Eodnhoj7: All Things are Distinctions

[Age]

If all is conditional then condition is a thing in itself.
A condition is a distinction.

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

No...you are just not as intelligent as you tell yourself you are...so I will break it down even more:


Distinction is of itself as distinctions occur through distinctions.

Your "everything is conditional" observes condition contained within itself as of itself.

What is the Universe, Itself, supposedly, distinct from, exactly?

[Eodnhoj7]

You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

No...you are just not as intelligent as you tell yourself you are...so I will break it down even more:
Distinction is of itself as distinctions occur through distinctions.
Your "everything is conditional" observes condition contained within itself as of itself.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

You are doing neither, you are just making distinctions of arguments.

Proof is a distinction, if I were to prove a distinction the distinction would be proof thus the proof as distinction is self contained.

[Age]

No...you are just not as intelligent as you tell yourself you are...so I will break it down even more:
Distinction is of itself as distinctions occur through distinctions.
Your "everything is conditional" observes condition contained within itself as of itself.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

You are doing neither, you are just making distinctions of arguments.

Proof is a distinction, if I were to prove a distinction the distinction would be proof thus the proof as distinction is self contained.

Is the Universe, Itself, distinct from any thing?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No...you are just not as intelligent as you tell yourself you are...so I will break it down even more:
Distinction is of itself as distinctions occur through distinctions.
Your "everything is conditional" observes condition contained within itself as of itself.

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

You are doing neither, you are just making distinctions of arguments.

Proof is a distinction, if I were to prove a distinction the distinction would be proof thus the proof as distinction is self contained.

I have already argued.

I am asking you to prove a distinction as objective real.
You make no attempt to do so.
If you to prove you need a human-based framework and system to apply the concept of distinction.
Whatever the output, i.e. distinction is whatever, it is always conditioned upon the human condition.

The default of reality is that one must always start with the empirical and drill down which end with the human condition.

On the other hand you start with an assumption [all is distinction] but failed to prove it is objective real.

Get educated on this phase of philosophy.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

[Eodnhoj7]

Again:
You are merely making a valid but not a sound argument. [GIGO - garbage in garbage out]
Prove a [distinction] thing-in-itself is real?
as I had asked in the above but you have not grasped it or you ignore it based on ignorance.

You are doing neither, you are just making distinctions of arguments.

Proof is a distinction, if I were to prove a distinction the distinction would be proof thus the proof as distinction is self contained.

I have already argued.

I am asking you to prove a distinction as objective real.
You make no attempt to do so.
If you to prove you need a human-based framework and system to apply the concept of distinction.
Whatever the output, i.e. distinction is whatever, it is always conditioned upon the human condition.

The default of reality is that one must always start with the empirical and drill down which end with the human condition.

On the other hand you start with an assumption [all is distinction] but failed to prove it is objective real.

Get educated on this phase of philosophy.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

To argue to to make distinction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are doing neither, you are just making distinctions of arguments.

Proof is a distinction, if I were to prove a distinction the distinction would be proof thus the proof as distinction is self contained.

I have already argued.

I am asking you to prove a distinction as objective real.
You make no attempt to do so.
If you to prove you need a human-based framework and system to apply the concept of distinction.
Whatever the output, i.e. distinction is whatever, it is always conditioned upon the human condition.

The default of reality is that one must always start with the empirical and drill down which end with the human condition.

On the other hand you start with an assumption [all is distinction] but failed to prove it is objective real.

Get educated on this phase of philosophy.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

To argue to to make distinction.

What is that?
To argue with distinction does not create 'distinction-in-itself'.
Distinction is just the method of arguments.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

[Eodnhoj7]

I have already argued.

I am asking you to prove a distinction as objective real.
You make no attempt to do so.
If you to prove you need a human-based framework and system to apply the concept of distinction.
Whatever the output, i.e. distinction is whatever, it is always conditioned upon the human condition.

The default of reality is that one must always start with the empirical and drill down which end with the human condition.

On the other hand you start with an assumption [all is distinction] but failed to prove it is objective real.

Get educated on this phase of philosophy.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

To argue to to make distinction.

What is that?
To argue with distinction does not create 'distinction-in-itself'.
Distinction is just the method of arguments.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

If all of reality is distinction (for things occur by being distinct), and this reality is composed of distinction as the distinction of reality itself, then distinction exists in itself as self-contained.

So pure distinction only leaves the distinction of nothing.

You have no argument for or against this without using distinctions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To argue to to make distinction.

What is that?
To argue with distinction does not create 'distinction-in-itself'.
Distinction is just the method of arguments.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

If all of reality is distinction (for things occur by being distinct), and this reality is composed of distinction as the distinction of reality itself, then distinction exists in itself as self-contained.

So pure distinction only leaves the distinction of nothing.

You have no argument for or against this without using distinctions.

You got it wrong,

All of reality is an emergence out of a human-based FS. [not in itself]
Distinction emerge out of all of reality.
Therefore 'distinction' cannot be distinction in itself.

"In Kant's philosophy, humans do not simply find natural laws; rather, our understanding (a priori principles) imposes the necessary structure of lawfulness in general onto our experience of the natural world.
This is a central tenet of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy: instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects of experience conform to the structure of our cognition." Google Search AI.

It is the same with 'distinction'
"instead of our knowledge conforming to distinction in itself, experience of distinction conform to the structure of our cognition."

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is that?
To argue with distinction does not create 'distinction-in-itself'.
Distinction is just the method of arguments.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

If all of reality is distinction (for things occur by being distinct), and this reality is composed of distinction as the distinction of reality itself, then distinction exists in itself as self-contained.

So pure distinction only leaves the distinction of nothing.

You have no argument for or against this without using distinctions.

