Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm "Thanks a million Henry for graciously taking all that time to respond to me point by point"



#

"you have helped me to see that I need to include a more in-depth explanation of what I am attempting to impart to Others in my opening statement."

I misread you that badly? If so, the fault is mine, not yours.

Henry;
No, I do not mean that I think you have misread me; I simply suddenly realized I need to efficiently supply more info. regarding how human action cannot start on the basis of given states of affairs like laws...

upsurgent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm "Thanks a million Henry for graciously taking all that time to respond to me point by point"



#

"you have helped me to see that I need to include a more in-depth explanation of what I am attempting to impart to Others in my opening statement."

I misread you that badly? If so, the fault is mine, not yours.

Henry;
No, I do not mean that I think you have misread me; I simply suddenly realized I need to efficiently supply more info. regarding how human action cannot start on the basis of given states of affairs like laws...

I think your opening was fine, but revise as you will. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:33 am

upsurgent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:22 pm "Thanks a million Henry for graciously taking all that time to respond to me point by point"



#

"you have helped me to see that I need to include a more in-depth explanation of what I am attempting to impart to Others in my opening statement."

I misread you that badly? If so, the fault is mine, not yours.

Henry;
No, I do not mean that I think you have misread me; I simply suddenly realized I need to efficiently supply more info. regarding how human action cannot start on the basis of given states of affairs like laws...

I think your opening was fine, but revise as you will. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Henry;
Upon reflection I see that the Sartreian language I quoted supplies the perfect concise explanation of why a human act does not and cannot arise on the basis of given factual states of the world; so, I will leave the very first sentence as is, for, I was seeking brevity and attempting to boil my position down to one page, which, if it gains acceptance/understanding, can be joined to oodles of extant pages concerning the same subject, ready at hand, to consolidate and proffer as a larger work.
Duane

Sounds good.

upsurgent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:41 am A concrete thing is a being-in-itself and fully coincides with itself in an identity A=A; it is fully and wholly coincident with itself and exhibits no hiatus within its being; it is what it is and cannot be characterized as being what it is not; only consciousness is what it is not... A consciousness is a being-for-itself which, according to Martin Heidegger, is like a coiled worm with nothingness lying at its heart. Only consciousness/being-for-itself is not what it is and is what it is not and, does not coincide with itself. There are three regions of being: being-in-itself; being-for-itself; and, being-for-itself-in-itself, or, the enscausasui, which we humans vainly pursue, wherein we would have both the concrete immortality of concrete being, and consciousness...
Duane

Why would the law be based on a philosophical word salad?

The law speaks of human subjects, where A=A merely means person A throughout his/her entire life. The 10-year-old person A isn't molecule by molecule identical to the 20-year-old person A, but before the law we are still talking about the same person A.

Consciousness here is person A's individual consciousness, not some universal empty existence itself, what would that have to do with the law?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:24 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:41 am A concrete thing is a being-in-itself and fully coincides with itself in an identity A=A; it is fully and wholly coincident with itself and exhibits no hiatus within its being; it is what it is and cannot be characterized as being what it is not; only consciousness is what it is not... A consciousness is a being-for-itself which, according to Martin Heidegger, is like a coiled worm with nothingness lying at its heart. Only consciousness/being-for-itself is not what it is and is what it is not and, does not coincide with itself. There are three regions of being: being-in-itself; being-for-itself; and, being-for-itself-in-itself, or, the enscausasui, which we humans vainly pursue, wherein we would have both the concrete immortality of concrete being, and consciousness...
Duane

Why would the law be based on a philosophical word salad?

The law speaks of human subjects, where A=A merely means person A throughout his/her entire life. The 10-year-old person A isn't molecule by molecule identical to the 20-year-old person A, but before the law we are still talking about the same person A.

Consciousness here is person A's individual consciousness, not some universal empty existence itself, what would that have to do with the law?

Alta;
It is impossible to comprehend your questions, and, you need to differentiate between concrete substance being identical to itself as in A=A, and, a consciousness, which is not identical with it's present and, is always an elsewhere somewhere in the future.
What do you mean by law not being based on a philosophical word salad ? Your second question I find wholly unintelligible...
Duane

upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:59 pm Alta;
It is impossible to comprehend your questions, and, you need to differentiate between concrete substance being identical to itself as in A=A, and, a consciousness, which is not identical with it's present and, is always an elsewhere somewhere in the future.
What do you mean by law not being based on a philosophical word salad ? Your second question I find wholly unintelligible...
Duane

I meant that the sentence

you need to differentiate between concrete substance being identical to itself as in A=A, and, a consciousness, which is not identical with it's present and, is always an elsewhere somewhere in the future.

is wholly unintelligible.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:02 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:59 pm Alta;
It is impossible to comprehend your questions, and, you need to differentiate between concrete substance being identical to itself as in A=A, and, a consciousness, which is not identical with it's present and, is always an elsewhere somewhere in the future.
What do you mean by law not being based on a philosophical word salad ? Your second question I find wholly unintelligible...
Duane

I meant that the sentence

you need to differentiate between concrete substance being identical to itself as in A=A, and, a consciousness, which is not identical with it's present and, is always an elsewhere somewhere in the future.

is wholly unintelligible.

