The Contradiction of Time

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:28 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:56 pm

Does it matter? If all is relative then your viewpoint is false under other contexts (ie other perceptions, such as those who claim absolute truth, etc.).
But my view is what ALL can agree with, and what ALL can agree with could be only what IS True, Right, and Correct. So, NO distortion NOR false conceptions anywhere here.
All "can" agree with any viewpoint given the condition of ever present change.
Would you like to provide an example of ANY viewpoint that ALL 'can' agree with?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think you will find that NOT ANY viewpoint ALL 'can' agree with.

People 'can' NOT necessarily agree with what they do NOT agree with. So, NOT EVERY viewpoint 'can' be agreed with.

ONLY 'that' what IS IRREFUTABLE 'can' be agreed with, which includes a statement that can NOT be contradicted.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:05 pm The continuity of change is "staticity". The river is a continuum of change.
You have been able to say this because language makes possible and even inevitable these tricks, like giving a name (which is staticity) to something changing. Language makes even possible to say things such as “cold fire” or “flying horse”.

The word “change” is itself a contradiction, because, as a word, it is static, but its meaning refers to something that is not static.
So, the fact the we invented the word “change” doesn’t mean that it can be treated in reasoning as something that we are able to manage as a static concept.

Being able to say or to think something doesn’t imply anything about how things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not.
1. Language is conceptual and as conceptual exists as phenomenon which emerges from reality due to evolution allowing for concepts to exist.

2. Concepts are particulation, they are the separation of a phenomenon from the surrounding whole. Concepts are thus multiplicity.

3. Language exists as a reality as particulation is a part of reality, if it can be spoken then there is some truth to it.
3a. A "cold fire" exists because "cold" is relative, to say a "cold fire" is to say one fire is cooler than another.
3b. A horse being transported on a plane is a flying horse.

4. "Contradiction" is a contradiction as "contradiction" must equal "contradiction" and this is not a contradiction.

5. "Being able to say or to think something doesn’t imply anything about how things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not" is a statement implying how "things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not".
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:28 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:46 am

But my view is what ALL can agree with, and what ALL can agree with could be only what IS True, Right, and Correct. So, NO distortion NOR false conceptions anywhere here.
All "can" agree with any viewpoint given the condition of ever present change.
Would you like to provide an example of ANY viewpoint that ALL 'can' agree with?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think you will find that NOT ANY viewpoint ALL 'can' agree with.

People 'can' NOT necessarily agree with what they do NOT agree with. So, NOT EVERY viewpoint 'can' be agreed with.

ONLY 'that' what IS IRREFUTABLE 'can' be agreed with, which includes a statement that can NOT be contradicted.
1. Yes...a simple dot exists as it is.
2. If it is relative it is refutable due to the introduction of different contexts; if all is relative, according to you, then all is refutable.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:08 am
1. Language is conceptual and as conceptual exists as phenomenon which emerges from reality due to evolution allowing for concepts to exist.

2. Concepts are particulation, they are the separation of a phenomenon from the surrounding whole. Concepts are thus multiplicity.

3. Language exists as a reality as particulation is a part of reality, if it can be spoken then there is some truth to it.
3a. A "cold fire" exists because "cold" is relative, to say a "cold fire" is to say one fire is cooler than another.
3b. A horse being transported on a plane is a flying horse.

4. "Contradiction" is a contradiction as "contradiction" must equal "contradiction" and this is not a contradiction.

5. "Being able to say or to think something doesn’t imply anything about how things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not" is a statement implying how "things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not".
Are you able to give any guarantee that your reasoning is correct?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:28 pm

All "can" agree with any viewpoint given the condition of ever present change.
Would you like to provide an example of ANY viewpoint that ALL 'can' agree with?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think you will find that NOT ANY viewpoint ALL 'can' agree with.

People 'can' NOT necessarily agree with what they do NOT agree with. So, NOT EVERY viewpoint 'can' be agreed with.

