Bathed in light, properties seem to orbit an object that is shrouded in darkness … Kant thought so, while Wittgenstein, who was after Kant’s heart, argued against the linguistic legitimacy of the term “object” as the name of a thing, arguing that a thing was a particular with a particular name. But enough rudimentary scholasticism.
I say this. There is only one object. For who can distinguish one object from another by their properties? are objects marked out by “properties”?
No. Objects are not marked out by properties. We take objects to be independent permanences - they do not vanish or appear like properties, they can only be veiled.
Accordingly, there are no properties that can mark out one object from another. There can only be one object, undivided, cotemporaneous, coexistent, identical with the world’s space …
For example, is the “I” saying this in this post the same as the “I” that is typing it? After “I” stop typing and hit the post button, which “I” is me?
Bingo Jonquil. Further, is there an “I” there asking the questions? There is no separate entity there other than the knowledge of it. The knowledge that is in there is the identity. There is nothing there other than that. The questions arise from out of the assumption that there is an “I” there.
Not necessarily. My questions are put by me and, as they are put by me then, in their very making they are immediately, necessarily, in the public domain of language. Can we argue that language users are “I”'s in congress? That’s a leap that doesn’t warrant the jump.
Okay. So, now “I” exists in the domain of societal words and ideas. Thought engages these elements of language for purposes of using the knowledge derived from what has been considered by congress (society) to be common interests and concerns. By portraying it in this way, it is vague as to there being an absolute one “I” there inasmuch as we will be implying that there is an entity that is a “user” resulting in another entity (which we call ”I”) produced and strengthened when the societal input of knowledge is used, repeated and sharpened in intellect.
Now, if we want to call what results as an assimilator of the knowledge behind words and language the “I”, the subject, “mind”, self and so on, then that’s all right. But, bear in mind, that this congress, or society – or whatever it is you want to call it – has in essence created the “I” for its purposes – mainly for the purpose of maintaining the common interests and concerns of the way things are. Actually it’s up to the individual as to whether there is a recognition of Reality contained in that congress. Being that one seems to have been indoctrinated into it, an individual may reconsider just how much whatever is there behind the “I” is the self formed by society and how much is the self apart from it.
there are nominators and denominators in life
when the denominator is as consistant as “everything” you should feel free to only identify the nominator
For someone who can reference philosophically “Big” names they seem to very understand little about the intricacies of everything they may have read. Why is this? Some people spend so much of their lives being interested in something yet they fail so hard, unwittingly. It’s embarrassing. As for the rest, just throwing out some big names can lead you astray perhaps? Where are the critical thinkers on this board? My god. My god, why have you forsaken me.