How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Nonexistance   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Nonexistance

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


25 posted 11-17-2002 07:14 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Phaedrus



Smiles are contagious

Phaedrus
Member
since 01-26-2002
Posts 280


26 posted 11-17-2002 07:21 PM       View Profile for Phaedrus   Email Phaedrus   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Phaedrus


I was wondering where it had gone, thanks for putting it back.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


27 posted 09-03-2003 03:11 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

And.......In Respect to the "Nonexistance" of God
No matter what God is or isn't according with what any say or don't say he is and how he exists, believe or don't believe,  he  is still a "thing" we are referring to!  How could we behold anything if nothing, no being, no influence, or object-like thing were there?  There is always something...as everything exists, therefore God must exist...everything exists!  "nothings" and "nonexistings" must be but an absence of things we too fondly expected...
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 09-03-2003 03:48 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Ron,

I think I have come to a way of clearing up the paradox ....


Everything exists including non existance because nonexistance doesn't exist.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-03-2003 03:49 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 09-03-2003 03:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant: "No matter what God is or isn't according with what any say or don't say he is and how he exists, believe or don't believe,  he  is still a "thing" we are referring to!"


But it is the nature of that "thing" which is in question.  There's no doubt in my mind that Zeus does not exist as the Greeks thought he did.  But now he's a nice piece of literary creation ... a myth.  This is far different from a muscular older male who flings lightning bolts at mortals who annoy him.  So yeah, Zeus "exists", but the nature of Zeus is now known to be only a projection and invention of ourselves.

So your proprosal that God "exists" irrespective of his nature as an objective personality to be dealt with, or only a creative design of humanity, doesn't really say anything new.  No one is arguing on the atheistic or agnostic side that he doesn't "exist" as a myth.  It's just that Theists keep on insisting that he exists in a real and personal way, and is not dependent upon us to invent him.  They keep saying that he was, before we ever came to be.  Theists would reject your view as allowing a false, and less than honoring estimation of God.  And many atheists would say that if God is just a myth, we should not encourage people to be taught to fear or love a bogey.  And to be honest ... IF he were not real, I would have to agree with them.


Stephen.        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-03-2003 03:51 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 09-04-2003 01:31 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I believe all sincere beliefs in a God or Gods all have lines to a true center in realness.  If God were not very manifold than our perceptions it seems would not be.  So if we don't perceive in a God the same way to draw the same lines and characterizations as someone else it is very unbecoming of a theist to dismiss that person's notion as just lines and characterizations for that you want yours to be piedstalled above all.  We are all in the end always yet seperated from the truth and God by the partition of the manifoldnesses of our own mind and the embodiments thereof through which truth like a ray is variously refracted, absorbed, and reflected, and becomes more faint the more we upheap on and fill the corpulence of the that inevitable partition.  Zeus, however Mankind, still refers to a power above mankind, refers to nature, and weilding nature, correction on wrongs.  Just because something doesn't fit the exact body of terms doesn't make idle the terms.  People sincerely did believe in Zeus and many other deities and blindly sacrificed a billion creatures in thier names.  No matter how false the many terms and deeds were, the sincerity of their beliefs and art were kept and made the substantialness--if they had no lines to centers of realness and goodness overall, and in a way to what God really is, I believe they never would have endured so far and powerfully through influence and time.  They would have been mostly discarded and we would probably not be given to admire them very much at all.  
It may be because we should judge the valor of our way of perceiving in and worshipping a God through the strenght and goodness of the influence and how it perdures over time.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-04-2003 01:51 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


31 posted 09-05-2003 02:21 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

But back to the main matter....

Just like nonsmoking does not smoke, nonexistance does not exist.  

How could it be nonexistance if it it did?  

The only way it may exist is by not existing...

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-05-2003 02:37 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


32 posted 09-05-2003 02:44 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Essorant

So are you suggesting that non-action is analogous to non-being?  I think that the problem you'll run into is that, in the absense of one action, there will likely be another in its place.  You are either breathing air laced with tobacco smoke into your lungs or you're breathing air without it.  The action of breathing remains, just without the smoke.

I don't see how you can do the same with being.  "Being" isn't active, it's passive.  If you don't exist, you are not replaced by something that does.

Jim
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


33 posted 09-05-2003 05:22 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Essorant, if it doesn't exist, you can't tell me it doesn't exist. You can't talk about it at all.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 09-05-2003 08:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Let's get real...  An actual 50 kilometer hamburger, dripping tons of onion-flecked ketchup, flying over Florida, between 6PM and 6AM on September 9th does not exist.  

There I told you something does not exist.  And indeed it doesn't.

You can say the mental concept exists.  You cannot say the reality exists.  You can say it potentially exists, but that's about it.


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


35 posted 09-05-2003 08:30 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
You can say the mental concept exists.

And nonexistance would be what again?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


36 posted 09-05-2003 10:01 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Existence as a concept is the problem; it's very ambiguity causes a lot of problems because it's so related to discussion of Being and beings and whatnot -- a lot of discussion has been generated by attempting to find the common 'nature' as Stephan put it to things that exist. In order to do that, of course, you have to counterpose something that doesn't exist -- otherwise, we'd have an undifferentiated esistence.

