Philosophy Now Forum

I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:

There is not nothing.

There is thinking.

Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.

Thinking has to be moving or exists from a moving thing. Nothing doesn't move. Ha. Nothing is the relativity in thought and that is consciousness. Consciousness is the unmoving no thing which moves all things in existance thought included.

there is something - (there is not nothing sounds conflated)

senses, sensed things, things in themselves, senses in themselves, Brains in vats ... any/none - regardless, there is "something" (and not necessarily tangible)



I; therefore, I



justification?

the essence of the cogito is this: (let's leave the fact that is the basis for his argument for god out of it for now)

there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks

noun does verb; therefore, noun's existence is proven because verb is done

language is absolutely true by definition

belief in language is problematic... (god remains dead)


I; therefore, I

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks

Doesn't follow unless you assume that thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. I think that is true, but it isn't logically necessary. I take your point about I; therefore, I.

Yeah relativity is the nonmoving thinker via the brain. Think about it in between thoughts there is a nonmoving relativity or the thoughts would not relate to one onther. Thats what consciousness is nonmoving relativity of a action. And a thought is an action. God dont move but is relative.

uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:

There is not nothing.

There is thinking.

Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.

Over egged it. While it may be true there is not nothing, one could have sentience with no thought, but pure feeling.

Thoughts come from feelings(something) . Feeling come from consiouse awareness(nothing). The relativity between thoughts is unmoving consciousness. And thats the absolute trurh no bout bout a dout it.

uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:

There is not nothing.

There is thinking.

Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.

The first is meaningless unless you can tell us what a nothing could consist of - and don't say 'nothing,' that's circular. Can't say 'something' either or you contradict yourself, so your hands are tied. 'There's nothing that isn't either 'something' or 'nothing' is there?' = 'Everything is either something or nothing' - therefore, 'Everything.'

I think Parmenides was limited to saying 'The one is one' for similar reasons.

uwot wrote:

Impenitent wrote:there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks

Doesn't follow unless you assume that thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. I think that is true, but it isn't logically necessary. I take your point about I; therefore, I.

Would you be happy with the minimalist claim there is thinking in the world?

As I see it: truth is what is true (real, factual, actual), so...

"There is not nothing", that is, 'there is something'. Sure...obvious...unremarkable.

"There is thinking" Sure...obvious...unremarkable.

I'm not sayin' that 'something' is not remarkable, or that 'thinking' is not remarkable.

I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.

er...what's the point of the thread again?

Impenitent wrote:there is something - (there is not nothing sounds conflated)

senses, sensed things, things in themselves, senses in themselves, Brains in vats ... any/none - regardless, there is "something" (and not necessarily tangible)



I; therefore, I



justification?

the essence of the cogito is this: (let's leave the fact that is the basis for his argument for god out of it for now)

there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks

noun does verb; therefore, noun's existence is proven because verb is done

language is absolutely true by definition

Absolute nonsense.

It makes no sense to say "language is true by definition", what is true about it? ..ramblings! ......the rest of the post is also mad rablings.

Wyman wrote:The first is meaningless unless you can tell us what a nothing could consist of - and don't say 'nothing,' that's circular.

Then 'nothing' is meaningless. Personally I don't see the logic in insisting that nothing has to be anything, but since the point is that there isn't nothing, it's moot anyway.

Ginkgo wrote:Would you be happy with the minimalist claim there is thinking in the world?

I'm happy with a lot of claims about the world, but not as absolute claims.

henry quirk wrote:I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.

er...what's the point of the thread again?

That, remarkably, those two things are the only things which are true absolutely. There are no other absolute truths that I am aware of; all other facts are contingent: they happen to be true but could be otherwise; or tautological: they are true by definition. It is self-refuting to proclaim (absolutely) nothing exists, or to think there is no thinking.

Got it now...

uwot wrote:

henry quirk wrote:I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.

er...what's the point of the thread again?

That, remarkably, those two things are the only things which are true absolutely. There are no other absolute truths that I am aware of; all other facts are contingent: they happen to be true but could be otherwise; or tautological: they are true by definition. It is self-refuting to proclaim (absolutely) nothing exists, or to think there is no thinking.

For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.

And certainly most people would believe your two points to be true.

However I am not sure how one progresses from 'true' to 'absolutely true'.

That said those two 'truths' make an excellent foundation for philosophy. The task is then to build upon those in a rigorous fashion to create a picture of the world.

Too much of philosophy is based upon fantasies and opinions that have no firm foundations. Discussions about those fantasies and opinions create a lot of hot air, but without sound foundations, that is all they produce.

uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:

There is not nothing.

There is thinking.

Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.

As to thinking, I would go so far as to say that it's not necessarily you doing the thinking. That just because it seems to originate in your head, does not mean it doesn't come from somewhere else. Until science absolutely nails down consciousness, I find myself wondering otherwise. Mind you, it's just a fanciful thought, considering that we are children of the universe, that the universe is humankind's parents. Or should I say, "Earth-Life's parents." Just wondering how far removed we actually are from that which caused us to exist, you know, electromagnetic energy, electricity, synapses, motor movement, stars of elements of positive and negative potentials and all universal stuff of invisible forces that remain to be fully understood.

Grandiose, I know, but so is the universe.