Philosophy Now Forum

I have this box sitting in the back of my storage room collecting dust. Does anybody want it?

the dust, the storage room or the box?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:08 am the dust, the storage room or the box?

-Imp

You can have both the box AND the dust if you'd like. But the room is going to have to stay. I've got other stuff in there that I still need the room for.

if you remove the box, will new dust fill the room?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:20 am if you remove the box, will new dust fill the room?

-Imp

Depends if you want the dust with the box. If not, it'll have both old dust from the box and whatever else that might accumulate in time. But I'm not giving away the new dust, anyways. Maybe in a year or so I might though.

don't tell Kansas...

-Imp

I initiated this with the intent of trying the D&D way of play and with the hopes of 'leading' people's own responses (with fun) towards a specific meaning. It obviously didn't take off but I simultaneously did it elsewhere where it had (though haven't been there to continue....yet).

The idea is that I think any issue in philosophy is about trying to deeply expose ideas to their core and try to find some common patterns of thought that attempt to 'uncover' some truth or express another's ideas of 'truth' (or falsity) about reality. This is most generally summed up using a box that has indeterminate 'contents' to which we apply some question mark to and want to investigate.

For this exercise, though incompleted here, let the box represent any 'unknown' and then, if we cannot question 'open' it for whatever reason, we can at least begin to address it by seeing what it can do as a mere 'symbol' of the contents. That is, we treat the box/container as a form of REAL thing in itself yet only a referent to something it holds inside. If we discover we can open it, we'd still have further 'boxes' of unknowns inside it, potentially to infinity. Thus, keeping with the assumption that some box at some point will not be 'openable', we can still "construct" a basic logic that addresses any number of such containers.

Because all unopenable containers are equally indeterminate, we allow them all to be EQUAL to each other by that meaning. In set theory, for instance, the 'unopenable' container is the so-called, "empty set". But it assumes this set, as a type of container or box, is IN FACT 'empty' by meaning. Instead, I think that although we can call this ultimate 'elemental' concept 'empty', with respect to reality, the actual contents could be anything 'absolute', where "absolute" refers to "that which is ultimately unique and cannot be broken down into further structure or parts.

The 'absolute-absolutes' would be such that we couldn't even be sure of enabling it to be 'contained' because it would then logically SHARE the attribute: "containable things", or things that we can "point to" (which means the same thing in this context. However, the meaning of it such possible extreme absolutes, while they may not be pointable to, are still indifferent to those empty sets in that we cannot open them to even determine they are 'empty' AND, if they have no referent, mean that the containers that are expected to 'point-to' its contents may lack a real referent. But this is indifferent to calling it 'empty', right?

Furthermore, if the container COULD contain even 'relative' absolutes, the nature of being unable to open them further suffices to still assert them as 'empty' ...or that these unopenable containers are sufficiently EQUAL in meaning. We don't require accepting that the containers are literally 'empty' but that whatever possible BEHAVIOR described by what we DO observe in reality can be describable using ONLY containers in the form of 'points' in some space.

This was the intent here and I readressed this to also provide a link to my discussion in the thread, Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an(y) origin...[OP]. I will now link a post from page 4 of that to this one as it may be useful to help discuss the problems in that thread.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm I initiated this with the intent of trying the D&D way of play and with the hopes of 'leading' people's own responses (with fun) towards a specific meaning. It obviously didn't take off but I simultaneously did it elsewhere where it had (though haven't been there to continue....yet).

The idea is that I think any issue in philosophy

What does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to 'you'?

To me, there is NO 'issue' IN 'philosophy' and NEVER could be AN issue IN 'philosophy'.

This because of where the word 'philosophy' originated from.

But since you have OBVIOUSLY changed the word 'philosophy' to mean something else, to you, then this is WHY you think or BELIEVE there ARE 'issues' IN "philosophy".

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm is about trying to deeply expose ideas to their core and try to find some common patterns of thought that attempt to 'uncover' some truth or express another's ideas of 'truth' (or falsity) about reality.