ONLY 'that' what IS IRREFUTABLE 'can' be agreed with, which includes a statement that can NOT be contradicted.
1. Yes...a simple dot exists as it is.
What is the "Yes" word here in relation to, EXACTLY, and what do the rest of your words relate to, EXACTLY, also?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:10 am 2. If it is relative it is refutable due to the introduction of different contexts; if all is relative, according to you, then all is refutable.
According to this so-called "logic of yours" what you SAY and CLAIM here is REFUTABLE, and thus NOT IRREFUTABLY True, Right, NOR Correct. So, in other words, IS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

HOWEVER, if you were to start spending sometime CLARIFYING with me what I am ACTUALLY MEANING in what I am SAYING, instead of jumping to or making ASSUMPTIONS about what 'it' is that I am MEANING, then you WILL GAIN some UNDERSTANDING, and SEE and FIND that I am NOT SAYING what you ASSUME I am here.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:18 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:51 pm

Would you like to provide an example of ANY viewpoint that ALL 'can' agree with?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think you will find that NOT ANY viewpoint ALL 'can' agree with.

People 'can' NOT necessarily agree with what they do NOT agree with. So, NOT EVERY viewpoint 'can' be agreed with.

ONLY 'that' what IS IRREFUTABLE 'can' be agreed with, which includes a statement that can NOT be contradicted.
1. Yes...a simple dot exists as it is.
What is the "Yes" word here in relation to, EXACTLY, and what do the rest of your words relate to, EXACTLY, also?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:10 am 2. If it is relative it is refutable due to the introduction of different contexts; if all is relative, according to you, then all is refutable.
According to this so-called "logic of yours" what you SAY and CLAIM here is REFUTABLE, and thus NOT IRREFUTABLY True, Right, NOR Correct. So, in other words, IS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

HOWEVER, if you were to start spending sometime CLARIFYING with me what I am ACTUALLY MEANING in what I am SAYING, instead of jumping to or making ASSUMPTIONS about what 'it' is that I am MEANING, then you WILL GAIN some UNDERSTANDING, and SEE and FIND that I am NOT SAYING what you ASSUME I am here.
1. All viewpoints can observe a dot.

2. You are the one claiming that "all is relative" in prior posts. As such your statements are refutable from a different context thus false. Or did I misread what you claimed in which case you "do not agree all is relative"?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:08 am
1. Language is conceptual and as conceptual exists as phenomenon which emerges from reality due to evolution allowing for concepts to exist.

2. Concepts are particulation, they are the separation of a phenomenon from the surrounding whole. Concepts are thus multiplicity.

3. Language exists as a reality as particulation is a part of reality, if it can be spoken then there is some truth to it.
3a. A "cold fire" exists because "cold" is relative, to say a "cold fire" is to say one fire is cooler than another.
3b. A horse being transported on a plane is a flying horse.

4. "Contradiction" is a contradiction as "contradiction" must equal "contradiction" and this is not a contradiction.

5. "Being able to say or to think something doesn’t imply anything about how things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not" is a statement implying how "things are, how things work, if they have contradictions or not".
Are you able to give any guarantee that your reasoning is correct?
Are you able to given any guarantee that your question is correct given one can question "guarantee" and "correct"?
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
Location: Cambridge UK
Contact:

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:32 pm Are you able to given any guarantee that your question is correct given one can question "guarantee" and "correct"?
My questions are based on adopting your criteria. You made some statements, I have just drawn the consequences of your statements. This means that we are talking while adopting exactly the same criteria, same instruments, same language. As a consequence, if my questions are nonsense, your statements are nonsense as well, as they are based on the same criteria of my questions. If my questions make sense, we should consider what they say: they ask about your ability to give guarantee of what you said.
This means that, in both cases, the question about giving guarantee always wins with its ability to destroy.
This is an essential characteristic of philosophy: destruction is irresistible; nothing in philosophy, even philosophy itself, can resist to destruction. You cannot destroy destruction, because you cannot destroy a destroyed house. Think of me not like opposing to your building another building, but like throwing stones against your building: you cannot destroy my stones, because they are not a building, they are already destroyed, they are already the product, the result, of an already made self destruction.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:32 pm Are you able to given any guarantee that your question is correct given one can question "guarantee" and "correct"?
My questions are based on adopting your criteria. You made some statements, I have just drawn the consequences of your statements. This means that we are talking while adopting exactly the same criteria, same instruments, same language. As a consequence, if my questions are nonsense, your statements are nonsense as well, as they are based on the same criteria of my questions. If my questions make sense, we should consider what they say: they ask about your ability to give guarantee of what you said.
This means that, in both cases, the question about giving guarantee always wins with its ability to destroy.
This is an essential characteristic of philosophy: destruction is irresistible; nothing in philosophy, even philosophy itself, can resist to destruction. You cannot destroy destruction, because you cannot destroy a destroyed house. Think of me not like opposing to your building another building, but like throwing stones against your building: you cannot destroy my stones, because they are not a building, they are already destroyed, they are already the product, the result, of an already made self destruction.
Or am I adopting your criteria given I am applying the act of questioning to your question itself?

