Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:51 am

The ability to reason for human beings sets in about the age of six or seven. All organisms are born dependent on the context they are born into. At this point, they function on instinct.

Children distinguish what they want long before then.

That is a need, not the development of reason.

Reason is the process by how we need...it begins with distinctions, connecting and separating 'this and that'.
[/quote]

NONSENSE.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:30 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 2:59 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:02 pm

I clearly stated that one needs to be in a community to be an individual; they are mutually dependent terms. You are a generational pattern repeated from the patterns of your ancestors and defined by their former patterns, as your progeny pattern will be to yours.

Once more, when 'you' know the actual difference between the words, 'you', and, 'I', then 'you', also, will understand how 'you' are not an individual but 'I' am.

I, means you're alive, you are that which experiences.

Once again, can 'you' comprehend that there is a difference between who and what 'you' and who and what 'I' am, and, that the words, 'you', and, 'I' reference two very different things?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:30 am Have you ever had your memory wiped clean?

Why do 'you' ask questions that have absolutely nothing at all to do with what 'I' am pointing out, here?

'you' are not an individual. 'I' am an individual. And, when 'you' can, also, answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and Correctly, then 'you' will, also, know why 'you' are not an individual, but 'I' am an individual.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:30 am There, you have no identity, you're just alive, and it feels great.

What are 'you' on about, here. The 'identity' that would, actually, still remain is 'the one' that people like 'you', would 'attach' to 'this body'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:30 am We are assuming that the individual is in isolation; there have been such cases, and in these, your argument doesn't hold water.

What?

When, exactly, have there been such cases of 'the individual' is 'in isolation'?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:02 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 2:59 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:02 pm

I clearly stated that one needs to be in a community to be an individual; they are mutually dependent terms. You are a generational pattern repeated from the patterns of your ancestors and defined by their former patterns, as your progeny pattern will be to yours.

Once more, when 'you' know the actual difference between the words, 'you', and, 'I', then 'you', also, will understand how 'you' are not an individual but 'I' am.

Words are for communication, which already assumes community. Words are also qualifications and/or limitations, finding and defining in isolation, this does not occur with ones like kind.

And, in regards to 'I', there is no 'other', like kind. That is the whole point of 'I' being an 'individual'. Whereas, 'you' obviously are not, (that is, in 'the sense' that you are referring to, here).

Once again, when, and if, 'you' ever get to discover, or learn, and understand 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will also come to understand what 'I' am saying, and meaning, here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:04 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 11:15 pm

People are individuals in caves, apart from society. The context of what constitutes an individual is not limited to a community.

One's environmental context defines them, and they can be whatever the context tells them they are. The example of a newborn imprinting with the first living creature it comes in contact with at birth shows this to be the case.

If one is aware of the context that formed them they are not limited to it by necessity, by reflection identity changes and time is the sieve that filters such patterns for the act of reflection is the awareness of temporality merged within such identity.
[/quote]

So, 'you' are, only, because of 'the filters and patterns' around 'you', which obviously are influenced, and come from, 'the others' around 'you'. Which, and Correct 'me' if 'I' am wrong, here, "popeye1945", but is, more or less, the exact same point that "popeye" is wanting to get to, here. That is, 'you' are because of 'the others'. Which essentially means 'you' are not an individual.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:19 am

Meanings are biological experiences; when one's biology is altered by the outside world, this is experience/knowledge, the understanding of which is meaning.

Biology is a distinction, one of many. You cannot speak for or against the experience of other's if all truth is subjective.

Biology is the study of life, and truth is experience through understanding as meaning, a subjective process. We share a common biology that determines the true meaning on a subjective level; we assume that unless the subject is ill, they experience the same thing through the same biology. Truth to the individual is experience. Truth to a collective is an agreement on an experience.

Collectives differ in agreement between collectives, the distinguished truth of one collective is dependent upon the necessity of contrast a differing collective offers.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

Children distinguish what they want long before then.

That is a need, not the development of reason.

Reason is the process by how we need...it begins with distinctions, connecting and separating 'this and that'.

NONSENSE.
[/quote]

So need does not drive reason? Reason does not begin with making distinctions?

If that is the case than your argument is irrational nonsense of no necessity. Why? Because you do not see that reason begins with distinctions, if it does not begin with distinctions than it is indistinct, non-sensical by these degrees and you claim rationality with your assertions.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:08 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:06 am

A newborn is need and imprints on any living thing it first contacts. It doesn't know what it is.

Identity is but a snake that sheds many skins, the newborn is always present regardless of the age of the individual, by self reflection a man or woman becomes sustained by meaning.

One is born without identity and only acquires one through one's reactions to the environmental context one finds oneself in.

But, one can be born with identity/ies. For example,

1. "baby"
2. "boy", "girl", or 'it'.
3. "fred", "jane", or "popeye".
4. "he is black" or "she is blue eyed".

This is certainly not to say that the 'identy/ies' given to the 'new born baby' are True nor Correct, but just to point out that you older human beings can and do give 'identies' to human beings before 'they' are born and/or at birth.

So, an 'individual baby' is already 'not an individual' as 'it' has already been provided with 'an identity', by others. Meaning that 'it' is;
'an organism dependent upon a collective for its location identity as an individual', and, 'a generational pattern repeated from the patterns of its ancestors and defined by their former patterns,'

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:30 am Meanings are biological experiences processed through understanding, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. Nothing in the world has meaning in the absence of a conscious subject. Identity formation is an endless process until death closes the last chapter.

Which is why it could be said and argued that 'you are not an individual' and why 'I am an individual'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:54 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:08 am

Identity is but a snake that sheds many skins, the newborn is always present regardless of the age of the individual, by self reflection a man or woman becomes sustained by meaning.

One is born without identity and only acquires one through one's reactions to the environmental context one finds oneself in. Meanings are biological experiences processed through understanding, and biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Biology is the only source of meaning in the world. Nothing in the world has meaning in the absence of a conscious subject. Identity formation is an endless process until death closes the last chapter.

If one is born without identity than nothing is born.

So, well to 'this one' anyway, a sun can not be born if there is not a thing already existing with the ability to identify it/things. Which is, obviously, Truly illogical and irrational.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:51 am

The ability to reason for human beings sets in about the age of six or seven. All organisms are born dependent on the context they are born into. At this point, they function on instinct.

Children distinguish what they want long before then.

That is a need, not the development of reason.

Reason is the process by how we need...it begins with distinctions, connecting and separating 'this and that'.
[/quote]

All 'distinctions' are just a process of 'the brain', and is done so so that 'the brain' can make 'sense' of 'the world/Universe' in which it has found itself within.

Actual distinction, besides, of course, between 'matter' and 'the space' between 'matter' does not actually exist. See, it is only 'the brain' that makes up a False, imagined, or illusory distinction.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:19 am

Meanings are biological experiences; when one's biology is altered by the outside world, this is experience/knowledge, the understanding of which is meaning.

Biology is a distinction, one of many. You cannot speak for or against the experience of other's if all truth is subjective.

Biology is the study of life, and truth is experience through understanding as meaning, a subjective process. We share a common biology that determines the true meaning on a subjective level; we assume that unless the subject is ill, they experience the same thing through the same biology. Truth to the individual is experience. Truth to a collective is an agreement on an experience.

'truth' to an individual human being is also an agreement, and an acceptance, on its past experiences.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:02 pm
I clearly stated that one needs to be in a community to be an individual; they are mutually dependent terms. You are a generational pattern repeated from the patterns of your ancestors and defined by their former patterns, as your progeny pattern will be to yours.

There is no issue with the progeny idea, that's sound, coherent and in context to the topic.

There's no separate individual, or part individual independent of the whole.

Individuation is the principle of how a thing is identified as distinct from other things. It has different meanings and connotations in philosophy.