This can be and has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

The reason WHY human beings, like 'you', are STILL 'trying to' UNCOVER thee ACTUAL Truth is because of the way you currently, in the days of when this is being written, LOOK AT and SEE things.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm This is most generally summed up using a box that has indeterminate 'contents' to which we apply some question mark to and want to investigate.

I found that by just OPENING 'the box' UP, then ALL can be and IS REVEALED.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm For this exercise, though incompleted here, let the box represent any 'unknown' and then, if we cannot question 'open' it for whatever reason, we can at least begin to address it by seeing what it can do as a mere 'symbol' of the contents. That is, we treat the box/container as a form of REAL thing in itself yet only a referent to something it holds inside.

But WHY PRESUME or ASSUME absolutely ANY thing? Especially when 'presumptions' AND 'assumptions' can lead one astray so simply AND so easily.

WHY NOT just OPEN the box? And, if you can NOT do that, then just ACCEPT THIS FACT. This will OBVIOUSLY be thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm If we discover we can open it, we'd still have further 'boxes' of unknowns inside it, potentially to infinity.

Yet ANOTHER ASSUMPTION.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm Thus, keeping with the assumption that some box at some point will not be 'openable', we can still "construct" a basic logic that addresses any number of such containers.

ALL of this is BASED on ASSUMPTIONS/PRESUMPTIONS, ALONE. Which is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth of things. And this helps, through SHOWING, and in EXPLAINING WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are STILL looking for what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS EXACTLY.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm Because all unopenable containers are equally indeterminate, we allow them all to be EQUAL to each other by that meaning. In set theory, for instance, the 'unopenable' container is the so-called, "empty set". But it assumes this set, as a type of container or box, is IN FACT 'empty' by meaning. Instead, I think that although we can call this ultimate 'elemental' concept 'empty', with respect to reality, the actual contents could be anything 'absolute', where "absolute" refers to "that which is ultimately unique and cannot be broken down into further structure or parts.

BUT WHY make, what IS ESSENTIALLY SO SIMPLE and EASY, appear to be SO COMPLEX and HARD?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm The 'absolute-absolutes' would be such that we couldn't even be sure of enabling it to be 'contained' because it would then logically SHARE the attribute: "containable things", or things that we can "point to" (which means the same thing in this context. However, the meaning of it such possible extreme absolutes, while they may not be pointable to, are still indifferent to those empty sets in that we cannot open them to even determine they are 'empty' AND, if they have no referent, mean that the containers that are expected to 'point-to' its contents may lack a real referent. But this is indifferent to calling it 'empty', right?

Do you think that it would be FAR EASIER to just LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS instead of 'TRYING' ALL of these different things in your ATTEMPTS to 'try to' make up some 'theory', of yours?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm Furthermore, if the container COULD contain even 'relative' absolutes, the nature of being unable to open them further suffices to still assert them as 'empty' ...or that these unopenable containers are sufficiently EQUAL in meaning. We don't require accepting that the containers are literally 'empty' but that whatever possible BEHAVIOR described by what we DO observe in reality can be describable using ONLY containers in the form of 'points' in some space.

This is OBVIOUSLY NOT the, supposedly, "ONLY" way of LOOKING AT 'things'.

'Trying to' use the word 'container' in relation to LOOKING AT and DESCRIBING thee infinite AND eternal Universe, Itself, is just as ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as it LOOKS and SOUNDS here.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm This was the intent here and I readressed this to also provide a link to my discussion in the thread, Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an(y) origin...[OP]. I will now link a post from page 4 of that to this one as it may be useful to help discuss the problems in that thread.

There is NO 'problem' in that thread, which has NOT ALREADY been ANSWERED and SOLVED.

There is OBVIOUSLY NO 'origin'. So, there is NO question regarding whether there was Absolutely Nothing, absolutely existing, and that dreamed up and imagined 'origin'.

'you', human beings, in the days of when this was being written, only SEE or BELIEVE there was an 'origin' because this is what was written in RELIGIOUS and SCIENTIFIC texts.

One actually is EXPLAINING thee Truth, but NOT in the conception/interpretation that most of 'you' think or believe it means.

The other is just making ASSUMPTIONS, based on pre-existing thoughts and/or BELIEFS.