As to a more suitable answer:

The guarantee is in its existence. If it exists then there is some truth to it. My arguments exist.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Phil8659 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 am 1. There is time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
Maybe you should find a source, say Plato and Aristotle, and learn the distinction between a relative, a correlative, and their combination called a thing, instead of the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 am 1. There is time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
Maybe you should find a source, say Plato and Aristotle, and learn the distinction between a relative, a correlative, and their combination called a thing, instead of the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion.
"A relative, a correlative and there combination called a thing" is "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion".
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Phil8659 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:06 am
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:15 am 1. There is time.
2. Time is continuous.
3. As continuous time is not subject to changing its nature, time is always time.
4. Because time is always time there is a thing which does not change and this is time.
5. Because time does not change there is a thing which does not change.
6. This thing which does not change is intemporal.
7. There is no time for time.
Maybe you should find a source, say Plato and Aristotle, and learn the distinction between a relative, a correlative, and their combination called a thing, instead of the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion.
"A relative, a correlative and there combination called a thing" is "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion".
LAMO
Really, traditional? Ask a computer if it functions by tradition, or physical fact.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phil8659 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:06 am
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:42 pm

Maybe you should find a source, say Plato and Aristotle, and learn the distinction between a relative, a correlative, and their combination called a thing, instead of the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion.
"A relative, a correlative and there combination called a thing" is "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion".
LAMO
Really, traditional? Ask a computer if it functions by tradition, or physical fact.
Aristotle and Plato had there interpretations, which not only became tradition but withheld "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion" considering they pulled concepts out of thin air.

They were delusional relative to other philosophers such as Heraclitus or Nietzsche.

Tradition is relative.

Delusion is relative.

The computer is an interpretation of reality, it is the physical molding of our abstractions of reason, it holds no more truth, or rather opinion, than what we ourselves permit it too.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Phil8659 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:17 am
Phil8659 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:06 am

"A relative, a correlative and there combination called a thing" is "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion".
LAMO
Really, traditional? Ask a computer if it functions by tradition, or physical fact.
Aristotle and Plato had there interpretations, which not only became tradition but withheld "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion" considering they pulled concepts out of thin air.

They were delusional relative to other philosophers such as Heraclitus or Nietzsche.

Tradition is relative.

Delusion is relative.

The computer is an interpretation of reality, it is the physical molding of our abstractions of reason, it holds no more truth, or rather opinion, than what we ourselves permit it too.
So, you are telling me, and everyone on this forum, that you are only capable of gibberish? Has anyone recommended professional help?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of Time

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phil8659 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:17 am
Phil8659 wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:09 am
LAMO
Really, traditional? Ask a computer if it functions by tradition, or physical fact.
Aristotle and Plato had there interpretations, which not only became tradition but withheld "the traditional belief that you can just stick words together with the glue of delusion" considering they pulled concepts out of thin air.

They were delusional relative to other philosophers such as Heraclitus or Nietzsche.

Tradition is relative.

Delusion is relative.

The computer is an interpretation of reality, it is the physical molding of our abstractions of reason, it holds no more truth, or rather opinion, than what we ourselves permit it too.
So, you are telling me, and everyone on this forum, that you are only capable of gibberish? Has anyone recommended professional help?
Gibberish is relative, those who state "x" is gibberish are only admitting they do not understand what they are saying. I understand what I am saying therefore it would be wiser to ask questions rather than throwing out ad-hominums and looking stupid.
Post Reply