Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:55 pm
If I fulfilled that criterion then my mind would be completely empty...and it is not...yet.

After seeing what comes out of it, it would be better if it were empty.

That is the goal....thoughts must be exhausted first so excuse me for the sweating to exhaustion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:01 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:55 pm

If I fulfilled that criterion then my mind would be completely empty...and it is not...yet.

That's an interesting remark! I'm afraid that's the inevitability we all have to come to terms with. "Yet" is the apposite sentiment.

It's inevitability makes us all geniuses eventually.

Amen!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 9:03 pm excuse me for the sweating to exhaustion.

Yuk!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 7:59 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 9:27 pm We'll never need a context, of course.

Meaning is a context as it is that through which something exists. Meaning is relative to the contexts of A and B when A means B. If everything is meaningful then meaning is its own context.

No, seriously.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:40 pm 1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

What a load of utter codswallop.

I didn't ask for your mental state. If you are lost on a point then say so and I will explain further.

I AM TOTALLY LOST on ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'point' here.

So, will you now EXPLAIN FURTHER?

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:13 pm

What a load of utter codswallop.

I didn't ask for your mental state. If you are lost on a point then say so and I will explain further.

I AM TOTALLY LOST on ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'point' here.

That's because it is all codswallop.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:00 pm

I didn't ask for your mental state. If you are lost on a point then say so and I will explain further.

I AM TOTALLY LOST on ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'point' here.

That's because it is all codswallop.

I KNOW that.

I am just CURIOUS to SEE HOW ANY one could FURTHER EXPLAIN 'that codswallop'.

To me, "eodnhoj7" is just fighting and 'arguing' for 'its' BELIEF here. Which is; the whole Universe IS ABSURD and CONTRADICTS Itself, and so to PROVE 'this BELIEF' absolutely true "eodnhoj7" writes the way 'it' does here.

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:37 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:28 pm

I AM TOTALLY LOST on ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'point' here.

That's because it is all codswallop.

I KNOW that.

I am just CURIOUS to SEE HOW ANY one could FURTHER EXPLAIN 'that codswallop'.

Well he did bravely offer to explain it, so we might get to find out.

Meaning is the desire for things to be other than they are. In sentience creators that's avoid/approach feelings and in a Cognizant one it's avoid/approach directives.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:40 pm 1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

Very good.

''Meaning'' can only arise as a self-referential concept, thus only be realised as and through the self that only exists as a mentally constructed illusion.

Mind is the only frame of reference. Mind can only refer to itself. There is no other self.

You are consciousness/unconscious binary. Meaning, You are and you are not, both, and yet neither.


"Behind what is named, there is the unnameable."

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:37 pm
To me, "eodnhoj7" is just fighting and 'arguing' for 'its' BELIEF here. Which is; the whole Universe IS ABSURD and CONTRADICTS Itself, and so to PROVE 'this BELIEF' absolutely true "eodnhoj7" writes the way 'it' does here.

Naming the Unnameable is an apparent Contradiction in this illusory Conception. (A Mental Conceptual Construction of Mind)
The unnameable is the ''knower'' and the named is the ''known'' ... both 'knower' and 'known' have to exist at the exact same time inseparably as one 'KNOWING' the only knowing there is.

The words 'meaning' and 'meaningless' appear as if contradictory, and yet both these seemingly opposites MUST exist at the exact same time together in superposition within the Knower to become Known. And there lies the law of Non-Contradiction. There are no Contradictions in nature, only Superpositions.

Also Age, maybe you ought to refrain from accusing other people of having beliefs, when you vehemently deny having beliefs yourself.

And yes, a beginningless, endless existence is absurd, because there is simply no room for it's conception. Rendering all concepts illusory.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 6:02 am Meaning is the desire for things to be other than they are.

REALLY?

I thought the word 'meaning' would relate more to or refer to a desire to find out what 'things' could ACTUALLY BE, and NOT the desire for 'things' TO BE other than what they ARE.

WHY do 'you', "advocate", desire 'things' TO BE what they ARE NOT?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 6:02 am In sentience creators that's avoid/approach feelings and in a Cognizant one it's avoid/approach directives.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:40 pm 1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

Very good.

OF COURSE 'this' is VERY GOOD to 'you', "dontaskme", 'you', like "eodnhoj7", BOTH BELIEVE that 'everything' IS 'nothing' AND 'nothing' IS 'everything', and will say just about ANY 'thing' to back up and support this ALREADY STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEF of 'yours'

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm ''Meaning'' can only arise as a self-referential concept, thus only be realised as and through the self that only exists as a mentally constructed illusion.

So, IF the 'self' ONLY exists as a 'mentally constructed illusion', (which I have NEVER NOT disagreed with by the way), then WHO or WHAT IS 'mentally constructing this illusion' "dontaskme"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm Mind is the only frame of reference.

