Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm "No-thing" is absolute.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm 1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:46 pm vodka can be absolut...

-Imp

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm "No-thing" is absolute.

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm 1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm "No-thing" is absolute.

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

"No-thing is absolute" is relative to how it is expressed however the relativity of the expression points to the absence of thingness across all of its expressions as "no-thingness" is indefinite as well as the number of ways "no-thingness" can be observed is indefinite.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:14 am The indefiniteness of no thingness and the indefiniteness of the number of perceptions of no-thingness necessitate both the perception and no-thing as equivocating.

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:16 am

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

"No-thing is absolute" is relative to how it is expressed however the relativity of the expression points to the absence of thingness across all of its expressions as "no-thingness" is indefinite as well as the number of ways "no-thingness" can be observed is indefinite.

But this is OBVIOUSLY False, as so-called 'no-thingness'is DEFINED, and thus DEFINTE, in relation to 'something-ness'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:14 am The indefiniteness of no thingness and the indefiniteness of the number of perceptions of no-thingness necessitate both the perception and no-thing as equivocating.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:51 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:46 pm vodka can be absolut...

-Imp

Vodka is a compounded thing. So is everything else.

Whatever is not compounded, is not a thing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:38 pm 1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 6:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:59 am
Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 6:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:15 am 1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 6:30 am
WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

Yes, I agree to the above.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

Pass.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 12:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 6:15 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:36 pm
1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

Yes, I agree to the above.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

Pass.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

1. An FSK as an authority requires an FSK beyond that FSK which is not justified but simply believed.

2. "No-thing" is an absence of proof, absence of proof exists. The relativity of truth necessitates all truths as unproven relative to a different context, thus absence of proof is continuous (ie absolute).

3. "Thing in itself", as absolute, equates to "no-thing", as absolute, thus what is absolute about reality is an absence of thingness.

4. All FSKs must depend upon further FSKs if FSK is to be justified ("utility", as in a thing for a specific use, is an FSK). The paradox of this FSK relying upon another FSK is that the FSK becomes obscure.

5. "Whatever is derived from an FSK is conditional" is absolute as there is nothing to compare an FSK to as FSK is "conditions"; conditions relative to conditions makes condition self-referential and without contrast thus unconditional.