I’d like to discuss existence with as many people as possible. Any other active, philosophy/science sites worth checking out?
Well I post at an English utilitarian forum under the name Cornelius Delwitworth.
Huh? Twenty questions…starts now!
what about existence?
All of existence is something so its a natural fallacy to hang onto the idea of nothing and non-existence.
what about the empty spaces between things?
It’s all something. There is no empty space only fantasies about its’ existence.
what if the problem is just that we need language to refer to things at all, and that to refer to a thing requires us to categorize it as having the property of existence? is the exists/does not exist distinction a useful one in philosophy or is it just a by product of language/descriptivism?
Existence=the actual perceivable/observable and ideas
Non-existence is an idea
The definition we currently use for non-existence is not accurate.
You do realise you are basically, tautologically, saying(or rather, pontificating, since you provide no justifications) that existence is that which exists???Existence is not a thing like a square but a kind of descriptor that means something when it is applied to things that exist of themselves…a man can exist,a tree can exist,an idea can exist,but an existence cannot exist. furthermore…it is an abstract descriptor that is very flexible and must be strictly defined in its meaning, it is a word that allows us to hook onto an abstract and fluid intuitive exploratory direction because once a man can ask what does it mean to exist, he can specify what existence means for him and work in that direction but he could not do it if he could not conceive of an idea of existence.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
Existence is umbrellaed. Existence encompasses all universes, dimensions, planes of itself, galaxies, up down and all around. There is only one Existence.
Existence= the actual(observable/perceivable) and ideas(not actual)
Ex. A unicorn exists as an idea. There is no known animal fitting the description of a unicorn.
Non-existence or non-existent is used improperly as if it is an actual perceivable/observable phenomena or thing.
Ex. My great, great grandchildren are non-existent. No, those grandchildren were never actual children only an idea about possible grandchildren.
Ex. My dead brother is non-existent, he died. No your dead brother actually existed, he was never only an idea. (Transformational death is a different conversation.)
Non-existence can only remain an idea because it is the antithesis of existence, either there is Existence(somethings or ideas) or non-existence and poof everything vanishes. But since we exist, non-existence is an idea only.
relax sunflower,a sunflower that never opens up catches no light…
Edited above.
Of course, Existence exists. Existence is the epitome of what exists, when taken as one whole bunch of somethings.
And that Stanford definition was so ridiculous I couldn’t even finish reading it. People actually buy that crap as their authority?
you might be more off the rails than the KTS crew. I heard it all before…a Greek semi-illiterate dullard calling one of the greatest philosophers in history a cunt(KANT) and dismissing him without a word(ridiculous)…autistic dullards dismissing two thousand years of the Christian tradition as a ‘virus’ whilst promoting a political system which burnt the Central Europe to earth and wiped out our European global supremacy permanently(whilst the Christian civilisation was the one to establish it)…a dullard here calling Rome backwards and having no science(when Rome laid a foundation for the modern world which was then lost, but nevertheless these people were the first to actually build cities and developed advanced civilizational technologies).an idiot calling me a rodent, a mosquito and running away from me so he can fight with a person he considers insane and rubbish whilst simulteonously saying he is indifferent to insane and rubbish dullards(???)…now you are calling a Stanford article which simply provides an elaboration of different philosophical positions ridiculous whilst you did not even read it through properly else you would not be claiming there is a single definition there(there isnt) and simultaneously dismissing Aristotle, Kant and Frege/Russel…its not about preferences…a sane, normal person admits greatness and achievement of others he might dislike or hate…and can see where he is standing himself…
If not for Hitler, Europe stretching from Russia to Spain would be the United States of the world…the size, the scale of the cities, the giant and imposing infrastructure, the technological advancement… Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania would be properly advanced countries not shitholes to bigger or lesser degrees…who am I even talking to…waste of time…
I won’t be reading any more of your insults or rants. You are not equipped to philosophize, understand logic, or apply reason. Enjoy all the “great” ideas already filling your head, spin them round and round. Bubbye!
Where were we, Mr.?
my response is tempered, normally such antics would deserve a slap on the empty head. we are discussing, somebody comes and disagrees and you jump on him like a feral goon…mommy did not teach good manners much with the daddy???or you had no siblings your age???