YET NOT a one of 'you', posters, here have an ABSOLUTE CLUE nor IDEA as to what the 'Mind' IS, EXACTLY.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm Mind can only refer to itself. There is no other self.

BUT, 'you' just through TELLING 'us' that there IS NOT ACTUAL 'self'.

So, what is 'it' going to be here? Is there A 'self' and NOT 'other' 'self', OR, does 'the self' exist ONLY as a 'mentally constructed illusion', "dontaskme".

'you' OBVIOUSLY can NOT have 'this' BOTH WAYS and be right AND correct.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm You are consciousness/unconscious binary. Meaning, You are and you are not, both, and yet neither.

REALLY?

And 'you' are BOTH and YET NEITHER who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 1:21 pm "Behind what is named, there is the unnameable."

BUT 'It' has ALREADY BEEN NAMED.

'you', the 'human being self' known here as "dontaskme", have just NOT YET COME-TO-RECOGNIZE 'this' Fact.

And, this IS BECAUSE thee One, 'behind what is named', has NOT YET INFORMED 'you', human beings here, YET.

See, this One just WAITS, patiently, for 'you', human beings, to COME-TO-LEARN and UNDERSTAND these sort of 'things' FOR and BY "your" 'selves'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 11:37 pm
To me, "eodnhoj7" is just fighting and 'arguing' for 'its' BELIEF here. Which is; the whole Universe IS ABSURD and CONTRADICTS Itself, and so to PROVE 'this BELIEF' absolutely true "eodnhoj7" writes the way 'it' does here.

Naming the Unnameable is an apparent Contradiction in this illusory Conception.

But what 'you' KEEP MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING here "dontaskme" is that 'you' KEEP NAMING the ALLEGED and BELIEVED 'unnameable' here.

'you' ARE STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED that 'you' can NOT even SEE and RECOGNIZE THE 'name' that 'you' ARE PLACING UPON what 'you' CALL 'the unnameable'

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm (A Mental Conceptual Construction of Mind)

What, AGAIN, is this 'Mind' 'Thing' here, EXACTLY?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm The unnameable is the ''knower'' and the named is the ''known'' ... both 'knower' and 'known' have to exist at the exact same time inseparably as one 'KNOWING' the only knowing there is.

So, NOT do 'you' just NAME the 'unnameable' AGAIN here, 'you' have now GIVEN and PROVIDED TWO 'names' for the so-called, and BELIEVED by 'you' to be, 'unnameable'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm The words 'meaning' and 'meaningless' appear as if contradictory,

HOW, EXACTLY?

BOTH words have their OWN, separate, MEANINGS, BOTH of which do NOT contradict EACH OTHER AT ALL.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm and yet both these seemingly opposites MUST exist at the exact same time together in superposition within the Knower to become Known. And there lies the law of Non-Contradiction. There are no Contradictions in nature, only Superpositions.

AND, 'superpositions' are 'what', EXACTLY, to 'you', "dontaskme"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm Also Age, maybe you ought to refrain from accusing other people of having beliefs, when you vehemently deny having beliefs yourself.

If one does NOT have some 'thing', or has NOT done some 'thing', which one is being ACCUSED OF, then 'that one' has the Right to DENY those ACCUSATIONS.

Now, 'you' have just ACCUSED 'me' of DENYING 'having beliefs', which IS ABSOLUTELY True. But if 'you' are here IMPLYING that I 'have beliefs', then BRING FORWARD 'your' EVIDENCE or PROOF.

Also, and VERY LAUGHINGLY, WHY 'ought' I refrain from accusing "others" of 'having beliefs', WHEN 'they' HAVE BELIEFS?

Or, are 'you' now 'trying to' IMPLY that "eodnhoj7" does NOT 'HAVE ANY BELIEFS AT ALL?

In 'your' VIEW "dontaskme", if one does NOT have some 'thing' or does NOT do some 'thing', then WHY 'ought' they REFRAIN ACCUSING "others" of having or doing 'things', which 'they', "them" 'self', do NOT?

This would be like SAYING and CLAIMING, "police prosecutors", in court, 'ought' REFRAIN from accusing "others" of doing 'things' just because the "police prosecutor" does NOT do the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm And yes, a beginningless, endless existence is absurd, because there is simply no room for it's conception.

BUT a so-called 'beginningless and endless Existence' is NOT absurd. This is BECAUSE Existence, Itself, NEVER begins, and NEVER ended.

Existence IS ALWAYS, (and it could be said IN ALL WAYS, as well).

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 4:57 pm Rendering all concepts illusory.

But 'concepts' ARE REAL. So, WHY do 'you' SAY and CLAIM that 'concepts' ARE NOT REAL, or ARE ILLUSORY?

I believe Age hit the bullseye as regards what the OP asserts.

The OP's thesis, Age, if you're reading this, sets the stage, creates the perfect conditions as it were, for a certain kinda a philosophy that some find revolting while for others it's simply a way of life.