Customer Discussions > Philosophy forum

Reality is infinite


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 281 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:15:53 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[Here is how Holst came to name each piece based upon the known planets at the time.

1.Mars, the Bringer of War
2.Venus, the Bringer of Peace
3.Mercury, the Winged Messenger
4.Jupiter, the Bringer of Jollity
5.Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
6.Uranus, the Magician
7.Neptune, the Mystic]

This is interesting for me from the perspective of do the names of the planets indicate some real characteristics or influences of the planets. Some people feel they do. I get that impression from the Edgar Cayce material.

This gets into the question of who decided on what names should be assigned to the different planets and how did they make those decisions.

Cayce said that we can experience the influences of the different planets somehow. Not that we necessarily go and reside on those planets in spirit form but rather we can experience their influences somehow.

Neptune in your list is again listed as a mystic. Neptune is a blue planet I think which ties in with Poseidon, god of the sea.

Mars is a red planet, the same color as blood for the god of war.

Gaea (Earth), Cronus (Saturn), and Uranus are the names of some of the Titans. I find Cronus interesting since he is the god of time.

Zeus son of Cronus and his followers got into a war with the Titans. They overcame their father Cronus. Perhaps they overcame time who knows.

Some people think there's a red dwarf star named Nemesis, our sun's evil twin star, that hangs out in the Oort cloud most of the time. Every 25 million years or so Nemesis perturbs the orbits of the comets and sends a gigantic comet storm hurtling towards the Earth. There are billions if not trillions of comets in the Oort cloud. They also think there's a gigantic planet hidden in the Oort cloud, a gas giant similar to Jupiter.

Those are just theories however which must remain controversial until more evidence can be gathered. There's a telescope that is trying to obtain that evidence if it has already been launched into space. But that's the plan anyway.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:23:59 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[In my line of work, we take a known set of objective functions and iteratively solve each one toward a local minima, globally.]

What exactly is your line of work ?

The definition of the word teleology reminds me of the concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in astrophysics.

Dark Matter is a theory that tries to explain why galaxies do not fly apart even though there isn't enough gravity within the galaxies to hold them together. Scientists don't know where this extra gravity is coming from. Which makes me wonder if they are right that gravity is even doing this.

Dark Energy sounds like an attempt to explain why the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

Jeff Marzano

tel·e·ol·o·gy

Noun:

The explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes.

The doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:07:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 4:30:22 PM PDT
Symplokę says:
Nova- You may really enjoy one of my personal favorite books by Clement Rosset (my favorite contemporary philosopher): Joyful Cruelty: Toward a Philosophy of the Real.

As to "bias," I think you missed what I was saying. We are always biased, inclined, that is we *lean* toward certain directions even if we overcome certain biases. Living is *becoming* not "Being," though most philosophers and religionists desire the opposite. In essence, they desire the exact opposite of that which conditions life: ephemerality and limitation. Instead, they desire both the permanence and non-limitation of their own "egos" (ex: "soul"). We are always biased, because we are always a 'perspective'...Again, this is why Plato contradicted himself. He never understood how the perspectival ground of his postulated, and much cherished, notion of the "soul" was opposed to his view of 'truth' as a view from nowhere! At once an "individual" in the same, "nothing" at all!

Don't get me wrong about Plato. I loathe his philosophical angle a great deal of the time, but I'm actually grateful he existed, wrote, and his writing exists now. If the latter fades away into the dark past, I won't be sad, though. (I probably won't be around anyway! :-) In addition, he was an obvious genius, from what I understand of the Greek language(s) and perhaps the greatest Sophist ever to boot!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:49:51 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
I should say. It will be a good read. Can you provide a few passages, it doesn't have the "Look Inside!" feature. Thanks!

As far as missing what you are saying, let's just say we are each teasing the real out of each other. Not an easy thing to do. Thanks. I don't mind missing things. Happens every day around here.

I feel you more deeply now. Its good to chat. Thanks for sharing. I like your mind. What you've shown me of it, anyway. ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:55:49 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
Jeff,

I'm a medical physicist in radiation oncology. The work reference is a particular form of cancer therapy using a medical linear accelerator (Linac). It is called "Intensity Modulation Radiation Therapy" or "IMRT" for short. A plan is drawn up on a Treatment Planning Computer which mimics the geometric and dosimetric capabilities of the Linac. Specifically, an IMRT solution is found using an inverse annealing program which searches for a local minima given user inputted dose objectives. I solved these in 2002-2005 and now the clinic I support uses them by staffing people called "dosimetrists" who use the solutions to plan radiation oncologist prescribed cancer treatments.

Tell me more why teleology reminds you of dark matter and dark energy. I'm curious how you make the connection. I'm not seeing it yet. Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:15:49 PM PDT
Symplokę says:
"The savor of existence is that of time passing and changing, of the non-fixed, of what is never certain nor complete. In this fluctuation, moreover, is found the best and the surest "permanence" of life."

"...[T]he simple fact of living in itself is a refusal and refutation of being and its ontological attributes, immortality, and eternity."

"[The] disqualification of the immediate real in favor of some more real or "surreal" reality implies...a philosophical prejudice - a conviction about the insufficiency of immediate reality as something guilty of offering no firm hold either to reflection or to our hope for lasting happiness. To this philosophical prejudice we might well oppose another: a conviction about the intrinsic sufficiency of reality, and therefore about the futility of all those exterior illuminations called up in our failed attempts to elucidate its enigmatic singularity. Such a conviction about the sufficiency of the real is, of course, in no way tantamount to claiming that reality is self-explanatory, that it has no mysteries, that its existence is self-evident. Our position asks only that we consider this reality, as elusive and ephemeral as it may be, as, on the one hand, the only one there is and, on the other, as the only one capable of making us happy."

On the prejudice against gaiety (or, joy, the unhesitating affirmation of life, etc):

"It is rather peculiar that gaiety...must be ceaselessly defended against an insistent tendency of the human spirit to see in it nothing but a sentiment, agreeable certainly but of negligible importance on the whole, something that one could not really take seriously, when in fact it is perhaps the only thing in the world which could reasonably claim such an honor. Pure gaiety, which is veiled by absolutely no shadow of reserve, is easily suspected of frivolity, when it is actually the most profound of feelings, or accused of vulgarity, when it is actually the most noble of sentiments. [Emile] Cioran sums up the general reticence with regard to gaiety very well when he writes: 'Everything which is exempt from a funeral tinge, even ever so slight, is necessarily vulgar.' For my part, I would oppose such a formula with its exact inverse: Everything which is not mixed with the funeral, not even with the slightest hint of it, is eminently noble."

On Nietzsche's skepticism:

"Nietzsche links skepticism not to disappointment but to a super abundance of bliss. And it goes without saying that this is why his skepticism is without model and without precursor in the history of philosophy, and notably in the history of skeptical philosophy."

On the belief that hope is a virtue:

Everything which resembles hope or expectation constitutes, in fact, a vice, either a lack of force, a failing, or a weakness - a sign the living is no longer a given and finds itself attacked and compromised. It is a sign that the taste for life is lacking and that the pursuit of life must henceforth rely on a surrogate force, no longer on the taste for living the life one is living but on the attraction of another and better life that no one will ever live. The man with hope is a man at the end of his resources and arguments, an empty man, literally exhausted..."

There's a few passages, but really the book speaks for itself. Rosset's reading of Nietzsche is probably the best I've come across, quite different than both the traditional focus on his criticisms and the "postmodern" idiocy propagated as "Nietzschean." Don't get me wrong, though, Rosset is quite his own person,and not just a commentator. A beautiful work, in my estimation...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:23:51 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
"Everything which resembles hope or expectation constitutes, in fact, a vice, either a lack of force, a failing, or a weakness - a sign the living is no longer a given and finds itself attacked and compromised. It is a sign that the taste for life is lacking and that the pursuit of life must henceforth rely on a surrogate force, no longer on the taste for living the life one is living but on the attraction of another and better life that no one will ever live. The man with hope is a man at the end of his resources and arguments, an empty man, literally exhausted..."

Upon first read through, I agree with this passage the most. Thanks for a taste. I'll have to reread the first couple when I'm not so tired. I'll be ordering the book, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:44:02 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[I solved these in 2002-2005 and now the clinic I support uses them by staffing people called "dosimetrists" who use the solutions to plan radiation oncologist prescribed cancer treatments.]

Edgar Cayce stated that anyone who eats just 2 or 3 almonds every day and doesn't forget "need never fear cancer".

He said after the biblical flood the first plant that blossomed was the almond tree so God gave the almond health preserving powers.

What you said reminds me of a past life memory I read about in this book:

Same Soul, Many Bodies: Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives through Progression Therapy

This guy remembered being a priest in very ancient Egypt. He said they used something called 'energy rods' which generated both light and sound to stimulate the human body's ability to regenerate itself. They could for example cause the body to regenerate an arm or leg that had been lost in warfare.

Jeff Marzano

Edgar Cayce on Vibrations: Spirit in Motion

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:45:31 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[Tell me more why teleology reminds you of dark matter and dark energy.]

Well Dark Matter and Dark Energy are theories that were created to try to explain phenomenon which can be observed but for which no root cause can be identified.

The 'Dark' part means scientists think those things are there but they can't see them. They can only see their effects.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 6:38:05 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
Jeff,

In my use of the word, I had in mind the second definition of teleogy you presented us, primarily. I would say much of cosmogenesis is hypothesis (I prefer this word and even "speculative" above teleology). But I now have a better appreciation for it given your first definition provided us. Having said that, within the presently accepted model of cosmogenesis, we can't neglect the WMAP data as giving us every reason to accept the data as it is interpreted in that model!

Here's the link again http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

My preferred shape of the universe was spherical. I have had to let that go somewhat, even though I can still use it hypothetically to make certain aspects of the universe understandble by still assuming this shape.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 7:02:06 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Nova137 says:

[I would say much of cosmogenesis is hypothesis (I prefer this word and even "speculative" above teleology).]

It certainly is, especially when the scientists work their way back to the 'genesis' part. It's funny sometimes to listen to their theories. Most of them are based on the existence of a previous universe or something else like 'branes'. I don't know if they realize that their theories don't really answer the root question.

Like Neil Turok at the Perimeter Institute near Toronto says that every trillion years or so two 'branes' collide to recreate the universe. That's fine but that theory is based on the preexistence of the branes.

Some of them don't even try to answer the genesis question and their theories like infinite expansion pick up after the Big Bang already started.

Those physicists can't sleep at night if they feel there's anything that can't be explained by a mathematical formula.

Stephen Hawking has gotten so bogged down in intellectualism run amok that he feels his mathematical formulas have allowed him to know more than God knows.

You may be interested in Plato's famous geometric solids if you haven't heard of them. I assume Plato felt that those geometric shapes had special meaning in nature, the universe, etc.. This was perhaps related to sacred geometry which Plato may have learned about in Egypt if as the legends suggest he experienced the Egyptian initiation rites.

Plato felt that the dodecahedron geometric solid was a representation of all of creation. This geometric shape has 12 faces.

This gets into the idea that there are 12 universes. That's what this book says:

Ufo...Contact from Planet Iarga

According to that book the Star Of David symbol represents the idea of the 12 universe. The Iargans said Jesus Christ is God's son for our universe and Christ has 11 brothers.

There's a scientist who works at the Paris Observatory by the name of Jean-Pierre Luminet who agrees with Plato about the dodecahedron and the 12 universes. I guess old Plato was right after all.

Twelve is a mystical number in the bible and many other places. Multiples of 12 such as 24, 72, and 144 also come up in the bible including the Book Of Revelation.

Jeff Marzano

The Secret Teachings of All Ages (Reader's Edition)

Edgar Cayce on the Revelation: A Study Guide for Spiritualizing Body and Mind

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 7:09:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 7:54:33 AM PDT
Symplokę says:
"Stephen Hawking has gotten so bogged down in intellectualism run amok that he feels his mathematical formulas have allowed him to know more than God knows."

Like the other "atheist" scientists (ex: Dawkins, Krauss )who rant ad nauseum about religion, Hawking cannot even muster a rational argument of why it's *impossible* for God to exist, to settle it once and for all. These pompous poops have done no better in 'disproving' God than religionists fare in 'proving' God!

