There is an error in conflating or confusing ‘Being’ (Static-Thing) with ‘Becoming’ (Change).
Causality cannot apply to the former. A static “Thing” is Not Caused. It is never caused. It has no cause. It is un-caused. So when you exist “as a thing”, like a snapshot in time, that ‘snapshot’ has no Cause.
Rather it is only in the “Becoming”, the Change, the Process, the (inter)Action, of the “Thing”, that has Cause or Effect, “Beginning” or “End”.
Without the context of Time/Change, any and all particular “Things” must exist in that particular place and time…for All Time.
Once something exists (as a “static thing”) then it must have existed, must exist now, will continue to exist, for All Time. It is Eternal.
The problem is not in the Existence of Things, but rather human awareness of those things (Epistemology).
Mankind regularly conflates and confuses things which “do Not exist” / “are not real” with things which “do exist” / “are real”.
Therefore “Reality” is a Qualification of Existence that judges and justifies a thing’s Being, but not that thing’s Becoming.
In other words, can a thing “become” real, or “become” unreal? Can reality be measured?
This is still Catholic Aristotelianism lol. They called it Noun and Verb, Aristotle called it Substance and Form.
And it still leaves a gap where something, obviously, would be required outside of Noun and Verb or whatever terms you want to use to make an eternal static thing start moving. If it is moving, it is not static, so it cannot be the static thing that makes the movement. And if it is moving, it is not static, so it cannot be something that is moving that causes the movement.
Aristotle really was fucking mediocre. But that was alright, all he really was was a school teacher. There was a whole industry around selling Aristotle fake animals for some of that Alexander money.
So the question one must ask is not what about Aristotle motivates them, but what is it that motivates them to use Aristotle.
This is to tackle Aristotle at the schoolboy level at which he operates, leaving none of the obvious questions like “what is an instance of a static thing” and “where does the limit lie between static and moving.”
Maafucka puts a common word with capitalized first letter and suddenly he is a philosophical genius. No he is not. Heidegger was a charlatan.
Reality simply refers to that thing everybody is aware of that precedes any descriptions.
Also, I mean:
Without the context of time it exists for all time?
I typed it as “Time/Change”. Change is the important part. There is a sense of Time that is “eternal”. I wrote that too.
I understand the confusion. Most people don’t consider Time as something beyond themselves, or independent of their senses. This is a problem because rates of change are relative and subjective. One person can process or ‘see’ an event, can experience that event, at a different speed than another. This doesn’t mean that “time” is relative per se, but it does mean that rates of change (or processing that change) are relative.
Furthermore, let’s assume that some static-thing Exists. It is existed in the Past, it exists now in the Present, it will exist forever as well in the Future. It is Permanent. It cannot be destroyed. You can ignore it. You can pretend it’s not there. But it is Objective and outside the realm of “critique” of mankind. It is beyond Subjectivity. Its Existence is unaffected/uncaused by a person’s judgment, or awareness. This is what makes that thing “Eternal”, beyond Time so-to-speak.
It is the “thing-in-itself”.
The flaw of this is that all things change. There are forces, energies, unknown physical affectations at work, etc.
I want to restate the claim though, before the thread veers too far off track from that misinterpretation.
The Fallacy / Error occurs here because of a conflation between ‘Being’ and ‘Becoming’.
Causality cannot make sense in the former (Being) but only in the latter (Becoming). Causes preclude a sense of time, as change. Things change from one shape to another, maybe back again. Environments, textures, life, states of matter, all things change. Causality is a hypothesis of these varying changes, corresponding to sets of states of matter. Causality cannot refer to “Static Things” as-if they were unchanging. This is why the static-thing (Being) cannot be “Caused”. It has No cause. It is Un-caused. “Change” is being applied to a concept where it doesn’t belong, or cannot affect.
This is why people are confused about Determinism. People believe (falsely, fallaciously) that Static-Things can be “Caused”.