All Being is Free Relative to Void
All Being is Free Relative to Void
Freedom occurs through being.
Non being is an absence of freedom as it is nothing, not even being.
All being in contrast to Nothingness is free as freedom exists as part of this being. It exists as part of this being given the totality of being, in contrast to nothing, contains within it an element of freedom.
This element of freedom is the ability to move, an absence of being is an absence of the ability to move thus is absent of freedom.
Non being is an absence of freedom as it is nothing, not even being.
All being in contrast to Nothingness is free as freedom exists as part of this being. It exists as part of this being given the totality of being, in contrast to nothing, contains within it an element of freedom.
This element of freedom is the ability to move, an absence of being is an absence of the ability to move thus is absent of freedom.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Ok, how is this different from Satre's thesis?
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
But you said a block of concrete is a being!!!
Circular argument
Non being is an absence of freedom as it is nothing, not even being.
All being in contrast to Nothingness is free as freedom exists as part of this being.
Tuttut. Self referral statement. "IT" in that sentence exists as part of itself, which is a contradiction. And the last clause also referring to "it", contradicts what you have already said.It exists as part of this being given the totality of being, in contrast to nothing, contains within it an element of freedom.
Please relate that to a piece of concrete!
This element of freedom is the ability to move, an absence of being is an absence of the ability to move thus is absent of freedom.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
1. A block of concrete is free to crumble...it is free to act. Compared to Nothingness all being is free through action, an action which could not exist if only there was nothing.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:33 pmBut you said a block of concrete is a being!!!Circular argument
Non being is an absence of freedom as it is nothing, not even being.
All being in contrast to Nothingness is free as freedom exists as part of this being.Tuttut. Self referral statement. "IT" in that sentence exists as part of itself, which is a contradiction. And the last clause also referring to "it", contradicts what you have already said.It exists as part of this being given the totality of being, in contrast to nothing, contains within it an element of freedom.Please relate that to a piece of concrete!
This element of freedom is the ability to move, an absence of being is an absence of the ability to move thus is absent of freedom.
2. False, freedom is a part of being therefore freedom exists.
3. Freedom (it) exists as part of being. The second "it" refers to the totality of being. One "it" refers to one thing another "it" refers to another.
4. Dually something can exist as part of itself much in the same manner a singular line contains within it multiple lines. The one exists through parts which contain the original phenomenon.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Q: What is necessary for freedom? A: Being.
Q: What is sufficient for freedom? A: Being.
Q; What is awareness? A: The ability to move (through thought).
Q: What is necessary for awareness? A: The element of freedom.
Q: What is sufficient for awareness? B: The element of freedom.
Q: What is the element of freedom? A: The ability to move.
I'm eager to know how being is both necessary and sufficient for being at the same time. (Ok, this is very different from Sartre, who argues that the necessary conditions for being are very different from the sufficient conditions for being.)
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Being as both necessary and sufficient for being is circular. This circularity is form. Being is form.Fja1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:00 pmQ: What is necessary for freedom? A: Being.
Q: What is sufficient for freedom? A: Being.
Q; What is awareness? A: The ability to move (through thought).
Q: What is necessary for awareness? A: The element of freedom.
Q: What is sufficient for awareness? B: The element of freedom.
Q: What is the element of freedom? A: The ability to move.
I'm eager to know how being is both necessary and sufficient for being at the same time. (Ok, this is very different from Sartre, who argues that the necessary conditions for being are very different from the sufficient conditions for being.)
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Circularity is a circle. A circle is a form.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Yes, it results in being through being with this being through being resulting in a circularity.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Wrong. The crumbling of a piece of concrete is utterly dependant on the weather conditions, temperature changes, and moisture. Were all these to stay constant concrete would NEVER decay.
It cannot act in any sense. Sentence two in inherently incoherent.
Circular argument based on abuse of words.
2. False, freedom is a part of being therefore freedom exists.
Circular argument based on abuse of words.
3. Freedom (it) exists as part of being. The second "it" refers to the totality of being. One "it" refers to one thing another "it" refers to another.
Not relevant, and wrong. You are outstupiding yourself today.
4. Dually something can exist as part of itself much in the same manner a singular line contains within it multiple lines. The one exists through parts which contain the original phenomenon.
Re: All Being is Free Relative to Void
Wrong. The crumbling of a piece of concrete is utterly dependant on the weather conditions, temperature changes, and moisture. Were all these to stay constant concrete would NEVER decay.
It cannot act in any sense. Sentence two in inherently incoherent.
Circular argument based on abuse of words.
2. False, freedom is a part of being therefore freedom exists.
Circular argument based on abuse of words.
3. Freedom (it) exists as part of being. The second "it" refers to the totality of being. One "it" refers to one thing another "it" refers to another.
Not relevant, and wrong. You are outstupiding yourself today.
4. Dually something can exist as part of itself much in the same manner a singular line contains within it multiple lines. The one exists through parts which contain the original phenomenon.