It is impossible for God to exist. I don't see what's so hard for them...except their bread is buttered by un-defined reifications and slippery usage of the latter (butter is slippery, after all)! Nothing more.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 11:28:55 AM PDT
paethos says:
Symploke, why is it impossible for God to exist?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 12:33:58 PM PDT
Symplokę says:
The first question to ask is whether the term 'God' refers to an object or a concept, something or nothing. It is obvious theists claim God is something rather than nothing. There is no third choice.

Object = that which has shape.
Space = that without shape; nothing

We can draw God (unless one is a Muslim, of course, which makes their claim conceptual; subjective) and thus, God has shape as a hypothesized object.

But, does God, the object, exist? Much in common with loutish atheists, the Catholic Church can't give us a straight definition of "exist," even though they are positive God exists! You'd think this word would be important to them, but alas, it's not. They use terms to *describe* "exist", such as "transcendent," "universal," "essence" etc., but this is all a conceptual smokescreen behind which they hide their reluctance to *define* that term.

Exist = object + location.

Location = the set of static distances between objects.

It is obvious God can't be in relation to anything else for a theist. This would simply nullify God as Creator, since other objects have to exist concomitantly with God. Creation, after all, is a verb, an action. Only objects can act, action invokes motion; motion is a relation between objects necessitating space (nothing). There would be no motion without space, and it definitely cannot be created. Object-less motion is gibberish. Nothingness cannot move.

Space (nothing) cannot be created, and precedes God. God is hypothesized as an object, and therefore, must be surrounded by space. The only way God can be conceived as an entity, is to be separated from other entities by space. Space envelops all things (objects), which includes God. God simply can't exist without space or create without matter.

Space trumps God; matter trumps creation.

God= a hypothesized, non-existent object.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:42:03 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Symplokę says:

[Like the other "atheist" scientists (ex: Dawkins, Krauss )who rant ad nauseum about religion, Hawking cannot even muster a rational argument of why it's *impossible* for God to exist, to settle it once and for all.]

Hawking appeared on the premier episode of the TV show Curiosity. That episode was called 'God Does Exist ?'.

Hawking's conclusion as stated by himself and his parrot of a narrator was that time did not exist before the Big Bang. Therefore there was no place for God to exist either. Rather the universe created itself.

I was glad I caught a follow on 30 minute TV show where they talked about this Curiosity episode. Michio Kaku was one of the people that made some comments.

Kaku feels that questions about the existence of God should not be included in scientific discussions. That question is outside of the bounds of science. It is not a scientific question.

Michio Kaku seems to make reasonable statements about subjects which sometimes create controversy in the scientific community. When asked if UFOs exist he tells people to imagine what a society that is a million years older than the human race might be capable of. He also realizes that a scientist who admits they believe in flying saucers would probably lose their credibility with their hypocrite colleagues and this could become career threatening. Alien abduction believer John Mack, a psychiatrist and tenured college professor, was almost kicked out of Harvard.

Egyptology has the same problem and there are people who dared to question what the orthodox Egyptologists say who lost careers they had achieved by going to college for many years.

Science does not include the idea of the spiritual realm. The spirit world provides that mysterious, timeless dimension where God could have existed before the universe began.

There's a difference between saying that something isn't true versus something cannot be proven scientifically. This is where they take a major wrong turn in their minds. For atheists science has become some sort of all seeing, all knowing, all powerful god. But if they didn't have science to believe in they would find something else.

I didn't realize Lawrence Krauss is an atheist. I have seen him on TV. Carl Sagan was another one who viewed faith and religion with contempt.

There's that elitism again that our friend Friedrich also felt but for different reasons. Friedrich's elitism was based on the idea that only he understood that religion had been weakened by the scientific elite ! That's what I meant when I said that unbelievers can find many substitutes for faith.

Skepticism becomes a disease of the mind for some people. I had someone tell me the other day that Edgar Cayce was a fraud based on things he had read in The Skeptical Inquirer magazine. So I asked this guy how much he really knows about Edgar Cayce. How many books has he read about Cayce ? Or did he bypass doing that and just jump ahead to the Skeptical Inquirer web site ?