As far as I can tell, most of these discussions presuppose a difference between concepts and reality sans concepts and the ambiguity surfaces when someone tries to integrate mental concepts back into that same reality. The other problem is a lot of people seem to jump back and forth between relational existence and absolute existence.

Take a horse for example. If I see a horse, feel it, touch it, feed it etc., I can say the horse exists, but as I look out my window right now, I see no horse, so I can say that no horse exists there, now. The reply is usually something like, "Yeah, but there are still horses. Horses exist," and that is indeed true, but it's a shift in context and irrelevant to whether a horse exists there, now.

But take a unicorn in contrast. As far as we know, no unicorns have ever been known to exist in that there, now in the same sense that a horse can indeed exist in that there, now (but not outside my window there, now). Thus, we say unicorns don't exist. Perhaps we can make that clearer by saying that unicorns don't exist in the same way that horses exist.

The response then is usually something like, "Yeah, but we have a concept of a horse and we have a concept of a unicorn. There both concepts and concepts exist, therefore, they both exist" but this is a mistake, for it forgets the difference between the two concepts. The concept horse includes the ability for a horse to be there,now (and not there,not now) whereas a the concept unicorn does not. Historically, it might have been different, but it's not today:

"There's no unicorn there now," already presupposes the ability to be there, now.

Cute, huh?

But this doesn't answer all the questions that questions of existence and Being bring up -- it's a tough nut to crack and, perhaps, a psuedo-problem created by a tendency to confuse adjectives with nouns.

I don't know.

[This message has been edited by Brad (09-05-2003 10:02 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


37 posted 09-06-2003 12:02 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

When I was maybe eight or nine, I saw a unicorn in a sideshow. No, really, I did.  

Even at that age, I kept looking around for the accompanying virgin.

If a unicorn said, "I am lying," would it still be a unicorn? Or just a donkey with a big zit?

  

"Some things exist" is cool.

"Some things don't exist" is equally cool.

"Nonexistence is nonexistent" is a self-referencing paradox and can be neither true nor false.


[This message has been edited by Ron (09-06-2003 01:46 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 09-06-2003 12:58 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Abbot:  If you're not in Cleveland or Denver you must be someplace else right?

Costello:  Right.

Abbot: If you're someplace else then you can't be here.

Costello: ?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


39 posted 09-06-2003 02:24 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I am too confused.

I just don't think anything may not exist as at least something...how is that possible?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-06-2003 02:29 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 09-06-2003 08:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

That that is, is.

That that is not, is not.  

Zero is Zero is null.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


41 posted 09-06-2003 08:50 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Stephen: "You can say the mental concept exists."

Ron: "And nonexistance would be what again?"


I said that you can say the mental concept exists, not an objective reality ... ie, an actual hamburger with so many pounds of hamburger meat, etc...

Brad said it more descriptively, but there is a true difference between mere imaginative thoughts, and objective external reality.  


Essorant, I think this is the point you are failing to grasp ... the fundamental ontological difference between imaginative thought, and externally verifiable realities.  And though you might argue that "Zeus" is in some sense real... it is not Zeus himself who is real, but the imaginations and misconceptions of people, and the effects they produced.  No one is arguing that all thoughts are not "real" in some sense of the term.  Hallucinations are "real" as well.  Yet, all would call you delusional for  believing such images to exist as realities.  It's one thing to say, "I ate psilocybin mushrooms and see spiders crawling on my ceiling ... I am hallucinating".  It is quite another to say, "I see spiders crawling on my ceiling, Essorant get the Bug spray, and a cigarette lighter!!!".  See the difference?

Stephen.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


42 posted 09-06-2003 09:28 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Stephen, nonexistence IS a mental concept. And it is ONLY a mental concept. It can't be a condition, as is the state of existence, because by definition, there is nothing to which the condition can be applied.

"This sentence is false."

"Nonexistence is nonexistent."

Both of those sentences are self-referencing and self-contradicting. They CANNOT be true.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 09-06-2003 10:44 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

I wasn't talking about the paradox of "nonexistence is nonexistent".  

Essorant has been using this paradox all along to assert that there is no entity that can cogently be said not to exist.  I disagree with him.  I was merely pointing out to him the obvious:  There is a real difference between mere mental conceptualization and objective existence.  I was trying to get him to see the same thing by pointing out that we all recognize the difference between dragons and alligators.  In a more direct approach, you have been trying to show him the paradoxical (therefore false) nature of his premise.  As usual, we're arguing past each other.  We agree here.  

If you go back and read what I was saying to Essorant, it was that with certain things, you could only say the "mental concept" exists, and not also the reality. (as in the example of the hamburger)  I never said that you could say "nonexistence is nonexistent".  I was actually arguing to the contrary via a different route.  Understand?

I think you felt, somewhere along the way, that I was arguing that the paradox could be true, but I wasn't.


Stephen.


  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-06-2003 10:48 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Nonexistance   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors