Philosophy Now Forum

If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

In this sense the man is existentially dependent upon the child.

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

- William Wordsworth

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

What if a child saves a father's life later on in life. His continued existence would then be dependent on his child. Besides, many parents have expectations of children taking care of them in old age.

Is that a satisfactory exception?

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:52 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

What if a child saves a father's life later on in life. His continued existence would then be dependent on his child. Besides, many parents have expectations of children taking care of them in old age.

Is that a satisfactory exception?

I don't think so.

Does the parent's life after the child is born count as being the parent's life prior to the birth of the child?

The parent's life after s/he is being taken care of by the child is not the parent's life prior to being taken care of by the child.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:52 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

What if a child saves a father's life later on in life. His continued existence would then be dependent on his child. Besides, many parents have expectations of children taking care of them in old age.

Is that a satisfactory exception?

The parents' continued existence is existentially dependent upon the child. The continued existence is not prior to being saved.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:15 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:52 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

What if a child saves a father's life later on in life. His continued existence would then be dependent on his child. Besides, many parents have expectations of children taking care of them in old age.

Is that a satisfactory exception?

The parents' continued existence is existentially dependent upon the child. The continued existence is not prior to being saved.

The potential existence is prior. Come to think of it, the potential existence of the child is also prior to the parents existence. Either way, it's still existential dependancy

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:22 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:15 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:52 pm

What if a child saves a father's life later on in life. His continued existence would then be dependent on his child. Besides, many parents have expectations of children taking care of them in old age.

Is that a satisfactory exception?

The parents' continued existence is existentially dependent upon the child. The continued existence is not prior to being saved.

The potential existence is prior. Come to think of it, the potential existence of the child is also prior to the parents existence. Either way, it's still existential dependancy

Make an argument.

If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

If A is existentially dependent upon B, then A cannot exist prior to B. If A exists prior to B, then A cannot be existentially dependent upon B.

Fill in the values. Show me how your example is a valid exception.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

the chicken is throwing eggs at you

-Imp

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

Existence is repitition as directed movement.

This fundamentally breaks down to the "tautologies being composed of further tautologies" argument in both form and function.

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:30 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:22 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:15 pm

The parents' continued existence is existentially dependent upon the child. The continued existence is not prior to being saved.

The potential existence is prior. Come to think of it, the potential existence of the child is also prior to the parents existence. Either way, it's still existential dependancy

Make an argument.

I already did. Not my fault you aren't following.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:52 pm

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

the chicken is throwing eggs at you

-Imp

Existential dependency is powerful when and if we know which came first. We do not always. Those cases are irrelevant.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:41 am

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:30 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:22 pm
The potential existence is prior. Come to think of it, the potential existence of the child is also prior to the parents existence. Either way, it's still existential dependancy

Make an argument.

I already did. Not my fault you aren't following.

Don't make yourself look like a fool. What you presented was an invalid objection. Do yourself a favor and fill in the values of A and B, and you'll quickly realize that your candidate is not a problem for existential dependency.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:25 am

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

This fundamentally breaks down to the "tautologies being composed of further tautologies" argument in both form and function.

Existential dependency has nothing to do with definitions. It would be that way regardless of whether or not we ever took it into proper account... unlike "bachelors"...

creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:08 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:25 am

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:24 am If something is existentially dependent upon something else, then it cannot exist prior to that something else. If something exists prior to something else, then it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

There are no exceptions.

Any challenges?

This fundamentally breaks down to the "tautologies being composed of further tautologies" argument in both form and function.

Existential dependency has nothing to do with definitions. It would be that way regardless of whether or not we ever took it into proper account... unlike "bachelors"...

Actually it has everything to do with defintion, as defintion in the sense of language or strictly empirical being is strictly connection and separation. To argue any form of dependency neccessitates a form of connection, where one's being is dependented upon a connection to existence, or separation, where the self is separate from existence.

This nature of connection observes one axiom (self evident truth) directed towards another axiom with this axiom in turn dorected back towards the previous. Both axioms are directed towards eachother through eachother as each other as connected, hence one.

Dually the separation of one axiom, past itself towards another, necessitates a form of separation through individuation as a simultaneous multiplication/division.

Defintion, as both separation and connection, necessitves a form of directed movement which in turn gives a foundation to the nature of being and any existential crisis or dependency is merely a form of contradiction.