Philosophy Discussion Forums

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:20 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑September 30th, 2018, 5:49 am

Some paradoxes are trivial to understand; all they require is a different perspective.

We never understand paradoxes.

Speak for yourself!

Phil -

There is a vagueness of language here which I understand as an ongoing problem, and function of, philosophy. When you say “existence” I am now thinking you mean “universe”. Is that a fair point? If not explain how it isn’t please.

I mentioned Kant because in part it seems like you’re proposing that “positive noumenon” is a thing - which is wrong.

I mentioned Wittgenstein not because he had anything directly to say about this topic but because soem of your phraseology reminded me of his work and what he says about linguistics.

At the heart it is your idea of “existence” I am struggling with. I only know my existence from my perspective. I guess I am asking how you deal with argumentation of solipsism? So how do you come by the conclusion that “We’re not existence. We’re in it,” and how does this help us outline what “existence” is in he way you’re using the term?

Ps. It looks to me like you’re talking about the physical universe as “existence”. If not explain further please. It’s clear to you but not to me.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:40 pm

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:13 pm Kant's view on rationalism was wrong. He had an irrational understanding of time and infinity.

Easy to say. Not so easy to show.
I doubt you understand Kant enough to make that assertion.

He didn't view time as a dimension. Understandably, he couldn't accept Existence as being finite in terms of time, but he also couldn't accept it as being infinite in terms of time. So he was stuck between two paradoxes. He gave up. Had he viewed time as a dimension, he would not have had this issue.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 11:56 pm

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:20 pm

We never understand paradoxes.

Speak for yourself!

Taking things out of context. I've seen it done before. It hints at insincerity, or just a poor understanding, both of which are bad.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 3:05 am There is a vagueness of language here which I understand as an ongoing problem, and function of, philosophy. When you say “existence” I am now thinking you mean “universe”. Is that a fair point? If not explain how it isn’t please

The universe is finite. So it can't be Existence because Existence is necessarily infinite. The universe is just a part of Existence. It is not Existence.

I mentioned Kant because in part it seems like you’re proposing that “positive noumenon” is a thing - which is wrong.

What lead you to that belief?

At the heart it is your idea of “existence” I am struggling with. I only know my existence from my perspective. I guess I am asking how you deal with argumentation of solipsism? So how do you come by the conclusion that “We’re not existence. We’re in it,” and how does this help us outline what “existence” is in he way you’re using the term?

Solipsism is paradoxical because our experiences also include the use of reason and we find reason dictating things clearly and authoritatively. For example it dictates: We cannot doubt reason using reason (paradoxical), It dictates, you cannot have something come from nothing (paradoxical). Because you cannot have something come from nothing, we cannot be Existence. We clearly have a start point, whereas Existence must necessarily be without one. A finite Existence would amount to the paradox of something coming from nothing. We cannot have this if we are to be rational.

Phil -

I don’t know what you mean by “existence” then. I’m not being facetious, I a genuinely having a problem with understanding what you mean by “existence”. I can understand that you may think of our universe as being one of many, either way I still tend to use the term “universe” to mean all that is known and possible to know in some respect - directly or otherwise.

I meentioned “positive noumenon” because it appears to me that you’re referring to something that isn’t a rational claim - that is claiming to know something about the nature of something we cannot know - it is only ever a “negative noumenal” idea, never “existent”.

Many paradoxes, if not all, are usually tricks of language, and/or merely a the result of the lack of a more objective concept that people can grasp onto.

To quote Wittgenstein (not to accuse you of doing this only to highlight this point and display a nice little quote):

“Word-language allows of nonsensical combinations of words, but the language of imagining does not allow us to imagine anything nonsensical.”

- From Philosophical Investigations p.512 (Wiley-Blackwell)

Anyway, I am stuck between what you mean by “existence” on two fronts. One is the view of some objective absolute, and the other the more extremist subjective relativism (something akin to solipsism), although it appears you’re looking at this in a way that seems incompatible with either of these extreme views - a good sign in my book

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 9:07 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 11:56 pm

Speak for yourself!

Taking things out of context. I've seen it done before. It hints at insincerity, or just a poor understanding, both of which are bad.

Your response is nonsense.

The OP is nonsense.

End of story.

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 9:05 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:40 pm

Easy to say. Not so easy to show.
I doubt you understand Kant enough to make that assertion.

He didn't view time as a dimension. Understandably, he couldn't accept Existence as being finite in terms of time, but he also couldn't accept it as being infinite in terms of time. So he was stuck between two paradoxes. He gave up. Had he viewed time as a dimension, he would not have had this issue.

Wrong.
He correctly identified the eternal antinomies, which you would do well to recognise. Time ans space are un-confirmable assumptions or intuitions.
The point is that you have no grounds to refute that, and his argument as to that fact is water tight.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 3:35 pm

philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 9:07 am

Taking things out of context. I've seen it done before. It hints at insincerity, or just a poor understanding, both of which are bad.

Your response is nonsense.

The OP is nonsense.

End of story.

YES!
For once we can be in complete agreement.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 5:03 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 3:35 pm

Your response is nonsense.

The OP is nonsense.

End of story.

YES!
For once we can be in complete agreement.

Lol

Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 10:46 amMany paradoxes, if not all, are usually tricks of language, and/or merely a the result of the lack of a more objective concept that people can grasp onto.

To quote Wittgenstein (not to accuse you of doing this only to highlight this point and display a nice little quote):

Our incorrect use of language can amount to paradoxes. It's reason telling us we've gone wrong somewhere.

I don’t know what you mean by “existence” then. I’m not being facetious, I a genuinely having a problem with understanding what you mean by “existence”.

I mean all that exists. Reason makes a clear distinction between things that are a part of Existence and Existence itself. Our universe is finite, so it can't be Existence, it has to be a part of Existence.

Anyway, I am stuck between what you mean by “existence” on two fronts. One is the view of some objective absolute, and the other the more extremist subjective relativism (something akin to solipsism), although it appears you’re looking at this in a way that seems incompatible with either of these extreme views - a good sign in my book

What I'm proposing is an objective absolute. For example, you can't doubt reason as being infallible (this is an objective absolute). I acknowledge our use of reason is at times wrong, but reason itself is infallible, it would be paradoxical otherwise.

Similarly, if Existence was anything other than infinite, it'd amount to paradoxes. Whereas Existence being infinite, generates no paradoxes. This I also believe is an objective absolute.

Without existence we couldn't even define a proper set theory , at least one , that just uses classes instead of sets. In the sense of the Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory or the Zermelo Fraenkel set theory. The axiom of choice would be touched, with severe consequences for logic inference.

Phil -

I mean all that exists. Reason makes a clear distinction between things that are a part of Existence and Existence itself. Our universe is finite, so it can't be Existence, it has to be a part of Existence.

Does “reason” do this? How so? What distinction are you referring to?

“Our universe” meaning the universe aka that which is neither proven to be finite nor infinite (yet generally assumed to be infinite by rational physicists for the most part.)

You seem to be conflating “existence” with how “universe” is used. The Universe is generally a term that encompasses all existence - and we don’t know if it is “infinite” truly because “infinite” in mathematical terms (which you seem to be trying to use here) is not something in existence any more than the number one is existent.

There is a lot of confusion on my side of this trying to delineate between your epistemic and ontological propositons here.

The “Our universe is finite” can only refer to the human experience of the universe (we are certainly limited beings.) If it doesn’t mean that you’ll have to be more careful with your use of terms to get any further with me because what follows is the claim of “Our universe” not being Existence but only part of it.

By defintion The Universe in physics is a term used to describe EVERYTHING. You’re not using it like that here so I assume you mean “human experience of The Universe” because our reach has limits. If not ... ?

Then we have this as a continued problem:

What I'm proposing is an objective absolute. For example, you can't doubt reason as being infallible (this is an objective absolute). I acknowledge our use of reason is at times wrong, but reason itself is infallible, it would be paradoxical otherwise.

Similarly, if Existence was anything other than infinite, it'd amount to paradoxes. Whereas Existence being infinite, generates no paradoxes. This I also believe is an objective absolute.

The “absolute objective” woudl be Kantian noumenon in the negative sense, yet your example doesn’t make much sense to me so I’m at a loss again. Reason is “infallible” is one helluva bold claim. I will openly admit that Logic gives truth value but only within strictly defined parameters. Eg. (1+1=2 is not up for despute if we’re agreeing upon the use rules of basic arithmetic). Paradoxes are a basic principle of logical proofs. One of thr oldest questions is about how logic can be applied to experience given that no proposition is without doubt.

The rest is meaningless to me because if I translate into a common language you’re saying The Universe is infinite; which we’e never able to prove.

Understand as quickly as possible that I don’t distinguish between “Existence” and “The Universe”. If you can actually outline how these terms are to be viewed differently from my perspective then we may be able to move forward. If not this discussion will likely grind to a halt right here.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2018, 12:44 pm Understand as quickly as possible that I don’t distinguish between “Existence” and “The Universe”. If you can actually outline how these terms are to be viewed differently from my perspective then we may be able to move forward. If not this discussion will likely grind to a halt right here.

Alright, let's clarify this key issue first and then see if can we progress from there.

The reason I say there needs to be a distinction between Existence and the universe is that our observations suggest that the universe is supposedly expanding is it not? If the universe is expanding, then what's it expanding into? Your answer will help me better understand your position.

It’s not “expanding into” anything. The Universe is everything and the “expansion” is merely a convenient way of explaining a mathematical abstract principle in common parse.

I imagine you’re thinking along these lines?: http://digg.com/video/what-is-the-unive ... nding-into