'Absolute Oneness' is undeniable metaphysics, the formless form of Individuation, is it not? And 'You' are this absolute oneness, are you not?

As for the progeny idea, that's also true within the illusion of separation, as in without Absolute Oneness, there is no You. The Absolute being everything, the many of the One.

And yes, a human society is not an individual entity, it is made of many people. If by society you mean it is likened to An ant colony, which is a population of ants,capable of maintaining their complete lifecycle. Ant colonies are eusocial, communal, and efficiently organised. Then yes, progeny is coherent in context to there being no separate individual.

But then once knowledge pops aware, this knowledge that I am can never be refuted, negated, or unknown. Something knows itself absolutely. That's the meta individual I'm talking about, in other words the ABSOLUTE

Absolute Oneness doesn't even need to have an identity, it can be completely nameless and still be one (individual) without doubt or error.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:40 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:53 am

Biology is a distinction, one of many. You cannot speak for or against the experience of other's if all truth is subjective.

Biology is the study of life, and truth is experience through understanding as meaning, a subjective process. We share a common biology that determines the true meaning on a subjective level; we assume that unless the subject is ill, they experience the same thing through the same biology. Truth to the individual is experience. Truth to a collective is an agreement on an experience.

'truth' to an individual human being is also an agreement, and an acceptance, on its past experiences.

Yes that sounds about right.

“Never forget that the universe is a single living organism possessed of one substance and one soul, holding all things suspended in a single consciousness and creating all things with a single purpose that they might work together spinning and weaving and knotting whatever comes to pass.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:56 am

It's not semantics to a person having a self revealing dialogue in a cave alone.

I agree with that statement. Self introspection reveals I cannot experience my own absence. I must have always existed in one form or another.

This is all poetry anyway - ''The desire to know your own soul will end all other desires''
~Rumi

To distinguish what you are not you arrive at what you are. You can be, but you cannot not be.

That's my definition of Individual, and I'm keeping it.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:40 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:05 am

Biology is the study of life, and truth is experience through understanding as meaning, a subjective process. We share a common biology that determines the true meaning on a subjective level; we assume that unless the subject is ill, they experience the same thing through the same biology. Truth to the individual is experience. Truth to a collective is an agreement on an experience.

'truth' to an individual human being is also an agreement, and an acceptance, on its past experiences.

Yes that sounds about right.

“Never forget that the universe is a single living organism possessed of one substance and one soul,

Again, one substance = 'matter', (with 'space/distance' between 'it'), and One Spirit = 'Mind'.

'soul' is not the Right word, here, but where and why, exactly, the confusion, and misinterpretation, is, as always, very understandable.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:51 am holding all things suspended in a single consciousness and creating all things with a single purpose that they might work together spinning and weaving and knotting whatever comes to pass.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations[/i]

The purpose, eventually, is for all to live together, in peace and in harmony, as One.

And, 'this' is obviously done by 'working together', as One, and 'not working in conflict, disagreement, nor in misunderstanding with 'each other'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 7:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:56 am

It's not semantics to a person having a self revealing dialogue in a cave alone.

I agree with that statement. Self introspection reveals I cannot experience my own absence. I must have always existed in one form or another.

This is all poetry anyway - ''The desire to know your own soul will end all other desires''
~Rumi

To distinguish what you are not you arrive at what you are. You can be, but you cannot not be.

That's my definition of Individual, and I'm keeping it.

That is where it gets interesting.

Through introspection the self becomes interacting symbols that are thetical and antithetical, one could say light and dark and various grades that reflect this nature, the presence of one symbol is observed as absent within the other symbol, thus the actualized self is aware of its potential, what it is not and what it is not provides the contrast for what it is.

The limits of the self encapsulate what it is not thus relegating each part of the self as a relative absence of what it could be thus the self is ignorant of itself due to the potentiality it is aware of, in being aware of one's potentiality one is aware of the limits of their awareness...an awareness of an absence of the self in some degree or another.

We are the absence of ourselves thus we can only be seen as but a process.