Very well tied together.

Temporality is merely the means by which our memories are sorted. Without some temporality, we would be constantly bombarded by undiagnosed stimuli.
What is behind this stimuli needs no temporality, because it is eternal. The future is made up of horizons, which exist atemporally, but must be made temporal for most to understand them.

I would add that these memories are sorted into projects, or synthesized into something better than what was. The past and future exist in the spatial present only as concept. And man acts on the spatial present according to a vision of the possible future --which is (re)constructed out of concepts from the "past" AKA the conceptualized memory of annihilated spatial being.

Animal time is eternity in drag, as their projects are the same old food, excretion, reproduction. It's only man for whom time is history, or progress. Human time is future-primary.

1. If the Moon existed before people, then Idealism is false.
2. The Moon existed before people.

Therefore, 3, Idealism is false.

"The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the
illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of
natural phenomena."

Thats quite an interesting statement, because it does seem that the laws of people tend to explain people pretty well.

A man of reason (which this thread is in dire need of)

To the degree that people act like animals, they can be described mathematically. Animals, to speak metaphorically, are circles. But man, despite his grounding animality, is a synthetic progressive being. So man is an open widening spiral, rather than a circle. Only his lower self can be described mathematically. It's dialectic that allows his ascension. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was Man. (It takes the Logos awhile to figure it out that God is Man and Man qua Man is Logos..)

If you want empirical "truth" read Rorty, or Nietzsche. From my perspective you're stuck in the middle. Logos isn't (only) Mathema. That's the crux.

It makes you wonder if humans really are at the top of the evolutionary stage, as it very well may be more accurate to call it the end.

Only humans claim to live meaningless lives, unless of course we take an animal out of the wild in put it in a cage. In which case the animals actually respond with the same characteristics of people who suffer from anxiety and depression.

Hmmm... Wonder why this happens? Must be insufficient amounts of dopamine in the brain, gotta fill them up with drugs to cure the disease of lack of meaning.

To the degree that people act like animals, they can be described mathematically. Animals, to speak metaphorically, are circles. But man, despite his grounding animality, is a synthetic progressive being. So man is an open widening spiral, rather than a circle. Only his lower self can be described mathematically. It's dialectic that allows his ascension. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was Man. (It takes the Logos awhile to figure it out that God is Man and Man qua Man is Logos..)

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 12:53 AM ----------



If you want empirical "truth" read Rorty, or Nietzsche. From my perspective you're stuck in the middle. Logos isn't (only) Mathema. That's the crux.

But thats where I think Nietzche was stuck in the middle with the Herd. I think Nietzche and Kierkegaard came about as close to Heidegger they possibly could, but Heidegger was able to describe being in a way that Existentialism couldn't, and in a way only the Ancients have ever truly understood.

Man, you just love this stuff. I really wish I had some idea of what you were going on about, though. I have literally read this paragraph three times, and I still can't make sense of it. Animals, to speak metaphorically, are circles...? A synthetic progressive being...? Open widening spiral, rather than a circle...?



What is "truth" as opposed to truth? I'm looking for the truth of the matter, not the "truth", whatever that is.

It's very interesting that it's actually not important to any of you to think about this logically. I ask for a reasonable answer, and I get more speculative nonsense. Please refer to the above argument in post #366. If any of you can explain which premise is false in that argument, that'd be a start.

The truth is "truth."
"Truth" is infinite.

Therefore, the truth is infinite.

The point is there is no truth to matter

Man, you just love this stuff. I really wish I had some idea of what you were going on about, though. I have literally read this paragraph three times, and I still can't make sense of it. Animals, to speak metaphorically, are circles...? A synthetic progressive being...? Open widening spiral, rather than a circle...?

There is an important discussion to be had about the relationship of mind and perception to reality but Im with you, it is not happening right now. Which argument in post *366. Im not even a naive realist or a materialist, Im a modified Kantian and still I am confused. Kant never rejected the existence of an independent reality just had concerns about what we could know about it. Even Berkely relied on the mind of god to provide a "reality" separate from human perception. The universe does not exist untill it is perceived by humans, what kind of nonsense is that? it is solopism.

For Aristotle, Eternity was in time, because certain forms repeated themselves. You can step into the same river twice, because the river is the form and not the content. It the same with animals that breed and die. No animal is eternal but only the species. Same with plants. So even though they move in time, their recurrent form allows us to have true knowledge of them, as if they were static. Consider this, there is no Truth w/o Eternity. If reality is always flux, then all human discourse is guesswork and sophistry.

Man is not predictable like animals because he learns and evolves conceptually/synthetically. He can't be represented mathematically, for he is a dialectical being.

What is "truth" as opposed to truth? I'm looking for the truth of the matter, not the "truth", whatever that is.

I'm sorry, it was post #364.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 01:18 AM ----------



What has any of this to do with the matter at hand, though?

Can you bridge the connection for me, once again, in simpler language. Maybe less metaphors. Or at least when you use a metaphor, describe the connection from X to Y more precisely for me. I would really appreciate it.

Metaphors exist as a way to convey meaning which is difficult to explain directly. Sometimes you just have to allow the metaphors to speak for themselves.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, what's wrong with this argument again?

1. If the Moon existed before people, then Idealism is false.
2. The Moon existed before people.

Therefore, 3, Idealism is false.

I'm asking for which premise in particular is false, or why the argument is invalid.

Of course it is dead simple if you adopt the argument that H Sapiens just happened to evolve and the brain just happened to develop in such a way that it appears to produce a mind. Within this framework the basic notions of idealism are completely unintelligible.