.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Fja1
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:17 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Fja1 »

Is the absolute truth static?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:09 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:40 pm

If everything that exists is unique but this uniqueness has an underlying source or form ...
There is no,"underlyihg source or form." That is pure mystic platonic nonsense.
False. Uniqueness requires division. Division requires a common source through that which is divided. A branching of phenomena, along a timeline, necessitates a common point from which the phenomena branch.
Please explain the evidence and logic based on that evidence for the absurd premise, "Uniqueness requires division."

Everything that exists is unique. Anything that exists must be different in some way from everything else that exists else it does not exist at all.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:09 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 1:18 am
There is no,"underlyihg source or form." That is pure mystic platonic nonsense.
False. Uniqueness requires division. Division requires a common source through that which is divided. A branching of phenomena, along a timeline, necessitates a common point from which the phenomena branch.
Please explain the evidence and logic based on that evidence for the absurd premise, "Uniqueness requires division."

Everything that exists is unique. Anything that exists must be different in some way from everything else that exists else it does not exist at all.
1. Reproduction is the division of the offspring from the parents where the offspring contains unique characteristics. The division of one cell into another results in the uniqueness of said new cell(s). The cut up of a piece of paper into a paper snowflake requires the division of the paper first.

2. Everything existing as unique does not seperate the fact that common underlying bonds, which are not unique, result. Using the above examples on the flipside one can observe:

2a. the passing on of constant traits (arms, legs, head, height, eye color, etc.) from the parents to the offspring,
2b. the passing on of cellular parts to a new cell,
2c. the same color of the snowflake being that of the paper it was cut from.

Differences do not negate a common or set of common underlying qualit(ies).
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:42 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:09 pm
False. Uniqueness requires division. Division requires a common source through that which is divided. A branching of phenomena, along a timeline, necessitates a common point from which the phenomena branch.
Please explain the evidence and logic based on that evidence for the absurd premise, "Uniqueness requires division."

Everything that exists is unique. Anything that exists must be different in some way from everything else that exists else it does not exist at all.
1. Reproduction is the division of the offspring from the parents where the offspring contains unique characteristics. The division of one cell into another results in the uniqueness of said new cell(s). The cut up of a piece of paper into a paper snowflake requires the division of the paper first.

2. Everything existing as unique does not seperate the fact that common underlying bonds, which are not unique, result. Using the above examples on the flipside one can observe:

2a. the passing on of constant traits (arms, legs, head, height, eye color, etc.) from the parents to the offspring,
2b. the passing on of cellular parts to a new cell,
2c. the same color of the snowflake being that of the paper it was cut from.

Differences do not negate a common or set of common underlying qualit(ies).
That's platonic nonsense. There are no mysterious, "underlying qualities." There are no qualities at all except as qualities of entities. There are no qualities independent of the entities they are the qualities of. There are no size, color, shape, life, solid or liquid, or any other kinds of qualities running around independent of any entities. Qualities are not things, or substances, and have no independent existence at all, just as there are no actions except the actions of entities and no relationships except those between entities. There is nothing to, "pass on." You are mistaking a metaphor for a fact.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:20 pm

If it is an absolutely absolute that relative absolutes exists then it is absolute that absolute absolutes exist.
Point is your 'absolute' is a relative-absolute because it has to be grounded on and relative to you or other humans. If not, how else?
You are missing the paradox. In stating the relative absolute is grounded on humans is to make an absolute statement which is not grounded on humans as it defines human behavior by being a principle which precedes human behavior. There are relative absolutes necessitates this being an absolute statement if entirely true.

Dually, to say everything is grounded in human observation is to make a human observation which is relative an not absolute.
As relative and not absolute you cannot state that everything is grounded in human observation.
Your conclusion [last statement] above is is inferred logically by you, may even be agreed by others.
How else can you make such an inference other than using your mind, i.e. human conditions?
Thus that is relative and not absolutely absolute.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:42 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:18 am
Please explain the evidence and logic based on that evidence for the absurd premise, "Uniqueness requires division."

Everything that exists is unique. Anything that exists must be different in some way from everything else that exists else it does not exist at all.
1. Reproduction is the division of the offspring from the parents where the offspring contains unique characteristics. The division of one cell into another results in the uniqueness of said new cell(s). The cut up of a piece of paper into a paper snowflake requires the division of the paper first.

2. Everything existing as unique does not seperate the fact that common underlying bonds, which are not unique, result. Using the above examples on the flipside one can observe:

2a. the passing on of constant traits (arms, legs, head, height, eye color, etc.) from the parents to the offspring,
2b. the passing on of cellular parts to a new cell,
2c. the same color of the snowflake being that of the paper it was cut from.

Differences do not negate a common or set of common underlying qualit(ies).
That's platonic nonsense. There are no mysterious, "underlying qualities." There are no qualities at all except as qualities of entities. There are no qualities independent of the entities they are the qualities of. There are no size, color, shape, life, solid or liquid, or any other kinds of qualities running around independent of any entities. Qualities are not things, or substances, and have no independent existence at all, just as there are no actions except the actions of entities and no relationships except those between entities. There is nothing to, "pass on." You are mistaking a metaphor for a fact.
A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:15 am
Point is your 'absolute' is a relative-absolute because it has to be grounded on and relative to you or other humans. If not, how else?
You are missing the paradox. In stating the relative absolute is grounded on humans is to make an absolute statement which is not grounded on humans as it defines human behavior by being a principle which precedes human behavior. There are relative absolutes necessitates this being an absolute statement if entirely true.

Dually, to say everything is grounded in human observation is to make a human observation which is relative an not absolute.
As relative and not absolute you cannot state that everything is grounded in human observation.
Your conclusion [last statement] above is is inferred logically by you, may even be agreed by others.
How else can you make such an inference other than using your mind, i.e. human conditions?
Thus that is relative and not absolutely absolute.
Because perception as the grounding of truth necessitates a principle beyond perception, through which perception exists, given perception as a relative absolute exists absolutely thus is grounded in an absolute absolute. In simpler terms view a circle. This circle is labeled "perception". This circle exists inside another circle which is labeled "principle". Considering "principle" exists as beyond "perception" we observe it as existing through the negative limits of perception where "principle" is defined by what perception is "not". What perception is not is a negative limit which defines principle for what it is. In simpler terms principle is defined through what perception is not thus necessitating something existing beyond perception by observing perception for where it is lacking. This lacking of something in perception necessitates something existing beyond perception which is related to perception but not limited to it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:16 pm
You are missing the paradox. In stating the relative absolute is grounded on humans is to make an absolute statement which is not grounded on humans as it defines human behavior by being a principle which precedes human behavior. There are relative absolutes necessitates this being an absolute statement if entirely true.

Dually, to say everything is grounded in human observation is to make a human observation which is relative an not absolute.
As relative and not absolute you cannot state that everything is grounded in human observation.
Your conclusion [last statement] above is is inferred logically by you, may even be agreed by others.
How else can you make such an inference other than using your mind, i.e. human conditions?
Thus that is relative and not absolutely absolute.
Because perception as the grounding of truth necessitates a principle beyond perception, through which perception exists, given perception as a relative absolute exists absolutely thus is grounded in an absolute absolute. In simpler terms view a circle. This circle is labeled "perception". This circle exists inside another circle which is labeled "principle". Considering "principle" exists as beyond "perception" we observe it as existing through the negative limits of perception where "principle" is defined by what perception is "not". What perception is not is a negative limit which defines principle for what it is. In simpler terms principle is defined through what perception is not thus necessitating something existing beyond perception by observing perception for where it is lacking. This lacking of something in perception necessitates something existing beyond perception which is related to perception but not limited to it.
Your use of 'perception' is too rhetoric.
I was referring to human minds individually and collectively.

Whatever is a Principle do not exists by itself but is abstracted as universal from particular experiences.
Humans observed many 'roundish' things in nature and abstract from all these similar experiences a Principle of a Circle [the ideal circle].
Then later observations of particular roundish things are matched against this Principle of a Circle which in the first place was derived and decided by human minds.
This may be an absolute relative to particular roundish things but it is not absolutely absolute.

Therefore your Principle of a Circle is merely a relative absolute.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:42 pm

1. Reproduction is the division of the offspring from the parents where the offspring contains unique characteristics. The division of one cell into another results in the uniqueness of said new cell(s). The cut up of a piece of paper into a paper snowflake requires the division of the paper first.

2. Everything existing as unique does not seperate the fact that common underlying bonds, which are not unique, result. Using the above examples on the flipside one can observe:

2a. the passing on of constant traits (arms, legs, head, height, eye color, etc.) from the parents to the offspring,
2b. the passing on of cellular parts to a new cell,
2c. the same color of the snowflake being that of the paper it was cut from.

Differences do not negate a common or set of common underlying qualit(ies).
That's platonic nonsense. There are no mysterious, "underlying qualities." There are no qualities at all except as qualities of entities. There are no qualities independent of the entities they are the qualities of. There are no size, color, shape, life, solid or liquid, or any other kinds of qualities running around independent of any entities. Qualities are not things, or substances, and have no independent existence at all, just as there are no actions except the actions of entities and no relationships except those between entities. There is nothing to, "pass on." You are mistaking a metaphor for a fact.
A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:03 am
Your conclusion [last statement] above is is inferred logically by you, may even be agreed by others.
How else can you make such an inference other than using your mind, i.e. human conditions?
Thus that is relative and not absolutely absolute.
Because perception as the grounding of truth necessitates a principle beyond perception, through which perception exists, given perception as a relative absolute exists absolutely thus is grounded in an absolute absolute. In simpler terms view a circle. This circle is labeled "perception". This circle exists inside another circle which is labeled "principle". Considering "principle" exists as beyond "perception" we observe it as existing through the negative limits of perception where "principle" is defined by what perception is "not". What perception is not is a negative limit which defines principle for what it is. In simpler terms principle is defined through what perception is not thus necessitating something existing beyond perception by observing perception for where it is lacking. This lacking of something in perception necessitates something existing beyond perception which is related to perception but not limited to it.
Your use of 'perception' is too rhetoric.
I was referring to human minds individually and collectively.

Whatever is a Principle do not exists by itself but is abstracted as universal from particular experiences.
Humans observed many 'roundish' things in nature and abstract from all these similar experiences a Principle of a Circle [the ideal circle].
Then later observations of particular roundish things are matched against this Principle of a Circle which in the first place was derived and decided by human minds.
This may be an absolute relative to particular roundish things but it is not absolutely absolute.

Therefore your Principle of a Circle is merely a relative absolute.
1. False, if all things occur through perception, and this is a truth, then perception is the grounding of truth. This is a principle as it is absolute, absolute given all truths are mere variations of this one truth. Thus absolute absolutes not only exist but necessitate a principle, ie "way of being", which guides perception itself as existing beyond it.

2. The principle is the unity of particulars. It is multiple particulars united under a common bond, much in the same manner gravity determines the behavior of all of physical being.

3. One cannot say the perfect circle was derived only from particulars given the perfect circle is not observed empirically. The perfect circle exists in itself independent of physical phenomenon and is absolute given there is no change in it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:02 am
That's platonic nonsense. There are no mysterious, "underlying qualities." There are no qualities at all except as qualities of entities. There are no qualities independent of the entities they are the qualities of. There are no size, color, shape, life, solid or liquid, or any other kinds of qualities running around independent of any entities. Qualities are not things, or substances, and have no independent existence at all, just as there are no actions except the actions of entities and no relationships except those between entities. There is nothing to, "pass on." You are mistaking a metaphor for a fact.
A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
That is an assertion, not an argument or definition.

Cause and effect is change. One phenomenon changes into another. The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by Sculptor »

Eyeon wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.
That's just a circular argument with no reference to truth or reality
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The A=A

Post by Terrapin Station »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:02 am
That's platonic nonsense. There are no mysterious, "underlying qualities." There are no qualities at all except as qualities of entities. There are no qualities independent of the entities they are the qualities of. There are no size, color, shape, life, solid or liquid, or any other kinds of qualities running around independent of any entities. Qualities are not things, or substances, and have no independent existence at all, just as there are no actions except the actions of entities and no relationships except those between entities. There is nothing to, "pass on." You are mistaking a metaphor for a fact.
A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
That seems like a curious view to me. Do you explain why you think that in another post somewhere on the board (that you can recall)?

So when, say, a glass falls onto concrete and shatters, why do you think it shatters?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:37 am

Because perception as the grounding of truth necessitates a principle beyond perception, through which perception exists, given perception as a relative absolute exists absolutely thus is grounded in an absolute absolute. In simpler terms view a circle. This circle is labeled "perception". This circle exists inside another circle which is labeled "principle". Considering "principle" exists as beyond "perception" we observe it as existing through the negative limits of perception where "principle" is defined by what perception is "not". What perception is not is a negative limit which defines principle for what it is. In simpler terms principle is defined through what perception is not thus necessitating something existing beyond perception by observing perception for where it is lacking. This lacking of something in perception necessitates something existing beyond perception which is related to perception but not limited to it.
Your use of 'perception' is too rhetoric.
I was referring to human minds individually and collectively.

Whatever is a Principle do not exists by itself but is abstracted as universal from particular experiences.
Humans observed many 'roundish' things in nature and abstract from all these similar experiences a Principle of a Circle [the ideal circle].
Then later observations of particular roundish things are matched against this Principle of a Circle which in the first place was derived and decided by human minds.
This may be an absolute relative to particular roundish things but it is not absolutely absolute.

Therefore your Principle of a Circle is merely a relative absolute.
1. False, if all things occur through perception, and this is a truth, then perception is the grounding of truth. This is a principle as it is absolute, absolute given all truths are mere variations of this one truth. Thus absolute absolutes not only exist but necessitate a principle, ie "way of being", which guides perception itself as existing beyond it.

2. The principle is the unity of particulars. It is multiple particulars united under a common bond, much in the same manner gravity determines the behavior of all of physical being.

3. One cannot say the perfect circle was derived only from particulars given the perfect circle is not observed empirically. The perfect circle exists in itself independent of physical phenomenon and is absolute given there is no change in it.
3. The perfect circle is NEVER observed since its existence is an impossibility, rather it is abstracted and inferred from particulars given roundish things.

A. Since the perfect circle [impossible to be empirically real] is abstracted and inferred as a universal, its grounding is based on human conditions.
Thus it cannot be absolutely absolute but merely a subjective absolute.

B. Note when you insist the perfect circle exists in itself independent of physical phenomenon you are claiming that as a philosophical realist. Thus you cannot deny you are not a philosophical realist.

Can you counter the above points specifically?

Here is an interesting take from Kant in that what is a perfect triangle [ same with circle] is never absolutely absolute but merely a relative absolute constructed by humans.
Kant on CPR wrote:But the fact that Diogenes Laertius, in handing down an account of these matters, names the reputed author of even the, least important among the geometrical demonstrations, even of those which, for ordinary Consciousness, stand in need of no such proof, does at least show that the memory of the revolution, brought about by the first glimpse of this new path, must have seemed to mathematicians of such outstanding importance as to cause it to survive the tide of oblivion.

A new light flashed upon the Mind of the first man (be he Thales or some other) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle.
B xii - 2nd Edition
The true method, so he found, was not to inspect what he discerned either in the figure, or in the bare Concept of it, and from this, as it were, to read off its properties;
but to bring out what was Necessarily implied in the Concepts
that he had himself for meet a priori,
and had put into the figure in the Construction by which he presented it to himself.
If he is to know anything with a priori certainty he must not ascribe to the figure anything save what necessarily follows from what he has himself set into it in accordance with his Concept.
You get the point above??
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:31 am

A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
That is an assertion, not an argument or definition.

Cause and effect is change. One phenomenon changes into another. The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.
As you say, "That is an assertion, not an argument."

"One phenomenon changes into another," says nothing. Are you referring to some kind of mystic nonsense like transubstantiation or magic like turning water into wine. Bah!
Post Reply