Philosophy Forum

 		Log In New Topics New Posts

The indebted "Essences" of the limited "Existence"!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » The indebted "Essences" of the limited "Existence"!

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

BLESSED
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 04:09 am
Hi everybody!

I posted the same comment on this thread a few hours ago,but unfortunately one of the dear moderators decided to delete it suddenly.
I guess for I was a little nonsense "humorous"! :slap:


No matter;writing a lot of books in a serious format I'm accustomed to be "deleted" by the sensible professors!Then for I'm myself a "proud" professor,I can resist against the other deleting professors who are proud.:deflated:


So,be a little patient,reading the comment.It is not nonsense,but just a little "humorous"!:meeting:


Suppose you are watching me as a handsome baboon who is typing here his own perspective on the life.

You may say:"What a handsome baboon he is,he looks like the bearded Demi Moore or the bald Al Pacino with a hair!"Very Happy

As I see,you admit that I exist.Being a lovely baboon is my "limit",while I'm indebted totally to the "am",to be able to think finally that I'm typing.

A French philosopher was accustomed to look at his limits rather than his existence.He believed he thought therefore he was.As an educated white baboon who is loosing his tail,I believe I should be at first,to be able to know my existence!

Now,suppose you're thinking of my stupidity.I'm in your mind by the "waves", though you're the ones who are coming towards me to be able to see me finally.

If I was green swimming in a green jar,you couldn't see me at all for the green ones may not pass the greens,except when a color blind is watching.

Well;conceptualizing me as "burning baboon",you may admit that I'm burning.The "Global Warming" is a result of this phenomenon.Very Happy

But you would not be burnt thinking of me or watching!!

You can imagine me or even see,if I was in your mind.
Now,is there any other baboon outside of your mind,hot enough to burn everything?!

What are the differences between me(the external baboon)and what you see!?:confused:

And suppose you're watching me chasing my lost tail in my office!(By the way I live on the Moon's South Pole along with the Martian Penguins!!)!

Well,
There's(:exists)a baboon on the Moon,catching cold!I'm the baboon!
There's(:exists)an honorable human being watching me!You are the one!

The first parts of the sentences are equal(we two exist);then the rest of the sentences should be "equal" too.We may call it the "Rule Of Equity"!

But we differ too.I've lost my tail,while you don't have any tail to be lost!:hmm:
Then,from where do our "differences" enter?
OUT OF EXISTENCE?!

Is there really anything real out of the Existence?!

I hope dear moderators keep the comment here,to let the people to think of their existence rather than their essences!!


Thanks and regards/
Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"(the wise nonsense humorous":na:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 30 Aug, 2009 12:58 pm
@BLESSED,
Hi Blessed!

First, I moved your thread to the epistemology section because it has content dealing most specifically with forms of knowledge. However, you do have bits of metaphysical notions though, but epistemology seems the best place to be. Just want to make sure that you get the best subject audience for your thread.

Your references to Descartes and parts of the cogito are interesting. I'm supposing that because you are using his terms that that is the framework to work under, so the references are to Descartes and his contemporaries. I can't admit that a fully understand your comments though, so you will have to bear with me while I attempt to understand your point. I have to admit though that your thread is not very coherent. There are a jumble of ideas and conceptions. But I think this is the great thing about just getting into philosophy since you have these amalgamations of ideas that will, in time, be streamlined to make one heck of a good argument.

BLESSED;86833 wrote:
As I see,you admit that I exist.Being a lovely baboon is my "limit",while I'm indebted totally to the "am",to be able to think finally that I'm typing.

A French philosopher was accustomed to look at his limits rather than his existence.He believed he thought therefore he was.As an educated white baboon who is loosing his tail,I believe I should be at first,to be able to know my existence!
Res Cogitans
BLESSED;86833 wrote:
Now,suppose you're thinking of my stupidity.I'm in your mind by the "waves", though you're the ones who are coming towards me to be able to see me finally.

If I was greenswimming in a greenjar,you couldn't see me at all for the green ones may not pass the greens,except when a color blind is watching.


Why would a predicate of your existence (that you are stupid) help explain how you are conceived by another person. This is an epistemological fallacy. The green analogy is a broken semantic which honestly does not fit in any case. I don't understand why you delineated here, because you had a rather substantial argument in the beginning which fell off at this moment.

BLESSED;86833 wrote:
Well;conceptualizing me as "burning baboon",you may admit that I'm burning.The "Global Warming" is a result of this phenomenon.

But you would not be burnt thinking of me or watching!!

You can imagine me or even see,if I was in your mind.
Now,is there any other baboon outside of your mind,hot enough to burn everything?!
What are the differences between me(the external baboon)and what you see!?
BLESSED;86833 wrote:

And suppose you're watching me chasing my lost tail in my office!(By the way I live on the Moon's South Pole along with the Martian Penguins!!)!
BLESSED;86833 wrote:
Well,
There's(:exists)a baboon on the Moon,catching cold!I'm the baboon!
There's(:exists)an honorable human being watching me!You are the one!

The first parts of the sentences are equal(we two exist);then the rest of the sentences should be "equal" too.We may call it the "Rule Of Equity"!


In the realm of predicate logic, these are blind axioms under an existential quantifier. It may seem logical in the setup, but it is not syntactically logically correct. How should these statements be tautological? Why a finite axiom called "the rule of equity" when it is not even inferred to begin with?

BLESSED;86833 wrote:
But we differ too.I've lost my tail,while you don't have any tail to be lost! Then,from where do our "differences" enter?
OUT OF EXISTENCE?!

Is there really anything real out of the Existence?!

I hope dear moderators keep the comment here,to let the people to think of their existence rather than their essences!!


First, I like the "?!" combination. Second, and on an ironic note, essence is a grade of existentialism. They are both the same thing. Furthermore, when people think of individual essence, they think in terms of the seldom uttered notion of haecceity (Which I am disappointed about because though the "I am" spiel has been brought up time and time again on the forum, but no one seems to officially touch on it), a singular essence derived from singular properties inherent in that one thing. Obviously, wouldn't existential notions carry the same weight?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » The indebted "Essences" of the limited "Existence"!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/27/2024 at 01:31:51
▲ ▼