Philosophy Now Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:46 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:13 pm

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

A thing is a localized energy form, or localized compound of energy forms to form a new thing and a subjective experience of a conscious subject.

Localization, or the action of 'to localize', is energy thus a 'thing' is the same as saying "energy through energy" and a contradiction occurs as energy becomes distinct form energy as localization (energy) becomes distinct from energy.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:13 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:04 pm

No, you cannot point to a dragon or Gandalf.
Is thinking a thing?
Is a concept a thing?
Define thing!
Is a thing a thing?

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.
2. A whole is a relative part. For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree. A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:15 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:46 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:29 am
In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

A thing is a localized energy form, or localized compound of energy forms to form a new thing and a subjective experience of a conscious subject.

I agree with Popeye that "totality" is not a thing, however I'd rather call that which is not differentiated "absolute".

I can point to a dragon by describing it in words, in a picture, or in a map. My index finger is irrelevant when I am transmitting a concept. I can even teach my dog how to react to the word 'dragon'. My dog has several adored Gandalf lookalikes in his life.

The social utility of the concepts of dragon, or of Gandalf, is a separate issue.

Thus the thread title.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:13 pm

In directing my thoughts to a dragon or Gandalf I am pointing my awareness to fantasy characters. Fantasy characters exist as fantasy characters.

In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

A thing is a part or individual.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.

Set means nothing??
Set is the most used set of three letter in the English language.

2. A whole is a relative part.

You said the whole is not a thing.

For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree.

No it is not.

A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

Are you saying subjective is not a thing too?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:25 pm 1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.
2. A whole is a relative part. For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree. A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

So you're a mereological idealist, according to whom there are no objective, perception-independent mereological facts about parts and wholes?

Everything is Not a Thing

Consul wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 1:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:25 pm 1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.
2. A whole is a relative part. For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree. A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

So you're a mereological idealist, according to whom there are no objective, perception-independent mereological facts about parts and wholes?

Are those who partake of a culture of belief amount to one mereological idealist?
May a species that cannot conceptualise , e.g. species that lack central nervous systems , be one mereological idealist?

If the answer to the above questions is "No" then does not the idea of mereological idealism depends on the idea of the autonomous individual?

socrat44 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:50 am Everything is Not a Thing.

The truth-value of this statement depends on what is meant by "thing"! Which meaning of "thing" do we want to use here?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:29 am
In directing my thoughts to everything I am pointing my awareness to a thing. Everything exists as a set of things.

Not a workable definition. A thing can be the whole individual too. and Everything is a thing which is a set of all things.

1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.

Set means nothing??
Set is the most used set of three letter in the English language.

2. A whole is a relative part.

You said the whole is not a thing.

For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree.

No it is not.

A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

Are you saying subjective is not a thing too?

1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.

Consul wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 1:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:25 pm 1. And this set is without comparison or contrast thus 'set' means nothing.
2. A whole is a relative part. For example, a whole orange is a part of a tree. A parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts, the whole/part dichotomy revolves around how a person localizes a phenomenon and as such is very subjective.

So you're a mereological idealist, according to whom there are no objective, perception-independent mereological facts about parts and wholes?

Perception is imprinting. When I perceive something I am imprinted by it and when I observe it further I imprint what is being observed. Under these terms everything which imprints or is imprinted by something else has the nature of observation within it...in other terms everything is conscious to some degree or another.

There is no such thing as a perception independent fact as a fact is an act of perception in the respect it is the manifestation of a category, it is the observation of a set of relations and this set of relations is the localization of one thing as standing apart from its surrounding. This act of localizing a set of relations from the whole necessitates a certain randomness as there is no rule for how or what can be localized from the whole. In these respects subjectivity is randomness.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:55 pm
1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

Not true.
You just have to know the context.

2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.

You are clearly very confused.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

QED my last statement.

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:55 pm
1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

Not true.
You just have to know the context.

2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.

You are clearly very confused.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

QED my last statement.

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

I think Eodnhodj is talking about the absolute whole(which is nearly unimaginable) and Sculptor is talking about relative wholes.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:07 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:55 pm
1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

Not true.
You just have to know the context.

2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.

You are clearly very confused.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

QED my last statement.

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

I think Eodnhodj is talking about the absolute whole(which is nearly unimaginable) and Sculptor is talking about relative wholes.

Either way "everything" is a thing.
To be charitable what he is trying for is Russel's paradox; Can a set of all things be in a set of itself.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:46 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:07 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pm
Not true.
You just have to know the context.

You are clearly very confused.

QED my last statement.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

I think Eodnhodj is talking about the absolute whole(which is nearly unimaginable) and Sculptor is talking about relative wholes.

Either way "everything" is a thing.
To be charitable what he is trying for is Russel's paradox; Can a set of all things be in a set of itself.

To present the question would mean the set all is self-conscious about itself.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:44 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:46 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:07 am

I think Eodnhodj is talking about the absolute whole(which is nearly unimaginable) and Sculptor is talking about relative wholes.

Either way "everything" is a thing.
To be charitable what he is trying for is Russel's paradox; Can a set of all things be in a set of itself.

To present the question would mean the set all is self-conscious about itself.

Please demonstrate.