UFO researcher and hero Stanton Friedman encounters skeptics very often. Friedman has created a list of characteristics that skeptics usually exhibit.

Skepticism taken to its ultimate extreme becomes atheism I guess.

This is a very serious thing Hawking has done using his fame and notoriety as a scientist to encourage people not to believe in God. Perhaps he loves controversy and enjoys being in the public spotlight I don't know. Einstein made similar sorts of comments. Those guys are good scientists and academics but very bad philosophers.

The statement that 'God does not exist' is so foreign to everything I believe and have experienced that I cannot even relate to it in any meaningful way. That is undoubtedly the stupidest thing that any human being has ever said since the beginning of time.

Jeff Marzano

Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a UFO

Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

Secret Life: Firsthand, Documented Accounts of Ufo Abductions

Forbidden History: Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilization

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:57:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 9:02:58 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Symplokę says:

[It is obvious God can't be in relation to anything else for a theist. This would simply nullify God as Creator, since other objects have to exist concomitantly with God. Creation, after all, is a verb, an action. Only objects can act, action invokes motion; motion is a relation between objects necessitating space (nothing).]

You're up there with your idol Friedrich as far as using obfuscating language.

Do you think 99.99999999999999999999999 % of the world's population would have any idea about what in the hell you said ?

The Catholic Church says God exists. They believe Jesus Christ was God in human form.

The Christian doctrine of The Trinity is however a mystery.

There's an interesting parallel for the idea of The Holy Trinity in mythology.

Poseidon carries the trident at all times and the great Earth Embracer is always associated with the number three. Notice Neptune's moon is called Triton, one of Poseidon's sons.

It's not just that the trident represents the Trinity. The trident IS The Trinity.

I have this book where Saint Augustine tries to explain what the Trinity means:

The Trinity (I/5) (Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century)

Reading that book, if I ever do, promises to be a mind bending experience.

The painting on the cover of the book is based on an experience Augustine had.

Augie was walking along the beach one day trying to figure out how to explain to his congregation what The Trinity means. He encountered a young boy who was trying to scoop up the entire ocean in his hands and pour it into a hole in the sand. Augie told the youth that this was going to be impossible. The lad responded by saying that it would be easier to pour the entire sea into a hole in the sand than to understand The Trinity. Then the boy vanished.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:53:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 9:18:24 AM PDT
Symplokę says:
Oh really, Jeff. You know nothing of Nietzsche by your own admission. You read what amounts to Brainyquotes.com. That's "philosophy" in the 21st Century?

"Do you think 99.99999999999999999999999 % of the world's population would have any idea about what in the hell you said ?"

Have you ever taken any critical thinking courses, Jeff? It appears not. 99.9+% of people don't wish to think, it scares them. Following a logical argument is far beyond the capacity of most, has been for centuries, that's why belief is popular. Even more difficult is the lighthearted skepticism of a Montaigne. That's an attainment few can achieve, particularly since most take their opinions as revelations from God (or, at least, given the badge of approval of "science").

Again, since you want to both praise the authority of certain figures and democratic notions of "truth," you might wish to peruse one of your admitted heros, Plato, on the subject. For him, 'truth' was decidedly *undemocratic*and better left to his "philosopher-kings" through a totalitarian system that kept the riff-raff in their place. You can't have it both ways, Jeff.

Anyway:

God, prior to "creation," cannot be in relation to anything else, remember? Theists claim **there was nothing else** but God prior to Creation! God "created" everything, remember, out of NOTHING even!

(This, however, isn't even a settled matter within "christianity." While Catholics may venerate the notion of Creatio ex Nihilo, not all Christians do so. So exactly what is the "Christian" position?)

"The Catholic Church says God exists."

They sure do, but they still can't define 'exist' in a rational, consistent manner after two thousand years. It would be bad for business, the shekels people give would start to dwindle if they had to define 'exist.' Instead, they argue in circles, make excuses, leave important questions unanswered, and when political/military power permits, they simply use force. Bravo! If they won't assent; crush 'em!

I don't care what they "believe," belief has nothing to do with whether or not something exists. When are you going to put your crayons down, Jeff, and look at the world that's open to you?

