it’s not yet the case. These definitions do add some informations, or at least they raise new questions.
[/quote]
a thing is what it is not, we can only sense a thing by the contrast between it and its surroundings. You could argue everytyhing less than the whole of reality has only contingent existence.[/quote]

You used the words “background” and “surroundings”.
What it is ?
Is this background real ? Does it exist ? Is it inside of your mind or outside ?

Do you suggest that “the whole of reality” has a non-contingent existence ?
[/quote]

I used those words to describe what the pc monitor is not. I’m not sure what you are getting at with you questions…the background is simply how i reference what the monitor was not. as soon as i try to to think about it, im thinking of another thing, asking me if its inside or outside my head…i dont know is the answer.

I do think that the whole of reality (ill call it the Totality from now on) would not be contingent on anything else as there is nothing else. Im not sure if one could say it exists though, as existence is the presence of some THING. I think “real”, “being” etc are just words to decrive the state of something that i perceive.

I think the Totality would be non contingent. not sure if i would say it “exists”.

145

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.

146

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:<<< You could argue everytyhing less than the whole of reality has only contingent existence.[/quote]You COULD argue that the new VW beetles are evidence that the antichrist is already in the earth. WHAT?! You COULD argue literally ANYthing.

147

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.[/quote]What would you look for for evidence that I did?

148

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

are you being asinine on purpose?

149

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.[/quote]What would you look for for evidence that I did?
[/quote]
I would ask you if you think anyone is morally responsible for their actions first off and if you do believe people are culpable then we are in agreement free will exists.

Otherwise I would look to see if you do things like punish your children for misbehavior. Since I would assume if we didn’t believe them to be truly culpable for their actions then punishment is nothing more than untoward cruelty. On a grander scale when such children haven’t learned any of their particular society’s dominant paradigm I would look to see if you think such adults as they grow into deserve punishment or if their behavior was simply regrettable actions that were foreordained to occur.

In response to any my actions of punishment were preordained…meh. Do you in your heart of hearts feel that someone who does something like this shouldn’t be punished?

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-pakistani-acid-victim-commits-suicide-063149605.html

If you don’t think the attacker that resulted in such suffering is culpable then I’d simply say you were wrong and not try to change your mind and believe that on some level you are defective.

150

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.[/quote]What would you look for for evidence that I did?
[/quote]
I would ask you if you think anyone is morally responsible for their actions first off and if you do believe people are culpable then we are in agreement free will exists.

Otherwise I would look to see if you do things like punish your children for misbehavior. Since I would assume if we didn’t believe them to be truly culpable for their actions then punishment is nothing more than untoward cruelty. On a grander scale when such children haven’t learned any of their particular society’s dominant paradigm I would look to see if you think such adults as they grow into deserve punishment or if their behavior was simply regrettable actions that were foreordained to occur.

In response to any my actions of punishment were preordained…meh. Do you in your heart of hearts feel that someone who does something like this shouldn’t be punished?

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-pakistani-acid-victim-commits-suicide-063149605.html

If you don’t think the attacker that resulted in such suffering is culpable then I’d simply say you were wrong and not try to change your mind and believe that on some level you are defective.[/quote]

Hang on, I thought punishment was about preventing recidivism, not punishment for the sake of punishment. we hold people responsible for their actions because that can change the way they act, dont think that goes against determinism. I wouldnt feel the desire to punish someone just for revenge - there is no benefit

151

[quote]
I used those words to describe what the pc monitor is not. I’m not sure what you are getting at with you questions…the background is simply how i reference what the monitor was not. as soon as i try to to think about it, im thinking of another thing, asking me if its inside or outside my head…i dont know is the answer.[/quote]

What i am getting at ?
Actually, it’s the same question i asked you about the shaping activity of the mind.

The background is not a thing (as defined by you), yet it is.
Or at least, it constantly “appears”.

It is this “thing” that is still there after you “bracketted” everything else, in what Husserl called “phenomonelogical epoche”.

Then again, there is two possibilities :
you can affirm that this background is “inside the mind”, a product of the mind, and is completely subjective. Then your mind is the only “reality” you will ever “know”.
or
you can affirm that this “background” is objective. real, and exists outside the mind. Then the mind is nothing more and nothing less than the finite tool we use to grasp some parts of this background. and “thing” is the name we give to the parts we successfully grasped.

In one case, you’re alone in your head.
in the other case, there is a world.

The point is that you can always believes that the first proposition is true and/or say that you don’t know, but you will always act as if the last one were true.

152

@Groo
And I would answer once again [quote]God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote] Gym time. BTW Groo. Don’t ever think I’m making light of you. You are the esteemed owner of one of only a very few of Tiribulus’s “Hallelujah worthy bullseyes” around here. You, Squating_bear and Patrick of Atlanta has TWO!!!

153

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.[/quote]What would you look for for evidence that I did?
[/quote]
I would ask you if you think anyone is morally responsible for their actions first off and if you do believe people are culpable then we are in agreement free will exists.

Otherwise I would look to see if you do things like punish your children for misbehavior. Since I would assume if we didn’t believe them to be truly culpable for their actions then punishment is nothing more than untoward cruelty. On a grander scale when such children haven’t learned any of their particular society’s dominant paradigm I would look to see if you think such adults as they grow into deserve punishment or if their behavior was simply regrettable actions that were foreordained to occur.

In response to any my actions of punishment were preordained…meh. Do you in your heart of hearts feel that someone who does something like this shouldn’t be punished?

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-pakistani-acid-victim-commits-suicide-063149605.html

If you don’t think the attacker that resulted in such suffering is culpable then I’d simply say you were wrong and not try to change your mind and believe that on some level you are defective.[/quote]

Hang on, I thought punishment was about preventing recidivism, not punishment for the sake of punishment. we hold people responsible for their actions because that can change the way they act, dont think that goes against determinism. I wouldnt feel the desire to punish someone just for revenge - there is no benefit [/quote]

Punishment is absolutely not about preventing recidivism or certainly not solely. That is a recent conceit. And by and large in American jurisprudence has proven to be ineffective. Punishment is about justice too for some crimes. Some actions deserve punishment and some things people do are so unforgivable there is no reabilitation.

I completely disagree with there being no benefit for retributive justice.

154

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< Even the hardest of the hard determinists doesn’t act as though there is no free will. >>>[/quote]How would you know they were. Because they said so?
[/quote]
Feel free to replace “the hardest of the hard determinists” with No one acts as though there were no free will, if thats the part that is the problem.

I would say if I observed you in your day to day interaction you don’t either. You might claim to believe everything is determined…you might even truly believe this…but in your actions I’d say dollars to doughnuts you don’t follow this. Or even think or truly feel this. Whether you attribute to human failing or what have you.[/quote]What would you look for for evidence that I did?
[/quote]
I would ask you if you think anyone is morally responsible for their actions first off and if you do believe people are culpable then we are in agreement free will exists.

Otherwise I would look to see if you do things like punish your children for misbehavior. Since I would assume if we didn’t believe them to be truly culpable for their actions then punishment is nothing more than untoward cruelty. On a grander scale when such children haven’t learned any of their particular society’s dominant paradigm I would look to see if you think such adults as they grow into deserve punishment or if their behavior was simply regrettable actions that were foreordained to occur.

In response to any my actions of punishment were preordained…meh. Do you in your heart of hearts feel that someone who does something like this shouldn’t be punished?

http://news.yahoo.com/prominent-pakistani-acid-victim-commits-suicide-063149605.html

If you don’t think the attacker that resulted in such suffering is culpable then I’d simply say you were wrong and not try to change your mind and believe that on some level you are defective.[/quote]

Hang on, I thought punishment was about preventing recidivism, not punishment for the sake of punishment. we hold people responsible for their actions because that can change the way they act, dont think that goes against determinism. I wouldnt feel the desire to punish someone just for revenge - there is no benefit [/quote]

Punishment is absolutely not about preventing recidivism or certainly not solely. That is a recent conceit. And by and large in American jurisprudence has proven to be ineffective. Punishment is about justice too for some crimes. Some actions deserve punishment and some things people do are so unforgivable there is no reabilitation.

I completely disagree with there being no benefit for retributive justice.[/quote]

conceit? excuse me, I don’t value revenge, there is no justice in revenge for me. Don’t conflate justice for revenge please. I don’t believe there is any benefit to punishment beyond changing future behavior - the idea of inflicting pain on another just for the sake of it is not justice in any way.

This is MY opinion, this is how I feel, im not sure how your comments pertain to me

155

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You hurt my feelings with this Chris. =[[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. But, you keep going off on tangents (about things that I have never claimed most of the time) and you hijacked my thread. Both you and Mr. Chen.

You never act nice to me except in private. Don’t give me that I don’t know how to act when you’re nice.

Never made the claim, "Aristotle as “The ACTUAL Key to Everything.”

And I stand by that you have never shown the “utter denunciation and rejection by Paul.” That’s why I said you are not bringing any substance in the thread. You’re just making claims.

If you can read, the title says Metaphysics, not Aristotle. So, if anything I’m claiming that Metaphysics is the key, not Aristotle. However, if you look again, you can see I did two things: 1) I used a metaphysics word in the subtitle to 2) make a pun off your title.

I reject the notion that epistemology is the key to everything. I can make up absurd questions, as well, and say that it’s the foundation of philosophy.

So, if you want a succinct title: Metaphysics: The Foundation to Philosophy.

156

[quote]kamui wrote:

I guess its nice to know the fancy name, his theory seems to be somewhat descriptive of how I feel. Not sure what the relevance of your point is. Yes, we all act in the only way we can, or in the way that is easy to. That doesnt give any more credence to belief that true knowledge is possible.

157

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]

I know a regular old Karl Popper. :wink:

158

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]

I know a regular old Karl Popper. ;)[/quote]

wow, more of the same. althoi should thank you as i never heard of karl popper before, its nice to know a famous philosphoher had a similar idea to me, although i did think i was unique in my views. is my view no longer valid as someone else already had it? is there any posituib ir view that hasnt already been argued by a philosopher???

159

The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence.

160

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The aims of punishment are three fold: retribution, correction, and deterrence. [/quote]

in your opinion. i see no value in retribution. i think the idea of wanting to harm someone just for the sake of causing them suffering is petty and dare i say it, “whispers” …evil.