Why are we here?

[blazeofglory]

Nobody really know why he or she is here.
But one thing I am certain of is I am here becuase you are there and if you are not there I would not been here.
I am here because my parents were there. becuase my friends were there, the rest were there and in fact all attribute or contribute to my being here. Even my enemies account for my being here.

The earth I stand on, and the sky that roofs me and the air that heavily press down on me account for why I am here.

All that i see with my eyes and I hear thru my ears and touch with my hands account for why I am here.

Now I am here because you are there across to share withj me on the forums.

I exist here becuase you existed there.

[bibliophile190]

I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding your reasoning. I understand why the presence of your parents would confirm your existence, but how does the presence of other people on the forum, or the sky affirm your presence? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I need help understanding.

[amanda_isabel]

bibliophile,

maybe because we are here means he is too. not that he exists dependently on us, but that we all have parents and are in environments alike in general. and is something is wide as the sky esists, why not him?

brain ut pf comission.. sorry if i'm not making sense.

[Drone]

Bibliophile, I suggest blazeofglory simply wants to establish a relation between "here" and "there". What he/she wants to prove is "why we are here". And blazeofglory finds his/her way through by the word "here" which is opposite to "there" and which relies on its opposite side for its own existence.
In this way, one may convince himself of his being "here" by actually seeing everything around being "there". I consider it a very clever way to establish the relationship between "here" and "there".
Anyway, this is only my speculation. Hope it would help you understand, bibliophile.:yawnb:

[mike thomas]

if i don't exist neither do you.

[SleepyWitch]

Nobody really know why he or she is here.

well, my mum always wanted to give birth to little black devils, so she married a black-haired man (=my dad). unfortunately, she's blonde herself, so her plan kinda went wrong (or miscarried :) ) and what she got is little brown-haired devils= my bro and me.

[Virgil]

Nobody really know why he or she is here.


I'm here because i like to discuss literature. ;)

[Midas]

Blazeofglory. You are NOT here, as you claim. You are there (wherever you are posting from).

How do I know? Because I am here, and I can see you are not.

Now if you ask the reason why you are wherever you are (and that is certainly not here), may I present a guess that you exist for, among any other reasons of which at present I am not aware, to pose unanswerable questions about unsolvable conundrums for the amusement of yourself, and any others who care to join in the fun.

No harm done. One needs a little light hearted diversion from the norm from time to time. And it condenses in its simplicity the essence of that which we call a philosophical question - questions that have you chasing your tail around a tree.

[NikolaiI]

Midas, "here" for him is not the same as "here" for you. I say I am here, but here for you is there for me. He said I am here, you are there, he didn't say I am there, sitting right next to you.

mike thomas has it right with "if i don't exist neither do you." at least as far as to what blaze is saying. However, we usually assume the world goes on without us when we die, because we see people dying all the time, and nothing changes except for them. As well as something had to be here before we got here, or what we come here to?

Blaze, you say nobody really knows, and you may be right, but some people say they know; some people say they really know, and some people say they absolutely know. I like your threads but sometimes you use absolutes that aren't true for all.

I think if anyone has a hard time coping with existence or purpose, then they should lower their standards somewhat. Instead of trying to create a purpose or figure out some difficult task they are assigned to do, they should be content with the purpose of being. Sometimes it's enough just to be, or just to survive, and your purpose will find you later.

But you seem pensive and philisophical, so you probably don't need that advice. :)

[Midas]

Nicholai1
Midas, "here" for him is not the same as "here" for you. I say I am here, but here for you is there for me. He said I am here, you are there, he didn't say I am there, sitting right next to you.

Thanks for your response, but 'lighten up'. I understood perfectly what he was saying. I have been fortunate to have received a fairly good education, and to have maintained, though at times with a struggle, an open mind on life in general.

Read what I wrote in context, in that way you will get the point of my post, and, I am sure, it would have avoided misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, in posts you cannot see a proverbial 'tongue in cheek'. But with a little more open minded approach, and a reading of a complete post, if only in summary, one can pick up a light-hearted response from a too serious one, and also, detect the main point which, in this case, was regarding philosophical argument in general.

I hope I don't have to put 'smiley's in my posts to indicate mood to be taken.

[NikolaiI]

*hangs head low*

[catharsis]

We are here because the universal powers of the universe sent us here to govern this abundant ball of rock called earth.

[The Atheist]

Nobody really know why he or she is here.
But one thing I am certain of is I am here becuase you are there and if you are not there I would not been here.
I am here because my parents were there. becuase my friends were there, the rest were there and in fact all attribute or contribute to my being here. Even my enemies account for my being here.

The earth I stand on, and the sky that roofs me and the air that heavily press down on me account for why I am here.

All that i see with my eyes and I hear thru my ears and touch with my hands account for why I am here.

Now I am here because you are there across to share withj me on the forums.

I exist here becuase you existed there.

Marvellous stuff!

I like your sig lines, too. You've clearly been studying the master minds of philosophy.

My suggestion to you is to now put away the philosophy for a while - it's taught you how to think and now you need some input beyond the sensory.

I see you're in Kathmandu, an area with a very close affinity with New Zealand and an area where you are given the chance to live amongst nature's mightiest display - the Himalayas. Even the mightiest dinosaur is less than a speck against the mountain backdrop you see around you. Nature itself is so far superior to anything the human mind will ever conceive that the mere being a part of this gigantic satellite of the sun's should be enough for any person to desire.

Can I suggest you balance the philosophers out with some scientists: Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein - all the great minds had a go at expressing their wonder at the universe itself. Orwell and Douglas Adams probably say it best, but the import is always the same; we're here to live, love and be free to enjoy the unique gift we have in the universe, our solar system and our home.

There is no "why", there just is.

[applepie]

If I were asked why I am here then my answer is simple. I'm here to live. Now if you choose to ask how I'm here... that is a little different. It's been a while since I studied philosophy but the basic idea of my favorite resoning is that I am here, therefore I exist. There isn't a better reasoning for how I'm here, because if I were not aware of my own existance then I suppose that I wouldn't exist. Others are not necessary to existance, merely that you are concious of your own existance.

[mike thomas]

greretings O blazeofglory

yes you are there and I am here. You ask why you are there, I ask how I am here.

Here or there? If I am not neiher are you, but if you are not I am.

Am I here really?

Or is it my parrot (whom I set on fire whilst he sang some Hosea Feliciano.)


You are definitly there, how much so, I can only guess. But certainly more than me, who are not there at all - being here, that is.

all the brest wishes

all animals are alos slamina not are they?

[DeathAngel]

We all have a purpose, for teh greater good or the evil evil,

we're here to promote our lives, become who we're meant to be,
to change the world or make it worse,

we're here to live,

there are no defined answers, only theories to go along with it,
depending on what religion you follow or what god you believe in your answer may reside there,
i read once, "to live is life itself"

[Tabula_Rasa]

I am here.. because I can be here.
...and if I`ll be there, that would be because being there is possible.
and what is impossible probably doesnt exist.
It is the possibility of possibilities that brings me here.. and would take you there.

[aeroport]

Why are we here?
*sings*
Because we're here.
(Roll the bones, roll the bones)
Why did it happen?
Because it happens.
(Roll the bones...)
:p

[blazeofglory]

*sings*
Because we're here.
(Roll the bones, roll the bones)
Why did it happen?
Because it happens.
(Roll the bones...)
:p

feel thrilled to read people having so many ideas about why are we here. There were possibilities we would never have been here if our parents did not tie up in conjugation.

I do not what you think, but I feel really amazed at this thing that why are we here after all. I wonder why am I here if I will pass away one day, and why i go amassing wealth, extend family and other relationships and keep on adding to my knowledges bank.

This question is very simple but is it not profound enough to make mor e and more enquires.

In the east we call it Maya, delusion and Maya is a shadow not substance and fades away and so is life. Only God is the rest are Maya or illusions and are bound to fade away. But this answer never satisfies me. But if this world is untrue and our being or existence here is meaningless and we are simply specks in this cosmic whirlwind why God, if he exists at all.

We all are lost in this swirling pandemonium, millions and millions have come and gone, and nothing remain of them.

Search for truth has engaged man in worshiping god or gods, in thinking pr meditating from primitive times and the inquiry into life and goes on flowing endlessly and perhaps this question will never be answered. Perhaps never, the question, why we are here. But still reading how it has racked people to think more and share them is what thrills me beyond measure. May be we are here to share, to be together, to be in harmony, and maybe to be in friction and again to be inreunion, or for some other reasons we have yet to explore.

[RichardHresko]

Which comes first, our existence or our essence?

[Lote-Tree]

Nobody really know why he or she is here.
But one thing I am certain of is I am here becuase you are there and if you are not there I would not been here.
I am here because my parents were there. becuase my friends were there, the rest were there and in fact all attribute or contribute to my being here. Even my enemies account for my being here.

The earth I stand on, and the sky that roofs me and the air that heavily press down on me account for why I am here.

All that i see with my eyes and I hear thru my ears and touch with my hands account for why I am here.

Now I am here because you are there across to share withj me on the forums.

I exist here becuase you existed there.

How do you know you exist?

How do you verify the fact that you exist?

[blazeofglory]

How do you know you exist?

How do you verify the fact that you exist?

I know that I exist because you exist.

I verify the fact I exist because you are there to endorse my existence.

Or to put this way, we all complement one another. We live in relation to another being,and singly without outer support we can not live. The greatest support we have is of this earth, and you too are part of the earth, made of earth, in fact inseparable stuff from the earth, and how can I exist without you.

Maybe some elements are contributing to my existence directly and invisibly and others indirectly and invisbly.

Everyone is related to one another in this world.

Even the earth is as animate as we are. The problem is with us, for we have no sensitivity to feel it. The intricacy of this is rather hard to underastand .

Now I write and I get a reply from you and the very act of yours to reply me verifies my existence.

Imagine you are alone and no one is there to share with, partner with or wed with or fight with, not even a dog to keep company of. Then imagine the degree of existence. Your concern out there to respond or your willingness or readiness to share with me is what validates my existence.

Please close your eyes for a minute how every other individual, not just individuals even other beings, animal beings and even plant beings in some degree prop up or strengthen your existence.

This is a subtle matter and demands of us meditativeness.


Which comes first, our existence or our essence?

How can you draw a line between these two states or substances. How do you feel hotness without a hot object. These both state, one is quality and the other is manifestation. Existence is un-manifest. We and existence are one and the same. Trough us existence manifests. We are the container and existence is the content.

More precisely, here you keep existence and essence apart. But I think both are indivisible. watery state or wetness is what qualify water.

This is an intricate subject and asks us of meditation or a series of thoughtfulness.

[Lote-Tree]

I know that I exist because you exist.

Really? How can you be sure that I exist at all?



I verify the fact I exist because you are there to endorse my existence.


And if I don't endorse your existence do you cease to exist?

[RichardHresko]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Which comes first, our existence or our essence?

How can you draw a line between these two states or substances. How do you feel hotness without a hot object. These both state, one is quality and the other is manifestation. Existence is un-manifest. We and existence are one and the same. Trough us existence manifests. We are the container and existence is the content."

No, they are not the same thing. Existence, in this context, means to have being (there is another sense, which we need not worry about here). Essence refers to the nature of a thing. Not the same thing at all. We can talk about the essence of a unicorn, for example, even though it does not exist. We can know something exists without comprehending its essence.

I suggest we look at On Being and Essence by Aquinas (Latin title: De Ente et Essentia). His thoughts here are, in the main, following the lead of Aristotle, with aid from Avicenna's Metaphysica.

The main point of the 19th Century philosophical movement, existentialism is over this issue of whether we have an essence before we exist. Existentialists famously say 'no', which is precisely why there is a problem of existence for them.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Which comes first, our existence or our essence?

How can you draw a line between these two states or substances. How do you feel hotness without a hot object. These both state, one is quality and the other is manifestation. Existence is un-manifest. We and existence are one and the same. Trough us existence manifests. We are the container and existence is the content."

No, they are not the same thing. Existence, in this context, means to have being (there is another sense, which we need not worry about here). Essence refers to the nature of a thing. Not the same thing at all. We can talk about the essence of a unicorn, for example, even though it does not exist. We can know something exists without comprehending its essence.

I suggest we look at On Being and Essence by Aquinas (Latin title: De Ente et Essentia). His thoughts here are, in the main, following the lead of Aristotle, with aid from Avicenna's Metaphysica.

The main point of the 19th Century philosophical movement, existentialism is over this issue of whether we have an essence before we exist. Existentialists famously say 'no', which is precisely why there is a problem of existence for them.

Existentialism was desperately needed by this thread, it is good that you mentioned it. I am inclined to agree that existence precedes essence, at least in the loose sense with which the words are used. However, that humans determine their own value through living is pretty suspect, in my opinion. I can't help thinking that there is no value in the temporary, which is what our bodies and this planet are. Further, even humans are formed of elements composing the Earth, and the Earth of elements formed by stars (and so forth). That humans can be logically considered separate from any other material in the universe is difficult for me to swallow; both are made of the same material, constantly change form and behave predictably (if only from a physical and thus medical standpoint). Indeed, it is these interactions and affinities that sustain us, and allow the necessary chemical processes to happen.

I feel that existentialism's downfall is its dichotomy of the cosmos into man and nature. Somewhere, what was once nature is now a baby, and what was once an old lady is now fertilizing soil. The universe is not responsible for drawing this line, instead it is those who've bought into careless rhetoric. I am certain of only one thing, that I am an instance of this indivisible substance that fills the universe.

[blazeofglory]

Really? How can you be sure that I exist at all?




And if I don't endorse your existence do you cease to exist?

Lote-Tree, Or else my ideas would not be wired to you so that you would so amicably write a response. Indeed you feel I exist somewhere, another human similarly minded with all virtues and vices and you longed to write. your response is a stimulus and it vitalizes me more. In fact there are forces, natural forces that vitalize us or make us feel alive, and you are one of the million forces, but very vital.

Then if life fiorces do not exist how can I exist. You are definitely one of the life forces. You vitalize me by writing amicably to me.

And you can imagine the significance of your endorsement of my existence for me.

[Lote-Tree]

Indeed you feel I exist somewhere,


A lot of people feel a lot of thing. It does not mean that it exists.

[RichardHresko]

BlazeofGlory writes:
"Then if life fiorces do not exist how can I exist. You are definitely one of the life forces. You vitalize me by writing amicably to me."

What if Lote-Tree were a computer program? In other words, does it matter that Lote-Tree is alive, or only that you perceive him to be so? If the latter, there is the problem of circularity. If the former, the problem of misleading information needs to be addressed.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"I feel that existentialism's downfall is its dichotomy of the cosmos into man and nature. Somewhere, what was once nature is now a baby, and what was once an old lady is now fertilizing soil. The universe is not responsible for drawing this line, instead it is those who've bought into careless rhetoric. I am certain of only one thing, that I am an instance of this indivisible substance that fills the universe."

I disagree for several reasons. First, I think that the problem with existentialism is precisely the opposite of what you claim. If existence precedes essence, then there is no difference between a baby and a rock. Neither has a set final cause, etc.

Second, the argument is somewhat circular since you assume that there is no meaning and then use that assumption to state that the universe draws no lines.

Third, one can argue, I think persuasively, that the fact of human self-awareness differentiates us from most other types of things on a qualitative level. And if it does, then there is the universe's line. That we are composed, at least in part, of matter does not invalidate the difference. A computer's parts are made of silicon, that does not make a PC a sandbox.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I disagree for several reasons. First, I think that the problem with existentialism is precisely the opposite of what you claim. If existence precedes essence, then there is no difference between a baby and a rock. Neither has a set final cause, etc.

Perhaps you're taking "existence before essence" in a different manner than existentialists do. I do not recall any existentialist who claims that there exists something without essence. The question is asked within the scope of metaphysics, not epistemology. I think my earlier post made clear that I agree there is no fundamental difference between a baby and a rock.


Second, the argument is somewhat circular since you assume that there is no meaning and then use that assumption to state that the universe draws no lines.

To state there is meaning is an assumption, and I am not required to take that for granted. Recall burden of proof. Even still, I am fairly confident that the universe is not capable of creating mental constructs such as taxonomy.


Third, one can argue, I think persuasively, that the fact of human self-awareness differentiates us from most other types of things on a qualitative level.

I don't think so, but you're welcome to try


And if it does, then there is the universe's line. That we are composed, at least in part, of matter does not invalidate the difference. A computer's parts are made of silicon, that does not make a PC a sandbox.

That you're composed (entirely) of matter exactly invalidates the difference. If every object is made of matter then no such difference exists. Both silicon and sand are forms of matter; PC and sandbox are words people have created to refer to different arrangements of matter, and do not necessitate difference in fundamental identity.

[RichardHresko]

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"That you're composed (entirely) of matter exactly invalidates the difference. If every object is made of matter then no such difference exists. Both silicon and sand are forms of matter; PC and sandbox are words people have created to refer to different arrangements of matter, and do not necessitate difference in fundamental identity."

Here we come to the crux of the matter. You are working from an assumption that all objects are composed entirely of matter. That is an assumption, not a fact. It also points to the heart of existentialism -- that things exist and do not have an essence (in the Aristotelian sense).

Sticking to Aristotle for the moment, we can argue that all knowable objects possess both matter and form (or essence). {Note: his is a pure hylomorphism, as opposed to later philsophers such as Aquinas, who allow for the existence of essences without matter.} Hence my claim that one can distinguish between a baby and a rock.

It is hard to argue that there is no fundamental difference between a computer and a sandbox. Especially if you attempt to the internet with the sandbox.

[blazeofglory]

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"That you're composed (entirely) of matter exactly invalidates the difference. If every object is made of matter then no such difference exists. Both silicon and sand are forms of matter; PC and sandbox are words people have created to refer to different arrangements of matter, and do not necessitate difference in fundamental identity."

Here we come to the crux of the matter. You are working from an assumption that all objects are composed entirely of matter. That is an assumption, not a fact. It also points to the heart of existentialism -- that things exist and do not have an essence (in the Aristotelian sense).

Sticking to Aristotle for the moment, we can argue that all knowable objects possess both matter and form (or essence). {Note: his is a pure hylomorphism, as opposed to later philsophers such as Aquinas, who allow for the existence of essences without matter.} Hence my claim that one can distinguish between a baby and a rock.

It is hard to argue that there is no fundamental difference between a computer and a sandbox. Especially if you attempt to the internet with the sandbox.

your quoting of Dr. Ralph is really an eye opener, and it in point of fact adds fuel to what I really want to say. Yes knowing this truth, and realizing it's relevance we can be more understanding. Understanding the truth to the degree of finding no difference between the baby and the rock is the discovery of the ultimate truth, or Nirvana and no truth lies below the layer of this truth.
But understanging truth demands of us more and more introspection.

In fact a rock is as vital as a baby, and the difference is in our inspection, in our lack of penetrating other relams or dimensions of things. For instance, we normally are insensitive to plants but plants also respond to stimuli and this has been now proved through scientific experiments. But that we have not been able to understand whether or not plants feel the same pang pain when we pluck a plant is a domain of knowledge yet to be explored.

But I try to discover this truth, the truth that rocks are also alive and animate beings, not through scientific experimentations but through contemplation and meditation.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Here we come to the crux of the matter. You are working from an assumption that all objects are composed entirely of matter. That is an assumption, not a fact.

I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested in this separate substance. Please, tell me more about it...


Sticking to Aristotle for the moment, we can argue that all knowable objects possess both matter and form (or essence). {Note: his is a pure hylomorphism, as opposed to later philsophers such as Aquinas, who allow for the existence of essences without matter.} Hence my claim that one can distinguish between a baby and a rock.

Aristotle is hardly solid grounding these days. Of course, one can rhetorically communicate the difference between a baby and a rock, however language is unable to demonstrate truth a priori. In other words, simply because we have termed objects as different and classified them as such doesn't mean that they are actually this way. If one were to take a rock and baby of equal mass and cut them into many pieces, the remainders would be indistinguishable. I don't see much room for essence, and when I hear the word it makes no sense to me.


It is hard to argue that there is no fundamental difference between a computer and a sandbox.

Atomic theory does a good job. Spinoza, excellent. Schopenhauer, not badly. Einstein is famous for it. Goethe, Laplace, Debroglie, Bohr and countless others didn't have much trouble, a few received nobel prizes.


Especially if you attempt to the internet with the sandbox.

[blazeofglory]

I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested in this separate substance. Please, tell me more about it...



Aristotle is hardly solid grounding these days. Of course, one can rhetorically communicate the difference between a baby and a rock, however language is unable to demonstrate truth a priori. In other words, simply because we have termed objects as different and classified them as such doesn't mean that they are actually this way. If one were to take a rock and baby of equal mass and cut them into many pieces, the remainders would be indistinguishable. I don't see much room for essence, and when I hear the word it makes no sense to me.

Atomic theory does a good job. Spinoza, excellent. Schopenhauer, not badly. Einstein is famous for it. Goethe, Laplace, Debroglie, Bohr and countless others didn't have much trouble, a few received nobel prizes.


Yes, there are intricacies for us to understand and that everything permeates every other in this universal stream. Yes, there is the same water and the same air soaking us. each of us and the same sun heats us, the same crop we share and the same stages of life we go through and distinctions if any are insignificant.

We distinguish us in terms of language, in terms of culture, in terms of nationality, in terms of educational and economic standards and statuses and
skin colors. All these are nonsensical things and they are superfluous things.

Definitely we need to think this over deeply and profoundly, for this is called realization and realizing the truth, the universal truth that permeates every substance in this universe is not easy at all.

But this revelation will be made to us, if we mediate deeply.

[RichardHresko]

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Here we come to the crux of the matter. You are working from an assumption that all objects are composed entirely of matter. That is an assumption, not a fact.

I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested in this separate substance. Please, tell me more about it..."

I did not say that there was a separate substance. I am making the point that a substance is not merely matter. This is a very different claim. Whether one chooses to use the term "form" or "essence" or "informational content" is purely a matter of semantics.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"Aristotle is hardly solid grounding these days."

Hardly solid grounding for what, exactly? The issue before us is metaphysical and not scientific, so the fact that Aristotle's physics has proven wrong is irrelevant.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"Of course, one can rhetorically communicate the difference between a baby and a rock, however language is unable to demonstrate truth a priori. In other words, simply because we have termed objects as different and classified them as such doesn't mean that they are actually this way. "

This is a confusion of ontology with semiotics. I am arguing about a real difference, not merely one based on language. And I am not using semantics to prove a claim about essence.

Mr Dr. Ralph writes:
"If one were to take a rock and baby of equal mass and cut them into many pieces, the remainders would be indistinguishable. I don't see much room for essence, and when I hear the word it makes no sense to me."

True, but neither of the piles of pieces would be a rock or a baby. Essence is that which makes a thing a particular type of thing. See, for example, Chapter 1 of Aquinas' de ente et essentia.

It would appear from what you have written that the reason you are having difficulty making sense of the concept of essence is that your perspective is unable to distinguish differences based on form, otherwise there would be no difficulty in concluding that there is a real difference between a living being and non-living matter.

One consequence of that inability would be, by the way, having great difficulty accounting for the different elements. After all atomic oxygen is not merely 8 protons, 8 neutrons (in its most common isotope) and 8 electrons. There are interactions and arrangements (involving strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces if you'll allow us to neglect gravity) among the particles. It is because of these interactions that atomic structure arises and makes possible the different energy states of the orbitals that in turn are responsible for the reactions that are typical of oxygen.

My overall disagreement here stems from two points: 1) science is not the appropriate tool for a metaphysical question given that its approach is designed to answer entirely different sorts of questions, and 2) misapprehending the nature of scientific knowledge leads to an unjustified attempt to reduce everything to matter.

Blazeofglory writes:
"Understanding the truth to the degree of finding no difference between the baby and the rock is the discovery of the ultimate truth, or Nirvana and no truth lies below the layer of this truth."

This seems to suggest a kind of nihilism in that the obliteration of all distinction would surely eliminate the perception of any subject matter that would need to be understood.

To say that a baby and a rock are the same because they both contain matter is radical reductionism. I'm not sure what kind of payoff one gets from such a path in terms of either metaphysics, epistemology, or, as I have pointed out above, even science. And this does not even touch the chief difficulty, which is the fatal flaw that this sort of reductionism does not take into account non-material aspects of physical reality, i.e., form.

Blazeofglory writes:

"In fact a rock is as vital as a baby, and the difference is in our inspection, in our lack of penetrating other relams or dimensions of things."

No. Rocks are not "vital." They are not living beings (except for the one on that episode of Star Trek).

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Hardly solid grounding for what, exactly? The issue before us is metaphysical and not scientific, so the fact that Aristotle's physics has proven wrong is irrelevant.

Metaphysics is closely related to physics, it is scientific to a degree and includes cosmology and epistemology. I know Aristotle invented the word but there is no such thing.


This is a confusion of ontology with semiotics. I am arguing about a real difference, not merely one based on language. And I am not using semantics to prove a claim about essence.

You aren't using anything to prove a claim


True, but neither of the piles of pieces would be a rock or a baby. Essence is that which makes a thing a particular type of thing.See, for example, Chapter 1 of Aquinas' de ente et essentia.

Yes, the piles are definitely a rock and a baby. What is the difference between the two? The arrangement of the pieces is apparently what essence means to you. That is fine, but I am not convinced that a particular thing is itself just because of the way its constituent particles are organized. At the root of all things there is only one substance, which is shown through philosophy and science. This definition of essence doesn't make any sense to me because there is no such things as 'types of things' because there is only one thing.


It would appear from what you have written that the reason you are having difficulty making sense of the concept of essence is that your perspective is unable to distinguish differences based on form

That is funny, I was thinking the same about you.


otherwise there would be no difficulty in concluding that there is a real difference between a living being and non-living matter.

then tell me how you concluded that


One consequence of that inability would be, by the way, having great difficulty accounting for the different elements. After all atomic oxygen is not merely 8 protons, 8 neutrons (in its most common isotope) and 8 electrons. There are interactions and arrangements (involving strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces if you'll allow us to neglect gravity) among the particles. It is because of these interactions that atomic structure arises and makes possible the different energy states of the orbitals that in turn are responsible for the reactions that are typical of oxygen.

But interaction between atoms is the same thing as the atoms themselves. Einstein is pretty well known for this idea, and Hiroshima is proof. Those qualities that are typical of oxygen are only so under the guise that it is fundamentally different from anything else. The atomic structure is an instance of nucleon arrangement, and is not a real thing. It is a concept used to make scientific predictions. These particles, so to speak, is the same energy that causes motion and manifests in electromagnetic radiation. They are one in the same. This is why I wrote before that existentialism neglects that man is the same as nature in all respects, thus showing the weakness of the idea of essence.


My overall disagreement here stems from two points: 1) science is not the appropriate tool for a metaphysical question given that its approach is designed to answer entirely different sorts of questions, and 2) misapprehending the nature of scientific knowledge leads to an unjustified attempt to reduce everything to matter.

1) I entirely agree with you. Science is not used for metaphysics, science produces models and quantities. Atoms as we imagine them do not exist as you see them in textbooks, a really small set of red, blue and yellow balls. They are scientifically shown to be of a particular nature, and that the bodies, brains and ultimately thoughts are merely a product of these interactions. In other words, science is demonstrable in nature and metaphysics is often filled with words that do not mean anything.
2) I apprehend the nature of scientific knowledge just fine. I am not convinced that the using science is not justified, and I think your metaphysics is flimsy.

In fact, your entire post was flimsy. I don't think you've made a relevant point. The way you patronise me in your poorly substantiated replies is ironic and amusing to me. That you spent your time insulting me and using them as tangents makes me think you're a college sophomore.

[blazeofglory]

Blazeofglory writes:

"In fact a rock is as vital as a baby, and the difference is in our inspection, in our lack of penetrating other relams or dimensions of things."

No. Rocks are not "vital." They are not living beings (except for the one on that episode of Star Trek).

It demands of the observer a deep thought and it must transcend layers. What we call inanimate is through a scientific dimension and science suffers its own limitations and at times even if we do not like, we need to take refuge in spiritualism. For we can not die with some of our basic questions unanswered.

Spiritually speaking, the whole world is an organic whole. Differences are simply illusions or veneers. All things in the universe are interlinked and looking at them from a subtle perspective differences vaporize. Please observe deeply and intensely you will come to realize things or realties as if you are returned from your dream.

[RichardHresko]

Mr Dr. Ralph writes:
"Metaphysics is closely related to physics, it is scientific to a degree and includes cosmology and epistemology. I know Aristotle invented the word but there is no such thing."

Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of reality, and hence with what existence really is. Physics describes how matter and energy interact. While there is some common ground one can not use them interchangeably.

Aristotle did not invent the term "metaphysics." The term, according to several accounts, originated with the librarians at Alexandria, who filed the scroll containing Aristotle's thoughts on the nature of reality after the one on physics, making that scroll the "meta physics" scroll, 'meta' meaning 'beyond.'

I don't know what you mean by saying there is "no such thing." Clearly there is a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. Are you maintaining that there is no reality to be described? I am not sure.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"Yes, the piles are definitely a rock and a baby. What is the difference between the two? The arrangement of the pieces is apparently what essence means to you. That is fine, but I am not convinced that a particular thing is itself just because of the way its constituent particles are organized. At the root of all things there is only one substance, which is shown through philosophy and science. This definition of essence doesn't make any sense to me because there is no such things as 'types of things' because there is only one thing."

If a baby is minced, as in the example given by Mr. Dr. Ralph, then it ceases to be a baby. This is not the same as saying that matter that once was organized into a baby ceased to exist.

I believe that the problem here is that matter for you is the only thing that, well, matters. Otherwise it is incomprehensible how one with a straight face can maintain a pureed infant is exactly the same as a living breathing one, or that a rock and a child, or giraffe, or kumquat are identical. I don't see what such a position gets anyone, since at that point there is literally "no things" to interact with or discuss.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"At the root of all things there is only one substance, which is shown through philosophy and science."

I'll ask you to back this up. Show me some references and we'll discuss them.

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"But interaction between atoms is the same thing as the atoms themselves. Einstein is pretty well known for this idea, and Hiroshima is proof."

No, this is not an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. See, for example, P. J. E. Peebles, "Quantum Mechanics" especially Chapter 2, section 14 (on the principles of QM) and Chapter 6 (on atomic structure).

Which idea of Einstein are you referring to? How does Hiroshima "prove" that atoms and their interactions are identical?

Mr. Dr. Ralph writes:
"In fact, your entire post was flimsy. I don't think you've made a relevant point. The way you patronise me in your poorly substantiated replies is ironic and amusing to me. That you spent your time insulting me and using them as tangents makes me think you're a college sophomore."

There was nothing personal in my post to you, or to anyone else. I pointed out what I thought were misunderstandings and errors of science and philosophy, nothing more.

[NikolaiI]

Misquotes, Richard. You continue saying it was blaze, although it was a different poster.

[Scheherazade]

M o d e r a t o r N o t e

If you would like to quote from a post, please click on the http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3341/quotevv0.gif (http://imageshack.us) image on the bottom right corner of that particular post.

If you would like to quote more than one posts in your reply, please click on the http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/999/multiquoteoffyn2.gif (http://imageshack.us) images on the bottom right corner of those posts (they should turn red when they are selected) and then click on the http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9721/replyls6.gif (http://imageshack.us) button on the bottom left of the page.

You can cut the quotes by adding [ quote] before a quote and [ /quote] after it (without the spaces).

[RichardHresko]

I apologize. Technological incompetence on my part.
I was scrolling up and down and misread who posted. I will edit that post to give the correct attribution.

In the future I will use the quote function.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Aristotle did not invent the term "metaphysics." The term, according to several accounts, originated with the librarians at Alexandria, who filed the scroll containing Aristotle's thoughts on the nature of reality after the one on physics, making that scroll the "meta physics" scroll, 'meta' meaning 'beyond.'

I don't know what you mean by saying there is "no such thing." Clearly there is a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. Are you maintaining that there is no reality to be described? I am not sure.

I meant the word essence, and I admit I wasn't very clear.


If a baby is minced, as in the example given by Mr. Dr. Ralph, then it ceases to be a baby. This is not the same as saying that matter that once was organized into a baby ceased to exist.

It ceased to be a baby to you because you're thoughts are apparently constrained by language. To have said that the baby was ever anything besides an arrangement of particles is unlicensed. Language is used for purely communicative purposes, and is not nor ever will be able to imply truth from itself. The baby was never actually a baby, but instead edifice of familiar and apparent constitution: big head, blue eyes, bald, loud, ugly, etc. The components which comprise the baby is at the root of its essence, supposing there is such a thing, and not the manner in which these components are arranged. If indeed, as you wrote before, essence is that which makes a thing a thing, then the word is silly and cannot be applied to such macroscopic objects as babies and rocks because those are simply combinations of the same particles.

It follows here that all qualities such as this are not real in themselves but functions of perception. That is, whether something is tall or not depends on the basis for comparison. Unfortunately, the basis may be subject to extreme physical change, such as the aforementioned mincing. At such a point, the only differences between two objects are conserved, measurable quantities, which is a poorly constructed idea as well, but that is for another thread.


I believe that the problem here is that matter for you is the only thing that, well, matters. Otherwise it is incomprehensible how one with a straight face can maintain a pureed infant is exactly the same as a living breathing one, or that a rock and a child, or giraffe, or kumquat are identical. I don't see what such a position gets anyone, since at that point there is literally "no things" to interact with or discuss.