Atla;
I had not yet written that sentence, so, your previous post could not have been regarding that sentence; the sentence is not unintelligible, it is simply that you have not studied Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", 1943, wherein he explains being-in-itself as an identity A=A, and, that's okay...no sweat.
Duane

upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:23 pm Atla;
I had not yet written that sentence, so, your previous post could not have been regarding that sentence; the sentence is not unintelligible, it is simply that you have not studied Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", 1943, wherein he explains being-in-itself as an identity A=A, and, that's okay...no sweat.
Duane

Hmm you're right, I read about Sartre's Being and Nothingness now, and in all honestly I can't seem to find a single sentence there that's relevant to how the world works. Is this some kind of outdated and random hypothesizing based on how things seemed to him subjectively, packed into a private language, or what is this?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:51 am

upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:23 pm Atla;
I had not yet written that sentence, so, your previous post could not have been regarding that sentence; the sentence is not unintelligible, it is simply that you have not studied Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", 1943, wherein he explains being-in-itself as an identity A=A, and, that's okay...no sweat.
Duane

Hmm you're right, I read about Sartre's Being and Nothingness now, and in all honestly I can't seem to find a single sentence there that's relevant to how the world works. Is this some kind of outdated and random hypothesizing based on how things seemed to him subjectively, packed into a private language, or what is this?

Atla;
One cannot gain much by reading about someone's writing, to read about Sartre is a vain waste, no, go to the horse's mouth directly. Yes, it is not easy reading for the beginner...
No the language employed is not a private language; rather, the language of existential ontology unfolded over the centuries from Baruch Spinoza in the seventeenth century; to G.W.F. Hegel in the eighteenth and nineteenth century; to Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre in the twentieth century. I gave a nutshell history of the development of Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" into French existential thought regarding how a human act originates, in the one page thesis I posted on this site. What it is is that Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature for his ilk of writing and, it is writing which is not outdated and is still radically influential in the world of thought; and, certainly, it is not mere random hypothesis predicated seemingly upon private subjectivity. You sound to be still very wet behind the ears, and your callow take on Sartre is very funny !
Duane

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:51 am

upsurgent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:23 pm Atla;
I had not yet written that sentence, so, your previous post could not have been regarding that sentence; the sentence is not unintelligible, it is simply that you have not studied Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", 1943, wherein he explains being-in-itself as an identity A=A, and, that's okay...no sweat.
Duane

Hmm you're right, I read about Sartre's Being and Nothingness now, and in all honestly I can't seem to find a single sentence there that's relevant to how the world works. Is this some kind of outdated and random hypothesizing based on how things seemed to him subjectively, packed into a private language, or what is this?

Atla;
One cannot gain much by reading about someone's writing, to read about Sartre is a vain waste, no, go to the horse's mouth directly. Yes, it is not easy reading for the beginner...
No the language employed is not a private language; rather, the language of existential ontology unfolded over the centuries from Baruch Spinoza in the seventeenth century; to G.W.F. Hegel in the eighteenth and nineteenth century; to Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre in the twentieth century. I gave a nutshell history of the development of Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" into French existential thought regarding how a human act originates, in the one page thesis I posted on this site. What it is is that Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature for his ilk of writing and, it is writing which is not outdated and is still radically influential in the world of thought; and, certainly, it is not mere random hypothesis predicated seemingly upon private subjectivity. You sound to be still very wet behind the ears, and your callow take on Sartre is very funny !
Duane

Hmm well this was interesting. I'm coming from the angle of modern science and psychology (and Eastern nondualism), and all I see here is a system of backwards thinking nonsense. I already understand the problem of free will well enough, so maybe I'm not missing out by skipping this one. (Isn't actually the point you're making that this way of thinking is backwards?)

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:13 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:51 am
Hmm you're right, I read about Sartre's Being and Nothingness now, and in all honestly I can't seem to find a single sentence there that's relevant to how the world works. Is this some kind of outdated and random hypothesizing based on how things seemed to him subjectively, packed into a private language, or what is this?

Atla;
One cannot gain much by reading about someone's writing, to read about Sartre is a vain waste, no, go to the horse's mouth directly. Yes, it is not easy reading for the beginner...
No the language employed is not a private language; rather, the language of existential ontology unfolded over the centuries from Baruch Spinoza in the seventeenth century; to G.W.F. Hegel in the eighteenth and nineteenth century; to Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre in the twentieth century. I gave a nutshell history of the development of Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" into French existential thought regarding how a human act originates, in the one page thesis I posted on this site. What it is is that Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature for his ilk of writing and, it is writing which is not outdated and is still radically influential in the world of thought; and, certainly, it is not mere random hypothesis predicated seemingly upon private subjectivity. You sound to be still very wet behind the ears, and your callow take on Sartre is very funny !
Duane

Hmm well this was interesting. I'm coming from the angle of modern science and psychology (and Eastern nondualism), and all I see here is a system of backwards thinking nonsense. I already understand the problem of free will well enough, so maybe I'm not missing out by skipping this one. (Isn't actually the point you're making that this way of thinking is backwards?)

