I think not. Animal is something in the essence of man as well. (If we call non-rational animals “brutes” or some other moniker.)
Actually, I thought the problem with the embryo would be that it relates to the mother and the chick. It would seem to be defined relative to the mother hen – but then it is taken from her biologically.
Again, I would say being an embryo is something about the egg itself. We could have a world where all embryos are eggs so the definition would not be external to the egg (expect for it’s hen origin, but then again, the egg is almost like her body part).
It's also the most accurate description for a cow, PoR, myself, jackets, and hamsters.
I should rephrase - it is impossibly to define an object well enough to determine the specific type of object it is without comparing it to another object.
The essence of man is that he is man. The definition of man is that he is a rational animal. The essence of something is itself - A=A, toaster=toaster, man=man. That tells us nothing about A, toaster, or man, except that they exist and they are themselves. I understand that describes them, but it doesn't not differentiate them from eachother. Why isn't A=man=toaster? Because we define man as unequal to toaster, thus making identifing him - something that is impossible to do without identifing the toaster in the same way.
I support you on “being” not being a great description. It would be saying something however that essence is enlightened in our understanding by our knowledge of being.
However, I’m not sure I agree on your phrasing of what essence is. I was taught that essence is the definition as it is in the object. (It is also equivalent with the “nature”, which is a principle of movement or rest in that in which it inheres primarily). I’m not sure my essence is equal to myself, because I have other qualities (accidents) which inhere in me different from those which inhere in another man.
Another good way of putting it.
I recognize that the law of identity says that A is equal to A, and does not say that A is equal to A because it is unequal to B - however, to consider an isolated object/being is to miss the point.
While it is true that a red object is red, that doesn't seem to me to be an accurate enough description to justify bothering to call it anything at all. It tells us that it exists, nothing more.
I see the point - to consider an isolated red object is not to deny that it is a red object, but it [i]does[/i] makes it impossible to identify the property of redness. To say that a red object exists in its redness is the same as saying that a green object exists in its greenness. Either adjective, when considered as a completely independant concept, is not identified, only realized to exist as something.
It is true that one assigns intuitive values to adjectives after experiencing the properties they describe - I don't see how that is mutually exclusive with the identity of the internalized values of the properties. If one were to only ever see red, would it ever be concievable to that person that green could exist? Now, let's reveal green to them. It would seem amazing to them, after having been granted the ability to see green, how they had never realized that redness is indeed a property that objects are identifiable by. They may have always known that objects exist, but if they were not aware of the difference in identity between green and red objects, saying that an object is red would have no more meaning to them than to say that the object merely exists - thus the property of redness would never exist, or need to exist.
Ontology is being. Epistemology is identity.
I am a [i]real[/i] person!
Someone said that the statement “everything is relative” is self defeating, very true.
Thus if nothing matters, what I want to matter matters.
You don’t need an absolute god to determine your morals and values. I can decide for myself right and wrong, it just that I choose to use faith in reason reason and past experiences to decide my ethics rather than faith in god.
So I can decide for myself right or wrong and view them as absolutes upon the world.
And as for tolerating tolerance.“To tolerate is to turn a blind eye.” POR is right. If you view something as right shouldn’t you be helping others to be right? My own take on it is I don’t really care, all those bastards can rot in hell if they don’t agree with me.
If all the idiots who believe absolutely in relativism, then why fight with determination against the absolutist?
but that does not make them invalid either!
My point is this, if you all believe everything has no weight meaning equal weight, then why bother arguing unless you favor one over another in an absolute sense?
Alright, let me try a different approach. Relativism is stretched to assert that reality itself is subjective - it is generally held that reality exists. However, reality without identification is meaningless and unintelligable to the conscious mind - it means nothing to say that something exists without identifing it.
Really, I'm not very personally involved in this argument. I'm not too hardcore either way.
If one assumes no prior knowledge, then to consider an isolated object has no meaning to a conscious human mind. Meaning is context, and context is identity, and identity is differentiation, and differentiation is impossible without multiple things to differentiate between.
This is like the "you're being intolerant by promoting tolerance" argument - it confuses the recognition of the relativity of things with the personally defined values that may or may not be absolutely congruent with a strictly relativist viewpoint. To keep sane, one has to function in the world, and one is held paralyzed if one cannot make decisions (such as you're implying that a "true relativist" would be unable to make.) It is a matter of practicality why a relativist takes one side - because they're not perfectly self-consistant, and would not be able to function if they did not make decisions.
There's shades of grey between the black and the white, and the grey space is where humanity lives.
are you still speaking English? what do you mean by reality? what do you mean by exist? e.g if I see a T.V i say the T.V exist. ok?? what do you mean reality itself is subjective, you mean you and I can’t see the same apple?
what? this is the worst example of language game. what is identification??? if you are referring to words, then I have already proven that language create no experience but describe it.
What? Hegel the second! you speak so much like him. and there is not a drop of idea in that.
if meaning is context then why is meaning and context spelt differently? what the hell?? are you crazy? are you typing out of an institution?
no, as I have proven already, there is no such thing as tolerance. it is just a word. I have already criticised propositoinal logic, for the use of ‘not’, ‘not apple’ means nothing, just as ‘not intolerant’ is meaningless.
if someone says may or may not, that means they are not sure, so why say things you are not sure of?
PoR… just because you can’t understand something doesn’t make it senseless. It makes fine sense. Reality is subjective to perspective. Were there an absolute reality, you would not perceive it, and what you consider reality would really be subjective to change based on what you think. It’s kind of like if you have a grand realization, reality changed, for you, because your perspective of it changed and you don’t know anything besides your perception of reality.
Good job PoR. You’ve done an excellent job becoming the perfect reasoning machine. I congratulate you on your perfection, and on the way you’ll be able to make yourself believe that you “won” this argument by reason rather than by being so unreasonable as to exasperate your opponent.
