Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:34 am The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it.
The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

Is there really 'something'?

Can anyone present a proper argument to explain the above?

double posting.

Note my response to the above;

viewtopic.php?p=386676#p386676
The absolute is illusory.
There is no proof either empirically nor rationally for it.
This is the same as the face illusion where your brain/mind had deceived you.

Note Hume proved 'cause and effect' is merely based on custom, habits and constant conjunctions.
It is the same for "there is something rather than nothing" because that was what your mind was programmed to believe. This is all psychology custom, habits and constant conjunctions and the existential crisis.
This is a more tenable explanation than simply throwing out claims without proofs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:34 am The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it.
The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

Is there really 'something'?

Can anyone present a proper argument to explain the above?

So this thread doesn't exist?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:34 am The dual is of course always contained within the nondual. But this means that the "I" is quite illusory.
There is only the indivisible, a priori nondual reality, the "absolute", if we want to put a word on it.
The only "proof" it needs is that there is something rather than nothing.

Is there really 'something'?

Can anyone present a proper argument to explain the above?

So this thread doesn't exist?

This thread exists relative to our existence and participation in it.

This thread does not exist on a non-dual absolute [as you claim above] basis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:00 am This thread exists relative to our existence and participation in it.

This thread does not exist on a non-dual absolute [as you claim above] basis.

The magical idea about the thread "existing" "relative" to "our" "existence" and "participation", is also part of the absolute.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:00 am This thread exists relative to our existence and participation in it.

This thread does not exist on a non-dual absolute [as you claim above] basis.

The magical idea about the thread "existing" "relative" to "our" "existence" and "participation", is also part of the absolute.

The problem is you cannot prove the "absolute" which is independent of the human conditions with human conditions i.e. either empirically or rationally or both.
Note the relevant meaning of 'absolute';

• -something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).
  
  the absolute,
  -something that is free from any restriction or condition.
  -something that is independent of some or all relations.
  -something that is perfect or complete.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:00 am This thread exists relative to our existence and participation in it.

This thread does not exist on a non-dual absolute [as you claim above] basis.

The magical idea about the thread "existing" "relative" to "our" "existence" and "participation", is also part of the absolute.

The problem is you cannot prove the "absolute" which is independent of the human conditions with human conditions i.e. either empirically or rationally or both.
Note the relevant meaning of 'absolute';

• -something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).
  
  the absolute,
  -something that is free from any restriction or condition.
  -something that is independent of some or all relations.
  -something that is perfect or complete.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

The human conditions, whatever you mean by them, are also part of the absolute.
The very fact that there are human conditions instead of there being nothing at all, shows that it makes no sense to dismiss the absolute.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:09 am
The magical idea about the thread "existing" "relative" to "our" "existence" and "participation", is also part of the absolute.

The problem is you cannot prove the "absolute" which is independent of the human conditions with human conditions i.e. either empirically or rationally or both.
Note the relevant meaning of 'absolute';

• -something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).
  
  the absolute,
  -something that is free from any restriction or condition.
  -something that is independent of some or all relations.
  -something that is perfect or complete.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

The human conditions, whatever you mean by them, are also part of the absolute.
The very fact that there are human conditions instead of there being nothing at all, shows that it makes no sense to dismiss the absolute.

Fact is, if it is part of the absolute, then, that 'absolute' cannot qualify to be an absolute-proper as defined above which must be;

-is not dependent upon external conditions
-free from any restriction or condition
-independent of all relations

If any absolute is dependent on any condition, then it is a relative absolute and not an absolute per se.
Note we have absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes, these are relative and conditional absolutes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:11 am Fact is, if it is part of the absolute, then, that 'absolute' cannot qualify to be an absolute-proper as defined above which must be;

-is not dependent upon external conditions
-free from any restriction or condition
-independent of all relations

If any absolute is dependent on any condition, then it is a relative absolute and not an absolute per se.
Note we have absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes, these are relative and conditional absolutes.

All dependencies, relations are contained within the nondual absolute. Some can be seen as illusory, some as entirely made up.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:11 am Fact is, if it is part of the absolute, then, that 'absolute' cannot qualify to be an absolute-proper as defined above which must be;

-is not dependent upon external conditions
-free from any restriction or condition
-independent of all relations

If any absolute is dependent on any condition, then it is a relative absolute and not an absolute per se.
Note we have absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes, these are relative and conditional absolutes.

All dependencies, relations are contained within the nondual absolute. Some can be seen as illusory, some as entirely made up.

Whatever subsets [All dependencies, relations, whatever is dual] are contained within a main set [nondual Absolute in this case] is always interrelated, dependent, and conditioned upon that main set.

Existence has many individual parts and is in a state of eternal change and it is also a single entity
This entity is known as non duality where all is one and everything is connected to everything else
There is no separate part of Existence which can exist in total isolation from the rest of Existence

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:28 am Existence has many individual parts and is in a state of eternal change and it is also a single entity
This entity is known as non duality where all is one and everything is connected to everything else
There is no separate part of Existence which can exist in total isolation from the rest of Existence

That implied co-existence, co-dependent, interdependent, conditional, thus cannot be absolutely absolute.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no separate part of Existence which can exist in total isolation from the rest of Existence

That implied co existence co dependent interdependent conditional thus cannot be absolutely absolute

Existence is a single entity and so is by definition absolutely absolute and nothing else
Having individual parts of it does not change this at all as it still just the one absolute
Naming something does not change the nature of that thing it just describes what it is

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no separate part of Existence which can exist in total isolation from the rest of Existence

That implied co existence co dependent interdependent conditional thus cannot be absolutely absolute

Existence is a single entity and so is by definition absolutely absolute and nothing else
Having individual parts of it does not change this at all as it still just the one absolute
Naming something does not change the nature of that thing it just describes what it is

Nah .. 'existence' cannot be an entity at all.
It is not even a predicate.
This is a very serious philosophical contention within the Philosophy Community.

The case is always this;

X exists as Y.
Exists is merely a copula that connect X with Y.
Thus what is most critical is to prove and verify X and Y not the copula 'exists' or 'is.'

This why 'God exists' is meaningless until one can show
"God exists as X, Y or Z" and verify the proposition as true with justifications.