You got it wrong,

All of reality is an emergence out of a human-based FS. [not in itself]
Distinction emerge out of all of reality.
Therefore 'distinction' cannot be distinction in itself.

"In Kant's philosophy, humans do not simply find natural laws; rather, our understanding (a priori principles) imposes the necessary structure of lawfulness in general onto our experience of the natural world.
This is a central tenet of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy: instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects of experience conform to the structure of our cognition." Google Search AI.

It is the same with 'distinction'
"instead of our knowledge conforming to distinction in itself, experience of distinction conform to the structure of our cognition."

I believe your "All Things are Distinctions" is not fundamental.

What is more fundamental is reality, existence, being, thing-hood, essence, substance, monad, which are all synonymous and pointing to the same thing.
The point is the above fundamental[s] must precede distinctions, i.e. there must be reality or existence for distinctions to emerge.

Since you claim whatever is reality [including distinction] is absolutely independent of the human conditions and contain within itself, you should add the suffix '-in-itself' to the above most fundamental thing, either
reality-in-itself, existence-in-itself, being-in-itself or thing-in-itself.

Thing-in-itself is most appropriate because it can refer to the most fundamental and anything.
As such, even if one claim a 'distinction-in-itself' it is reduced to the 'existence-in-itself' or the other synonymous fundamental[s].

As such, you need to avoid 'all things are distinctions' which is not accurate and refer to thing-in-itself.

Definition: "the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation."

Agree?

[Eodnhoj7]

What is that?
To argue with distinction does not create 'distinction-in-itself'.
Distinction is just the method of arguments.

Don't run away, this is critical to the whole issue, response to this philosophy-proper issue, you are scare to know the truth of reality?
Why Ordinary Reality is Unreal? The is no Distinction-in-Itself.
viewtopic.php?t=45470

If all of reality is distinction (for things occur by being distinct), and this reality is composed of distinction as the distinction of reality itself, then distinction exists in itself as self-contained.

So pure distinction only leaves the distinction of nothing.

You have no argument for or against this without using distinctions.

You got it wrong,

All of reality is an emergence out of a human-based FS. [not in itself]
Distinction emerge out of all of reality.
Therefore 'distinction' cannot be distinction in itself.

"In Kant's philosophy, humans do not simply find natural laws; rather, our understanding (a priori principles) imposes the necessary structure of lawfulness in general onto our experience of the natural world.
This is a central tenet of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy: instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects of experience conform to the structure of our cognition." Google Search AI.

It is the same with 'distinction'
"instead of our knowledge conforming to distinction in itself, experience of distinction conform to the structure of our cognition."

Wrong is subject to being a distinction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If all of reality is distinction (for things occur by being distinct), and this reality is composed of distinction as the distinction of reality itself, then distinction exists in itself as self-contained.

So pure distinction only leaves the distinction of nothing.

You have no argument for or against this without using distinctions.

You got it wrong,

All of reality is an emergence out of a human-based FS. [not in itself]
Distinction emerge out of all of reality.
Therefore 'distinction' cannot be distinction in itself.

"In Kant's philosophy, humans do not simply find natural laws; rather, our understanding (a priori principles) imposes the necessary structure of lawfulness in general onto our experience of the natural world.
This is a central tenet of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy: instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects of experience conform to the structure of our cognition." Google Search AI.

It is the same with 'distinction'
"instead of our knowledge conforming to distinction in itself, experience of distinction conform to the structure of our cognition."

Wrong is subject to being a distinction.

Being precedes distinction.
Why not?
Being = existence, reality.

Nothing precedes distinction? Why not existence, reality, and the like?

[Eodnhoj7]

You got it wrong,

All of reality is an emergence out of a human-based FS. [not in itself]
Distinction emerge out of all of reality.
Therefore 'distinction' cannot be distinction in itself.

"In Kant's philosophy, humans do not simply find natural laws; rather, our understanding (a priori principles) imposes the necessary structure of lawfulness in general onto our experience of the natural world.
This is a central tenet of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy: instead of our knowledge conforming to objects, objects of experience conform to the structure of our cognition." Google Search AI.

It is the same with 'distinction'
"instead of our knowledge conforming to distinction in itself, experience of distinction conform to the structure of our cognition."

Wrong is subject to being a distinction.

Being precedes distinction.
Why not?
Being = existence, reality.

Nothing precedes distinction? Why not existence, reality, and the like?

Being is a distinction, it is distinct from relative non-being.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong is subject to being a distinction.

Being precedes distinction.
Why not?
Being = existence, reality.

Nothing precedes distinction? Why not existence, reality, and the like?

Being is a distinction, it is distinct from relative non-being.

It is being that precedes distinction and it is distinction therefrom which enable via the linguistic system that enable the concept of non-being.

It is the same with existence, reality, God which precede distinction and its distinction therefrom which enable via the linguistic system that enable the concept of non-real, non-existence, non-God [atheism].

There is no such thing as distinction-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Being precedes distinction.
Why not?
Being = existence, reality.

Nothing precedes distinction? Why not existence, reality, and the like?

Being is a distinction, it is distinct from relative non-being.

It is being that precedes distinction and it is distinction therefrom which enable via the linguistic system that enable the concept of non-being.

It is the same with existence, reality, God which precede distinction and its distinction therefrom which enable via the linguistic system that enable the concept of non-real, non-existence, non-God [atheism].

There is no such thing as distinction-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Being does not precedes nothingness as being is distinct from nothingness and is being because it contrasts from nothingness.

Being is distinction, it is a distinction.

You cannot logically argue that being precedes distinction while using the distinction of being preceding the distinction of distinction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where are you heading?

Note the general meaning of being is 'existence'
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/being
a person or thing that exists: