For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Your presentation is not sufficiently nuanced nor refine.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
Paradox is a human social construct. It's metaphysical in nature since the human is self-aware, aware of the totality, without knowing it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
A philosophical realist only exists because of its antithesis that allows the contrast to occur. This is a paradox.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:20 amYour presentation is not sufficiently nuanced nor refine.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
Reality is all-there-is.
If one is a philosophical realist [PR -from an evolutionary default], then reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
However, an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] will insist the PR is trapped within a paradox when he is reifying an abstract things as really real. What is reified by the PR cannot be really real but rather it is merely an illusion and is false.
As such, the PR is trapped within a paradox as trapped by his own linguistic and logical dogmatism.
On the other hand, for an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] or a Buddhist, there is no paradox since he is able to toggle between what is mind-related and relatively mind-independent via his Two Truths Doctrine.
Whatever is going on within the human conditions are occurrences; they have no significance to the issue.
What is at issue is the occurrence of the belief by the PR who claim the unreal as real.
I am not sure it is limited to being a construct considering the transitional nature of awareness requires paradoxical foundations to some degree or another. Yes it is a construct to some degree but this construct is less a thing in itself and more process expressed by the psyche. Paradox begets paradox.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:01 pmParadox is a human social construct. It's metaphysical in nature since the human is self-aware, aware of the totality, without knowing it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
Therefore, for the self-aware awareness, expressed as and through the mental processing that is the human brain, the truth and no truth are identical truths...paradoxical.
The problem is you are inventing your own meaning and finding problem with your own invention.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:33 pmA philosophical realist only exists because of its antithesis that allows the contrast to occur. This is a paradox.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:20 amYour presentation is not sufficiently nuanced nor refine.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
Reality is all-there-is.
If one is a philosophical realist [PR -from an evolutionary default], then reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
However, an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] will insist the PR is trapped within a paradox when he is reifying an abstract things as really real. What is reified by the PR cannot be really real but rather it is merely an illusion and is false.
As such, the PR is trapped within a paradox as trapped by his own linguistic and logical dogmatism.
On the other hand, for an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] or a Buddhist, there is no paradox since he is able to toggle between what is mind-related and relatively mind-independent via his Two Truths Doctrine.
Whatever is going on within the human conditions are occurrences; they have no significance to the issue.
What is at issue is the occurrence of the belief by the PR who claim the unreal as real.
The definition of the unreal and real is a matter of experience and you have no legitimate argument other than conceptual constructs that are blind assertions.
There are countless constructs in reality that determine truth values and no law as to which to pick.
As stated, philosophical realism is triggered from an evolutionary default, which it is almost common sense thus if something is presented in contradiction to it, then there is a paradox from the antirealist point of view. [we have gone through this before].A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Given all things are distinct by contrast to antithesis all things are paradoxical. Given everything is defined by what it is and is not, as the inherent act of distinction itself, paradox is inherent within experience. Philosophical realism is defined by contrast to philosophical anti-realism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:32 amThe problem is you are inventing your own meaning and finding problem with your own invention.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 5:33 pmA philosophical realist only exists because of its antithesis that allows the contrast to occur. This is a paradox.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:20 am
Your presentation is not sufficiently nuanced nor refine.
Reality is all-there-is.
If one is a philosophical realist [PR -from an evolutionary default], then reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
However, an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] will insist the PR is trapped within a paradox when he is reifying an abstract things as really real. What is reified by the PR cannot be really real but rather it is merely an illusion and is false.
As such, the PR is trapped within a paradox as trapped by his own linguistic and logical dogmatism.
On the other hand, for an ANTI-philosophical_realist [Kantian] or a Buddhist, there is no paradox since he is able to toggle between what is mind-related and relatively mind-independent via his Two Truths Doctrine.
Whatever is going on within the human conditions are occurrences; they have no significance to the issue.
What is at issue is the occurrence of the belief by the PR who claim the unreal as real.
The definition of the unreal and real is a matter of experience and you have no legitimate argument other than conceptual constructs that are blind assertions.
There are countless constructs in reality that determine truth values and no law as to which to pick.
As stated, philosophical realism is triggered from an evolutionary default, which it is almost common sense thus if something is presented in contradiction to it, then there is a paradox from the antirealist point of view. [we have gone through this before].A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
It is not common nor easy [it is need higher intelligence and effort] to think of something that is contradictory. It is not easy to generate Russell's Paradox, Curry Paradox & the like and general paradoxes which need higher critical thinking to reconcile.
So, not everything is a paradox.
