MintiLime
Unofficial Class President, Author
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
- Messages
- 615
- Points
- 93
I am unsure as to your point regarding that to exist is to have a form to make use of it. I might as well argue that to have cookies is to have milk to go with it. You operate on that the logic of shared assumptions; I do not share your assumptions. “To make use of it” implies a functionality that would be quite the struggle to define.Oh my god. Principles are absolute fundamental bases of existence.
Principals (Spelled Differently) are temporary rules that only work while digesting a certain unique context that will not exactly be experienced again.
You know, I emphasized the difference clearly with italics & paragraph-breaking?
You have also said something else.... but I am tired. I said so much with so much careful thought, and as soon as I mention 'temporary rules' you jump on it immediately sans fully embracing the context.
I don't wanna talk with you anymore... it hurts
If there isn't an ultimate frame, then there aren't any ultimate dynamic experiences that can be derived from it either.
The reality is: existence does indeed function intelligibly.
The proof is that we can grapple with ideas here while seeking the truth. If after obtaining the truth, it becomes obsolete completely where not even a fundamental concept spanning eternity has any purchase because of it (insignificant truth builds up into significant truth), then existence would really be just a nonabsolute gibberish land.
This reminds me of Kant: he said there was a Phenomenal World which meant that nothing could be discerned as really true | and a Noumenal World (similar to Plato's World Of Ideal Forms) where all the real truth existed _ Both worlds existed simultaneously in the place where we live, and being subject to both of them means that since they have equal influence we can never truly know anything despite truth being possible.
This is actually the most popular metaphysics in philosophy departments for the last century.
But the obvious hilarious nonsense in it is that it's very concept or reality itself requires you to accept it on faith in order to believe it; because according to it's content, truly understanding with certainty that this is how the world works is impossible. But since that is the case, why wouldn't I accept on reason that a philosophy that tries convincing you of something while acknowledging that convincing isn't actually possible is fucking garbage?
I really appreciate that you are giving me exactly the type of reasonable rebuttal that I hoped for & expected.
Regarding "respecting nature" rather than 'commanding' it, in elementary school I was taught that personification of not-a-person existents was nonlogical. However when I say command or obey I (& Francis Bacon) mean that harmony or balance with nature can only sensibly translate into acknowledging that it is not sentient but rather the fuel for growing individual sentience (though a sentient being may be born of the remnants eventually) so to be able to arrange it in the ideal way to advance your existence you must reflect the absolute(s) within yourself to their counterpart data in nature according to how it is situated in the unique context of that instance ~ then you may organize it in your image since you have related it's underpinnings with your own structure; the metaphor "commanding" is when you sort it, which is solely available after you "obey" or have sussed-out the kind of structure you are dealing with & extracting the relevant interesting data in order to form it into ideas. (I would tell you that ideas are physical, the most important fundamental of who you are, since there is no dichotomy between mental & physical states {the flesh × mind}.)
That which exists possesses identity.
To have identity means a form to make use of it.
A form is the actualizing state of a physical entity.
Hence, all is physical.
Physics = absolute fabric of reality.
Well, psychological motivations & content is the operating driver of whatever manifestations occur. (Though not-sentient existence must be comprehended from the perspective of being not-sentient {personification can only be metaphoric}.)
Nobody sensible ever said that esoteric & profound deep lasting meanings must be easy to grasp, but I can attest to the results: they are worth the effort.
In a very enjoyable story-format you can have access to a great density thereof if you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Just to mention that this is very relevant to making wonderful stories to experience.
I request that you defend your assumptions more clearly.
@LilRora I quite agree with your point.Now I'm confused, and I'm honestly pissed off at your dismissal.
Maybe I just don't get something you studied, but the way I see it, what you divide into principles and principal derivatives is what I broadly call principles, merely that your principle is global, and mine is local; your principal derivative is my principle that is true in certain context and to a certain observed level, but that we can't be sure is entirely correct.
Your principle, as far as I understand, is an abstract concept equivalent to my "everything"; understanding everything is my abstract term for knowing every single thing about something so that no matter the problem you are presented with, you are able to give an answer without any error, and the way you explained it to me, that is the same for your principles.
For that reason, those principles, as I see it, cannot be reached with confidence that there is nothing more to discover, because no matter how much you see and how much you know, there is always something you have yet to experience.
As I'm sitting here writing this reply, the only thing I see is that I attempt to explain what I see wrong in your post, and you, who
You dismiss this and seeing my "principle",
, and refuse to elaborate at all, instead presenting me with a definition that can be interpreted in various ways and that I have to guess what exactly means to you.
If this sounds rude, then excuse me but I am pissed and I'm not putting in the effort to filter this.
I would also like to rekindle the argument that non-existence has value and how to define existence.
@Avakrael what would be your stance on theology?