Philosophy Now Forum

If one puts forth the proposition, that identities aren't attainable, is this proposition negated through the dimension, that the term thinker is a symmetry to philosopher and doctor and worker?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:30 am If one puts forth the proposition, that identities aren't attainable, is this proposition negated through the dimension, that the term thinker is a symmetry to philosopher and doctor and worker?

What actually exists are there are animals, or things, known as 'human beings', and these human beings are provided with identities, or labeled with names, but these human beings are never actually those given names, labels, nor identities. What exists are human beings, which are made up of physical matter, thoughts, and feelings - emotional and physical.

Not every clever or wise philosopher owes his status to Academia. But most do benefit from Academia because it does help you to be a clever or wise philosopher if you are tutored by people who have already learned what philosophy is about and what it is not about.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:37 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:30 am If one puts forth the proposition, that identities aren't attainable, is this proposition negated through the dimension, that the term thinker is a symmetry to philosopher and doctor and worker?

What actually exists are there are animals, or things, known as 'human beings', and these human beings are provided with identities, or labeled with names, but these human beings are never actually those given names, labels, nor identities. What exists are human beings, which are made up of physical matter, thoughts, and feelings - emotional and physical.

The President of the United States isn't the President, supermarket employees aren't supermarket employees, and the Taliban aren't the Taliban?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:00 pm The President of the United States isn't the President, supermarket employees aren't supermarket employees, and the Taliban aren't the Taliban?

Now is not now.

There is an exact instant in time when The President of the United states stopped being The President.
There is an exact instant in time when an employee of a supermarket stops being an employee.
There is an exact instant when the Taliban stop being Taliban.

Identity is just an axiom. You can pre-suppose it as true; or false. It just a choice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:42 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:00 pm The President of the United States isn't the President, supermarket employees aren't supermarket employees, and the Taliban aren't the Taliban?

Now is not now.

There is an exact instant in time when The President of the United states stopped being The President.
There is an exact instant in time when an employee of a supermarket stops being an employee.
There is an exact instant when the Taliban stop being Taliban.

Identity is just an axiom. You can pre-suppose it as true; or false. It just a choice.

When are those exact instants of time, for each person listed?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:24 pm When are those exact instants of time, for each person listed?

Precisely at the instant when the president stops being the president.
Precisely at the instant an employee stops being an employee.

I hope you realise you've asked a trully silly question.

When is the exact instant of time when now becomes now?

by the time you think of "now" it is long gone...

-Imp

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:28 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:24 pm When are those exact instants of time, for each person listed?

Precisely at the instant when the president stops being the president.
Precisely at the instant an employee stops being an employee.

I hope you realise you've asked a trully silly question.

When is the exact instant of time when now becomes now?

For the question, about now, I don't know

For the Taliban, I also don't know when they stop being the Taliban - could it be when they see and enjoy daylight, or if and when they think about Scream 2's internet life?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 pm For the Taliban, I also don't know when they stop being the Taliban - could it be when they see and enjoy daylight, or if and when they think about

It doesn't matter. At the instance they stop being Taliban and become whatever else - that's when.

Non-contradiction crumbles to recursion/self-reference.

I identify as somebody who lacks identity. Now what?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:21 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:14 pm For the Taliban, I also don't know when they stop being the Taliban - could it be when they see and enjoy daylight, or if and when they think about

It doesn't matter. At the instance they stop being Taliban and become whatever else - that's when.

Non-contradiction crumbles to recursion/self-reference.

I identify as somebody who lacks identity. Now what?

Non-contradiction crumbles to self-reference - consistency breaks down into self-reference.

I think what you're trying to say, is that philosopher type beings are the only ones who can repeatedly ask about identity

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:33 pm Non-contradiction crumbles to self-reference - consistency breaks down into self-reference.

I think what you're trying to say, is that philosopher type beings are the only ones who can repeatedly ask about identity

No. What I am trying to say is that all classification-schemes (taxonomies) are entirely arbitrary and subject to arbitrary choice.

Suppose that a Philosopher rejects Philosophy.

Some would go on to say that a Philosopher rejecting Philosophy is itself a Philosophy.
Others would go on to say that a Philosopher rejecting Philosophy is not a Philosophy.

So is it; or isn't it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:37 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:33 pm Non-contradiction crumbles to self-reference - consistency breaks down into self-reference.

I think what you're trying to say, is that philosopher type beings are the only ones who can repeatedly ask about identity

No. What I am trying to say is that all classification-schemes (taxonomies) are entirely arbitrary and subject to arbitrary choice.

Suppose that a Philosopher rejects Philosophy.

Some would go on to say that a Philosopher rejecting Philosophy is itself a Philosophy.
Others would go on to say that a Philosopher rejecting Philosophy is not a Philosophy.

So is it; or isn't it?

I'm concerned with disproportionalities, in taxonomy. For example, philosopher is a typical taxonomy, and so is fan, but, whereas to be a royal family philosopher or a United States presidency philosopher are common (in relative terms), it's much more uncommon to hear or speak of a philosopher or fan of September 1998's daylight (the daylight having perhaps occurred on any day of the month), or a philosopher or fan of Philosophy Now discussion threads

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:44 pm I'm concerned with disproportionalities, in taxonomy. For example, philosopher is a typical taxonomy, and so is fan, but, whereas to be a royal family philosopher or a United States presidency philosopher are common (in relative terms), it's much more uncommon to hear or speak of a philosopher or fan of September 1998's daylight (the daylight having perhaps occurred on any day of the month), or a philosopher or fan of Philosophy Now discussion threads

That's just Bayes' theorem.

What is more probable?

That any given person is a philosopher; or that any given person is a philosopher who is 176cm tall.

P(philosopher) > P(philosopher + 176cm)

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:30 am If one puts forth the proposition, that identities aren't attainable, is this proposition negated through the dimension, that the term thinker is a symmetry to philosopher and doctor and worker?

John = Philospher
Bob = Philosopher.
BUT
John is NOT equal to Bob. Therefore Philosopher is not equal to Philosopher.

The case is closed