All human thinking is done by contrast, this is something every nondualist realizes. Hardly a paradox. (But you can't really tell external things, internal thoughts and abstract internal thoughts apart, so it may seem to you that existence itself is paradoxical.)Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:49 am Given all things are distinct by contrast to antithesis all things are paradoxical. Given everything is defined by what it is and is not, as the inherent act of distinction itself, paradox is inherent within experience. Philosophical realism is defined by contrast to philosophical anti-realism.
There are multiple natures of paradox, congruent and incongruent contradictions, resulting in paradox within paradox.
Do you mean in the context of there being no thing to construct a paradox, and yet a paradox does apparently appear as a constructed thing - which makes no sense and at the same time appears to make sense. Is that what you mean?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:10 pmI am not sure it is limited to being a construct considering the transitional nature of awareness requires paradoxical foundations to some degree or another. Yes it is a construct to some degree but this construct is less a thing in itself and more process expressed by the psyche. Paradox begets paradox.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:01 pmParadox is a human social construct. It's metaphysical in nature since the human is self-aware, aware of the totality, without knowing it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 3:00 am If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?
Therefore, for the self-aware awareness, expressed as and through the mental processing that is the human brain, the truth and no truth are identical truths...paradoxical.
Experience is distinctual and as such is contrast dependent, the paradox of how experience occurs is not strictly a negative thing but is a inherently a process of transition. Paradoxes allow for transition as within them are synthetic qualities.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 7:41 amAll human thinking is done by contrast, this is something every nondualist realizes. Hardly a paradox. (But you can't really tell external things, internal thoughts and abstract internal thoughts apart, so it may seem to you that existence itself is paradoxical.)Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:49 am Given all things are distinct by contrast to antithesis all things are paradoxical. Given everything is defined by what it is and is not, as the inherent act of distinction itself, paradox is inherent within experience. Philosophical realism is defined by contrast to philosophical anti-realism.
There are multiple natures of paradox, congruent and incongruent contradictions, resulting in paradox within paradox.
If there's something paradoxical here, it's more like that in everyday life, we have to think and act like as if human thinking wasn't done by contrast (this is so practical that it's kinda necessary to do this).
What I am saying is that the nature of the psyche is paradox and and reflection of the psyche is the manifestation of further paradoxes from it. The recursion of paradox.Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:32 pmDo you mean in the context of there being no thing to construct a paradox, and yet a paradox does apparently appear as a constructed thing - which makes no sense and at the same time appears to make sense. Is that what you mean?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:10 pmI am not sure it is limited to being a construct considering the transitional nature of awareness requires paradoxical foundations to some degree or another. Yes it is a construct to some degree but this construct is less a thing in itself and more process expressed by the psyche. Paradox begets paradox.Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:01 pm
Paradox is a human social construct. It's metaphysical in nature since the human is self-aware, aware of the totality, without knowing it.
Therefore, for the self-aware awareness, expressed as and through the mental processing that is the human brain, the truth and no truth are identical truths...paradoxical.
Experience itself isn't distinctual, thinking is, which can make experience seem distinctual.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:24 pmExperience is distinctual and as such is contrast dependent, the paradox of how experience occurs is not strictly a negative thing but is a inherently a process of transition. Paradoxes allow for transition as within them are synthetic qualities.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 7:41 amAll human thinking is done by contrast, this is something every nondualist realizes. Hardly a paradox. (But you can't really tell external things, internal thoughts and abstract internal thoughts apart, so it may seem to you that existence itself is paradoxical.)Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:49 am Given all things are distinct by contrast to antithesis all things are paradoxical. Given everything is defined by what it is and is not, as the inherent act of distinction itself, paradox is inherent within experience. Philosophical realism is defined by contrast to philosophical anti-realism.
There are multiple natures of paradox, congruent and incongruent contradictions, resulting in paradox within paradox.
If there's something paradoxical here, it's more like that in everyday life, we have to think and act like as if human thinking wasn't done by contrast (this is so practical that it's kinda necessary to do this).
Thinking is an experience.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:28 pmExperience itself isn't distinctual, thinking is, which can make experience seem distinctual.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:24 pmExperience is distinctual and as such is contrast dependent, the paradox of how experience occurs is not strictly a negative thing but is a inherently a process of transition. Paradoxes allow for transition as within them are synthetic qualities.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 7:41 am
All human thinking is done by contrast, this is something every nondualist realizes. Hardly a paradox. (But you can't really tell external things, internal thoughts and abstract internal thoughts apart, so it may seem to you that existence itself is paradoxical.)
If there's something paradoxical here, it's more like that in everyday life, we have to think and act like as if human thinking wasn't done by contrast (this is so practical that it's kinda necessary to do this).