Atla;
Unfortunately you are proceeding via pure assertion wholly absent reasoned argument against my position. My position is in fact indefeasible, and, certainly is not deposed via mere nonsensical assertion. Structure a reasoned argument against my position and thereby engage in polemic, for reasoned polemic is what philosophy centrally is; otherwise, you accomplish nothing via mere assertion that my writing is backward nonsense ! You clearly lack the toughmindedness, intellectual instrumentation, and ability to overthrow my position via reason. I tire of your immature accusations absent reasoned explanation of your assertions...
Duane

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:41 pm Atla;
Unfortunately you are proceeding via pure assertion wholly absent reasoned argument against my position. My position is in fact indefeasible, and, certainly is not deposed via mere nonsensical assertion. Structure a reasoned argument against my position and thereby engage in polemic, for reasoned polemic is what philosophy centrally is; otherwise, you accomplish nothing via mere assertion that my writing is backward nonsense ! You clearly lack the toughmindedness, intellectual instrumentation, and ability to overthrow my position via reason. I tire of your immature accusations absent reasoned explanation of your assertions...
Duane

I don't know what your position is. What does this mean for example?

law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:25 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:41 pm Atla;
Unfortunately you are proceeding via pure assertion wholly absent reasoned argument against my position. My position is in fact indefeasible, and, certainly is not deposed via mere nonsensical assertion. Structure a reasoned argument against my position and thereby engage in polemic, for reasoned polemic is what philosophy centrally is; otherwise, you accomplish nothing via mere assertion that my writing is backward nonsense ! You clearly lack the toughmindedness, intellectual instrumentation, and ability to overthrow my position via reason. I tire of your immature accusations absent reasoned explanation of your assertions...
Duane

I don't know what your position is. What does this mean for example?

law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything

Atla,
One of the three regions of Being is Being-In-Itself. Being-in-itself is defined as being identical with itself, being wholly and concretely only what it is. In philosophy identity is expressed as A=A. I am maintaining that language of law is a concrete identity which coincides wholly with itself as in A=A; whereas, Consciousness is a Being-For-Itself, and, does not coincide with itself, is always outside itself acting in pursuit of a non yet realized future; thus law, as an in-itself, cannot form projects to transcend itself/get out of itself in order to achieve action toward an end goal, which goal is a not yet or non-existent nothing.

I am saying that jurisprudentially oriented scholars are mistakenly presupposing language of law to be a determinative force in the world, upon which they predicate their putative determinations to punish persons by law, even to the point of capital death; thus killing others purely on the basis of what is fundamentally the mistaken presupposition that the being-in-itself that is law is a forceful efficacy among men. In philosophy the most powerful possible means of overthrowing the position of an opponent is to expose his mistaken presupposition(s). I am showing that the jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is a determinative force among men is a radically mistaken presupposition, thus destroying the most rudimentary basis of law. Jurisprudence has not ever thought to examine the fundamental presupposition which underlies the practice of law, and, thus expose their weltanschauung to destruction at the theoretical level, and, the destruction of the most fundamental presupposition entertained by jurisprudence is precisely what I have done. I defy you to find anything which rises to the status of radically new and powerful polemic than the theoretical overthrow of the very notion of law. Nothing could be more revolutionary my tender and callow young fellow...
Duane

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:58 pm Atla,
One of the three regions of Being is Being-In-Itself. Being-in-itself is defined as being identical with itself, being wholly and concretely only what it is. In philosophy identity is expressed as A=A. I am maintaining that language of law is a concrete identity which coincides wholly with itself as in A=A; whereas, Consciousness is a Being-For-Itself, and, does not coincide with itself, is always outside itself acting in pursuit of a non yet realized future; thus law, as an in-itself, cannot form projects to transcend itself/get out of itself in order to achieve action toward an end goal, which goal is a not yet or non-existent nothing.

I see. This way of thinking is nonsense. The Being-In-Itself and Being-for-itself you mention do not belong into the same sense/category/level/whatever of consideration.

In a technical and rather concrete sense, everything is itself. Law is itself. Rock is itself. The mechanism of consciousness (I'm trying to use your definition of consciousness, but I've never seen this one used before in philosophy) is itself. Which is described as A = A.

In another and rather abstract sense, the "content" of the above consciousness points to outside of itself. I guess you could say the same about the law: it's a text created by humans, and its "content" points to real-world-events outside of itself.

But the latter sense is rather abstract and has no bearing on ontology.

I am saying that jurisprudentially oriented scholars are mistakenly presupposing language of law to be a determinative force in the world
...

You sure? I doubt anyone with half a brain would make such an unbelievable mistake..