Pax Vitae stated:
I thought maybe you would like to read something I once wrote…
We begin with two basic concepts:
- The unquestionable truth that 1+1=2.
- X cannot equal X and not X at the same time and in the same respect.
Whether we are aware of it or not, we all believe
(consciously or sub-consciously) that ‘x cannot be x and not x at the
same time and in the same respect’ - this may sound similar to Aristotle’s
quote but I assure you I mean something a little different. The above
illustrates the impossibility of something existing in one place, at
one time, in one form; while also not existing at that same place, same
time, and same form. To further simplify, I give an example; your mind
can believe that the monitor you are staring at right now either exists
or doesn’t exist, but your mind cannot imagine the monitor you are staring
at both exists and doesn’t exist at this very moment in the same form
it is right now. Just to clarify that the time and form have everything
to do with this concept since your monitor may one day exist and the
next day be gone. Moreover, at this very moment the monitor can exist
in one form and change to another one later, ie. right now it is
together in a solid form; if you were to melt it, then it would be in
liquid form.
Having established the impossibility of a thing both existing and not
existing at the same time and in the same respect we can move on to
more intricate matters. I wish to explain that as far as we know there
are no two things on the planet or in the universe that are exactly
the same. The atomic structure of any one thing is different from the
atomic structure of another thing. Atoms themselves are different in
that their electrons are in different locations and the parts of atoms
that are smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons (ie. quarks)make
each atom unique despite the element they make-up (ie. Hydrogen). This
being said, I wish to illustrate that 1+1=2 cannot be done in practice.
Once you pick one representative for the number 1 within the equation,
you will never find another one exactly like it to add together, hence
the equation falls apart. The only way you could have two exact things
existing is if they occupied the same space. But if two things existed
in the same place they would alter the form of each one, so neither
would exist in its original form. If they could occupy the same space
and stay in the same form than there would no longer be two, but only
one would remain. One would sieze to exist and one would exist. Since
nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same
respect.
We have established that there is no such thing as one(1), two (2),
or any other number for that matter. It only exists as a concept. We
are so use to adding labels and concepts that many have come to believe
that it is undeniably true in all situations. For example, we have
labelled these tall things that grow from the ground as ‘trees’. With
this label we can say that we see two trees. But really, they are not
exactly alike. You may think that this exactness is just my trivial
meanderings, but I assure you that when this simplistic math is put to
the test to explain sub-atomic particles or the temperatures of stars
hundreds of parsecs away, it is exactly what I am talking about here
that causes us all to stop and rework our math to suit a new condition.
This reworking sometimes takes hundreds of years because people are
close minded and think that there is nothing wrong with our math and
that it will never need amending or altering.
I will clarify what math is to me. It may appear to you that after
you have read this you are left with less rather than more. Math is
the categorization and grouping of labels to stimuli. It is also a
systematic conceptual framework that allows us to manipulate the very
framework it is constructed on.
We must realize for ourselves that math is something we thought up,
it wasn’t waiting for us to be found. Therefore, math is conceptual
framework created to the best of our ability, with the greatest
results so far and a lack of some better option - obviously we would
not be using math if there was a better framework we knew of.
D stated:
No life? What do you mean there is no life? And how in the hell do you
suppose that if you were right that there is no life that it would
something substantiate your claim that there is no philosophy? One doesn’t
lead to the other. WHat the hell are people doing everyday if it isn’t
life? Or are you just going to rename it to something else with some
kind of a twist that affirms that something else like life does exist
but without philosophy?
You obviously ignored my previous post or ignored my suggestion. Once
again, you obviously know nothing of philosophy if you think that all
it is is gazing at the stars and asking oneself if there is a God. Many
contemporary philosophers are athiests, which means they did ask themselves
whether there is a God, but it doesn’t necessitate that they were star gazing
when the did, nor does it give weight to your claim that philosophy is
somehow about star gazing and thiestic conceptualizations. Furthermore,
who are you to state, as if it was fact, that star gazing and questioning
whether there is a God or not is a waste of time? Give us some arguments
instead of obtuse and radical statements appealling to emotion. You may
not give a shit about your real self, or any degree of self, but others might.
You haven’t provided any arguments for why one shouldn’t try to delve into
a deeper sense of who they are.
Again, what do you mean by “You don’t even know you were born”? If you mean
that we do not have memories of being born, sure. But look at ALL the things
you don’t have memory of but know that happened. But I’ll play your game and
ask you the following, imagine that you are right and we don’t know we were
born and because we don’t know something we should not wonder about it, which
is the logic you used for making the statement that thinking about one’s own
birth is a waste of time. So then isn’t EVERYTHING you don’t have a memory of
a waste of time? Furthermore, it can easily be argued that NOTHING can ever
be TRULY known, similarily as Pax Vitae made mention in his previous post.
If you accept that, then following your logic means we should think about
anything since we can’t know anything. See, it is skeptical arguments like
yours that are argued by skeptics time and time again, each feeling they are
somehow greater than the rest because they enter doubt into every argument
possible but contribute nothing themselves, that we end up in the end responding
to the Skeptic “So what?”. So I ask you, “So what if I don’t remember that I was
born?”
Lastly, even if everything you said in the above is true, there is still
no logic in your statements that leads to your claim “Philosophy is scrabble”.
It has become apparent to me that your posts are like scrabble, YOU are just
playing around with words without actually giving the ideas the time of day.
So be it…
What’s your take?
