Have either of you the basics of Ryle?
Affectance.
Affectance requires nothing else for it to exist.
That “infinite substance” is Affectance, but not because of the rationale you proposed.
People like Zoot and turd know a lot of information about philosophers and their names and categories. As a result of this, they become specialized in only one thing (mainly, politics, war maneuvers, and philosophical categorization.) Because of this, their brain doesn’t have space for much else. As you can see, Zoot’s artistic quality suffers. He doesn’t spend much time to develop his guitar abilities and the aesthetics of his videos are pretty much rubbish. Turd, has no art whatsoever that we know of.
People like Trixie, on the other hand, devote themselves to (re)creating philosophy from the bottom up, and while doing so may inadvertantly run into the same ideas of old philosophers, without knowing it. Their secretary Zoot will alert them to this, so there is no reason for them to actually research into the matter.
Scientists, like James S. Saint, will also not be able to reference many philosophical names, and require a [b]secretary /b like Zoot to harp them up.
It is like Sherlock Holmes said, “Why would I waste memory to this.”
Not that Zoot wouldn’t suffice, but I have a better one. 
Bruh. You cant play guitar in twenty degree temperatures unless you play the blues… then it doesnt matter if your high e goes flat every time you tune it up.
And I am not having an existential mid life crisis (PLEASE HELP ME) or crying out indirectly for help (PLEASE!!!).
You don’t understand how an artist exists, trixie. There are active and inactive periods… and the weather is a big factor.
My videos have bad aesthetics because I suck at making videos… because my software sucks. I need a whole studio bruh.
My studio and software sux too. No excuse from me.
Well said.
Hey, Bub. I think you may be right about conditionals. But while they have always been difficult for many very smart philosophers to understand, the real difficulty seems to have cropped up late in the previous century (the ending of which I am still not quite getting over) once logicians started worrying in earnest about stuff that no one really needs to sort out to do philosophy. I fear many who tread these boards have been, if I may hyperbolize, tragically influenced by these counterculturalists. But you know how I worry.
‘Existence’ is a noun - I mean, ‘hobbit’ ‘nothingness’ and ‘alternate universes’ are nouns, however problematic some of their users may be when they use them - but ‘is’ isn’t a verb.
Is can be a verb if it lacks coordinates, but has effect.
For example, monads in point space… they lack coordinates, can only apply force to be tangible.
Do they exist? Doesn’t matter (hehehe), our language inhereted an era that oresuposed they did.
Therefor, a Monad is both a thing and a action, under many near modern theories.
A monad may be a thing and an action - two other nouns - but you always need a verb to say what a monad or anything is doing. ‘Is’ is no help. In fact the noun already contains isness.
No, Noun presumes Space independent of Verb.
A Platonic form always us a noun, changeless. We can express this in language, and dependence on holding such a belief doesn’t depend on belief in Platonic physics in other respects… we can express this meaningfully in language, express it in philosophical debate.
A Monad perceptually isn’t, until it acts. It sits neither in or outside “space time”, is in fact it odds against such a theory. Say, in Boscovich, you pass constantly through Monads in a “area”, but the geometry if the monads matter more relative to your passing than the concept if area. You could walk through a place 100,000,000 times and never experience a Monad, unless one of your bodily monads exactly aligned up with its. There isn’t necessarily a electromagnetic polarity,weak or strong nuclear balance. A infinite set of points whence all monads could be experience… but the geometry has to be exact.
A lot of crash and ballistics testing underlined the near modern theory, was very scientific. I will have to say it is a verb before it is a noun, to say it is a noun first, then a noun produces a casuistry paradox… if you can’t perceive or interact with something, if nothing perceivable can, if it’s utterly undetectable and seemingly random in a statistical sense, it can’t be a noun, it’s a abstract concept lacking concrete reality… until it smacks you. The Verb is experienced first, then the Thingness is out together, from this it becomes a noun.
Orient, Observe, Decide, Act.
It is only in modern science we are allowed to presume in defiance of perceptive awareness that nouns preceded verbs, and space time is both in a rather nasty marriage, that will take us a free hundred years to break through and declare independence from, with John Conner leafing the fight against Skynet.
Monadology can be rather wrong at times, but a study of it forces one to question how we’ve been approaching the science of language. Its great for technical thought, but we’re bullshitting ourselves as far as actual experience goes, and we present phenomena as a finished product… it’s only in areas like spectrum and partial analysis that we slow down the rush to presumption, but we sure the fuck don’t teach it in school that way. A lot of people (bulk I would say today) never snap out if it, and pay attention. I suppose it is why the Buddhist countries are slowly taking the lead in the sciences, the myth western athiesm has created around the ideas of scientific acumen rat worst each passing day, and we don’t begin to point at why. We give Marxist answers, or capitalist answers, but never cognitive answers. They are culturally better place to think scientifically, and it has nothing to do with work ethic or genius. They grasp how we think, but retained their different ability to perceive. In the west, we keep the fight between science and religion, it is the main struggle, never occurred to us you need the two combined, as well as a strong emphasis on perceptive and cognitive awareness. We are good at technical thinking with this devide, but terrible at linking it all together. Our scientists just aren’t as good as a result, the Koreans will always do more with much less in R&D, so will Japan and Taiwan, and China. Its not a numbers game, but a thinking and perceiving game. We always set off on the wrong foot in the west. We started this civilization, but they will become the standard bearers of it.
Moreno - this is why I insist that philosophy is pretty much all about language. And why you need to understand e few things about language before you do philosophy. “Is” just isn’t as informative as most people think. I agree.
OK, good, then we have a good foundation to discuss Being and Time.
Heidegger is a colossal waste of time, except that he’s occasionally amusing in his naiveté.
There’s a YouTube video in which H critiques marxism. One of the best critiques of Marxism I’ve ever heard. It was in German so I didn’t understand a word he said, though.
Heidi is probably as good an example as any of someone who didn’t understand that language, unlike the physical world we find ourselves in, is and should be a convenience. Philosophers should strive to make it more convenient and certainly not less so, unless it’s worth the trade-off to do so. I guess we are all free to decide for ourselves. I just can’t stand to watch the linguicide.
This is basically my own point of view. Only I then shift the discussion to that crucial distinction between language able to inform us about the world as it is objectively and language that reflects more a personal opinion or a political prejudice.
In other words, when the language that we choose revolves around the question, “how ought I to live?”
In a moral sense. In terms of values or ideals.
Then [from my frame of mind] we are discussing the limitations of language in turn.
Language can do what it is designed to do - to inform us about each other. Some people are better at it than others. Everything has limitations.