I will let 'you' work out which one is which. But thee ANSWER is VERY OBVIOUS.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:12 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm I initiated this with the intent of trying the D&D way of play and with the hopes of 'leading' people's own responses (with fun) towards a specific meaning. It obviously didn't take off but I simultaneously did it elsewhere where it had (though haven't been there to continue....yet).

The idea is that I think any issue in philosophy

What does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to 'you'?

To me, there is NO 'issue' IN 'philosophy' and NEVER could be AN issue IN 'philosophy'.

This because of where the word 'philosophy' originated from.

But since you have OBVIOUSLY changed the word 'philosophy' to mean something else, to you, then this is WHY you think or BELIEVE there ARE 'issues' IN "philosophy".

Go away, please! You are creating red herrings that distract the intent of the thread with absurd trivialized concerns. If you cannot address the intentional issue at hand, you are trolling me, not asking nor contributing to anything with sincerity.

[I didn't read past this for your petty insulting behavior. I gave you already too much charity that you tend to just shit on with disrespectful pretensious and selfish interests. Please do not respond.]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:59 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:12 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:51 pm I initiated this with the intent of trying the D&D way of play and with the hopes of 'leading' people's own responses (with fun) towards a specific meaning. It obviously didn't take off but I simultaneously did it elsewhere where it had (though haven't been there to continue....yet).

The idea is that I think any issue in philosophy

What does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to 'you'?

To me, there is NO 'issue' IN 'philosophy' and NEVER could be AN issue IN 'philosophy'.

This because of where the word 'philosophy' originated from.

But since you have OBVIOUSLY changed the word 'philosophy' to mean something else, to you, then this is WHY you think or BELIEVE there ARE 'issues' IN "philosophy".

Go away, please! You are creating red herrings that distract the intent of the thread with absurd trivialized concerns. If you cannot address the intentional issue at hand, you are trolling me, not asking nor contributing to anything with sincerity.

[I didn't read past this for your petty insulting behavior. I gave you already too much charity that you tend to just shit on with disrespectful pretensious and selfish interests. Please do not respond.]

SO, 'you' want to make the CLAIM that there ARE 'issues' IN 'philosophy'. YET, you do NOT have the tendency to even EXPLAIN to 'us' what the word 'philosophy' MEANS, to you.

Okay, this is fair enough. But I suggest that you do NOT be to concerned when "OTHERS" do NOT AGREE WITH NOR ACCEPT what you CLAIM is TRUE.

By the way, I am NOT, so called, "creating red herrings that distract the intent of the thread".

You INTEND to, so call, "argue" for YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. The fact that this is what you are 'trying to' do is what I want to and am FOCUSING and POINTING OUT. So, I do NOT want to 'distract away' from YOUR INTENTIONS at all here. In fact I want to make this CLEAR and OBVIOUS.

YOUR INTENTION here is to CLAIM ABSURD and RIDICULOUS things like, If we LOOK AT thee One and ONLY, eternal AND infinite, Universe as some 'container', then this will PROVE YOUR BELIEFS and CLAIMS true, right, and/or correct here.

So, PLEASE let us NOT 'distract away' from this. YOUR BELIEF and CLAIM here, after all, is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

I suggest either giving up on YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what IS true, or, EXPECT to be QUESTIONED, AND CHALLENGED on what you ACTUALLY SAY and CLAIM.

ALSO, and FURTHER MORE, all I did was just:

1. Ask you a CLARIFYING QUESTION. Then,

2. Inform 'you' that 'I' see differently than 'you' do here. Then,

3. Explain WHY 'I' see differently than 'you' do here. And then,

4. Explain what you have done, which partly explains WHY 'you' see differently what 'I' do here.

AND THEN YOU make the CLAIM that this is; "petty insulting behavior", which is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE. And what is ALSO LAUGHABLE is that YOU use this as an EXCUSE for, supposedly AND allegedly, NOT reading ANY more.

Feel FREE to NOT read ANY more, but IF you do NOT, then you will NOT and can NOT SEE that I am DIRECTLY ADDRESSING 'your' INTENT OF THIS THREAD.

Also feel FREE to respond, or NOT.