"They believe Jesus Christ was God in human form. "

Yep. And that's perhaps where the comedy is most apparent. God=absolute, concept; man=limited body, form, shape, object. Absolute= unlimited, unmixed, free of relations. Body is obviously the opposite. So, even through all the centuries of highfalutin logical gymnastics, the Catholics have always been the weak kid in the sandbox. Only when he hired the bully on the playground could his contradictory 'absolute truth' win the day! Might is right, eh?

"The Christian doctrine of The Trinity is however a mystery."

The "Trinity" isn't a mystery, it's mumbo-jumbo in order to preserve the power of the church and so that people may feel emotionally "fulfilled" in an "insufficient" world (a $acred religious tenet). And you speak of obfuscation on my part. These tinkers are threatened by a simple question: are the 'trine' terms/phrases, concepts or objects? Too "black and white?" Too 'rigid?' Too narrow, on my part? That's funny, because these hucksters have thought nothing about hawking black/white choices for 2000 years!

How about this contradictory mumbo-jumbo from Augustine himself. First Auggie allows for himself to remain an uncertain, unknowing, limited, human being (the 'limited human' tactic). He's so small and innocent, isn't he?

""If you understood him, it would not be God." (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38, 360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5: PL 38, 663)"

Then, in order to have it both ways, he castigates others for not knowing:

"Those who say these things do not as yet understand Thee, O Thou Wisdom of God, Thou light of souls; not as yet do they understand how these things be made which are made by and in Thee." (Confessions, Book XI, Ch 11)

Yeah, clear as a foggy morning in San Francisco, Tinkerbell! He can now 'win' both sides of his own argument! He was PoMo before PoMo was cool! Yay!!! Mystical! Powerful! Amazing! OOOO-AAAAH!

Unlike you, I don't worship authority. I don't care about clerical collars, silly hats, bells, prayer-rugs, incense, and robes, any more than PhD's if what's being spouted is pompous nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 7:29:55 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
In esoteric literature (A.A.B.) one can find mention of the "planet Vulcan" which is the sun behind our sun. Here's a link:
http://www.kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/OMM.GB/WomenWriters/AliceBailey/SevenRays/Astrology/astr1239.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 7:33:56 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
Jeff: Stephen Hawking has gotten so bogged down in intellectualism run amok that he feels his mathematical formulas have allowed him to know more than God knows.
N137: He refers to this as "positivist philosophy" in The Universe in a Nutshell

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 8:38:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 8:38:30 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
I'm discussing with Lau Tzu in his/her "For Christians - The Mechanics of Reasoning -" thread about his/her Objectivism. I asked him/her if its the Ayn Rand variety. He/she hasn't answered yet. You sound like you've studied Rand. Here is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand):

"Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that 'existence exists.'"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 8:42:12 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
Just ordered the book. I'll let you know what I think. I'm reading your review of it right now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 1:44:45 PM PDT
Symplokę says:
I have to make this kind of short. Been busy lately. To be quite honest, I'm not really into Rand, nor do I care much for "Objectivism." I do think, however, "existence exists" is a good foundational formula to strip away centuries of nonsensical beliefs within more "objective," explanatory discussions or reality rather than those based in description. I don't think it's a be-all/end-all for every context by any means. I much prefer Rosset when it comes to the juncture of reality and human-based meaning(s); how we *actually* live, ephemerally and limited...like the rest of reality...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 1:48:11 PM PDT
Symplokę says:
I hope it's worth your time and you will enjoy it. I'll be interested in what you have to say. My perspectives have shifted a tad since writing that review, but I'd say, I'm just as, if not even more, affirmative of the book than when I wrote the review.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 1:55:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 1:58:07 PM PDT
But does this "formula" say anything non-tautological?

1. What would it be like if existence didn't exist?

2. Knowing that A=A tells us next to nothing about what A is, either functionally, or in terms of what it's made of.

3. Is this a corollary? "Non-existence does not exist."

4. Taken together, do these two propositions answer Leibniz's question?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 2:02:22 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
Symp has pointed out that it is tautological.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Philosophy forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  281
Initial post:  Jun 14, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions