Speak for yourself!
Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
- A_Seagull
- Posts: 949
- Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
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.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
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.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:40 pmEasy to say. Not so easy to show.philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 2:13 pm Kant's view on rationalism was wrong. He had an irrational understanding of time and infinity.
I doubt you understand Kant enough to make that assertion.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
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.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
What lead you to that belief?I mentioned Kant because in part it seems like you’re proposing that “positive noumenon” is a thing - which is wrong.
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.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?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
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):
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“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)
- A_Seagull
- Posts: 949
- Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Your response is nonsense.philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 9:07 amTaking things out of context. I've seen it done before. It hints at insincerity, or just a poor understanding, both of which are bad.
The OP is nonsense.
End of story.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Wrong.philosopher19 wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 9:05 amHe 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.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 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.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
YES!A_Seagull wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2018, 3:35 pmYour response is nonsense.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.
The OP is nonsense.
End of story.
For once we can be in complete agreement.
- A_Seagull
- Posts: 949
- Joined: November 29th, 2012, 10:56 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Heraclitus
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Lol
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Our incorrect use of language can amount to paradoxes. It's reason telling us we've gone wrong somewhere.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):
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.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”.
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.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
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.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Does “reason” do this? How so? What distinction are you referring to?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.
“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:
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.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 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.
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
Alright, let's clarify this key issue first and then see if can we progress from there.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.
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.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Why Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient
I imagine you’re thinking along these lines?: http://digg.com/video/what-is-the-unive ... nding-into
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023