There is nothing to be gained from my position, which is not to say that that is basis for invalidation.


I'll ask you to back this up. Show me some references and we'll discuss them.

Spinoza's Ethics, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, Einstein's Special and General Relativity, Quantum mechanics/QFT, electromagnetism, lots of Indian philosophy. I have more if you do not like these.


No, this is not an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. See, for example, P. J. E. Peebles, "Quantum Mechanics" especially Chapter 2, section 14 (on the principles of QM) and Chapter 6 (on atomic structure).

I don't have that book {edit} but I am sure it agrees that atoms are a result of nucleosynthesis from a singularity of what is more or less understood to be pure energy. The simplest instance of total mass-energy conversion is that of electron-positron annihilation. Although the system conserves both energy and mass, it shows the total lack of real difference between the two.


Which idea of Einstein are you referring to? How does Hiroshima "prove" that atoms and their interactions are identical?

Rest energy = mc^2, and General Relativity. Hiroshima doesn't prove it so much as it displays the ludicrous amount of energy associated with particle interaction; I should not have said prove. This particle-energy relationship is easily described by the discovery of virtual particles. See a Feynman diagram.


There was nothing personal in my post to you, or to anyone else. I pointed out what I thought were misunderstandings and errors of science and philosophy, nothing more.

Feel free to describe to me why my understanding is wrong instead of asking me to refer to books you know I probably don't own. A physical or philosophical principle is much easier to look up than those obscure and pedantic references.

[Ron Price]

There are quotations which I have written on the blank pages of the great book by Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, quotations which apply as much to this narrative as to Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Gibbon's work, writes Keith Windshuttle, is a demonstration that much of history is driven by the influence of unintended consequences, chance and a human passion which "usually presides over human reason." My own work, while finding no conflict with Gibbon's words, demonstrates in addition, I like to think, a Baha'i philosophy of history "which has as its cornerstone a belief in progress through providential control of the historical process." But neither is man "a thrall to an impersonal historical process." He must deal with the forces of fate, perhaps battle with his fate, as Nietzsche once put it, with his socialization and the free will with which he has been endowed. Perhaps, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, he will come to have a great influence on his age. Perhaps, like Solzhenitsyn or, perhaps, like Xavier Herbert, he could write for sixteen hours a day to tell his story.

He must battle, too, with a prophetic view of the modern age which can only be "proved" in part and which can be so variously interpreted that agreement is difficult and often impossible to forge among the children of men. The story of personal development, like that of artistic change, is not one of progress, like the development of tools, alphabets, or air conditioners; rather, this development embodies the unique expressions of individual souls situated in their own ages, responding to and emerging from the mesh of experiences and cultural habits unique to them. That unique emotional expression, which consistutes the expressive genius of the individual, speaking out from his own place in the world and in history, is what constitutes art--not a checklist of mimetic requirements--and is at the heart of the story of my personal experience. It is not so much my desire to change the world, an elusive exercise at best, it is rather my desire to make sense of it that is the aim of my expressive force and purpose.

With David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, and with Edward Gibbon, I have come to regard my life and, indeed, all of history, "as a drama of human passion." For human passion is many things, some associated with sexual love and others with strong emotion and belief. The former perpetuates the species, is a source of immense pleasure and, for me, for most of us, many problematics; the latter is the motivational matrix behind so much of action. Passions are timeless and the circumstances in which they occur are never the same. Beliefs, on the other hand, especially a belief, a commitment, to a new religion, are seen by most, most of those who were part of my life in some way, as a strange exoticism, at best a movement that impressed them and at worst one that was simply not for them. I have often been an outsider, but one learns as far as possible to make both yourself and others feel at home. My task became to win friends and influence people, to get on some inside, so to speak.

As self-representation, autobiography is perhaps uniquely suited to validate, to explain and analyse, the experience I have had with my bi-polar disability and to counter stereotypical representations which I find arise, in some ways quite naturally, in the course of my life. But this work is not so much an attempt to justify myself before the court of life, so to speak. If this work is ever read to any significant extent, I will be gone to the land of those who speak no more and self-defence will hardly matter then, at least not to me. This work is, rather, a representing of myself to myself and in doing this, others may find that the content and process I go through is useful for them as they go through the process of self-understanding.
_________________
Enough for now!:yawnb:

[blazeofglory]

There are quotations which I have written on the blank pages of the great book by Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, quotations which apply as much to this narrative as to Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Gibbon's work, writes Keith Windshuttle, is a demonstration that much of history is driven by the influence of unintended consequences, chance and a human passion which "usually presides over human reason." My own work, while finding no conflict with Gibbon's words, demonstrates in addition, I like to think, a Baha'i philosophy of history "which has as its cornerstone a belief in progress through providential control of the historical process." But neither is man "a thrall to an impersonal historical process." He must deal with the forces of fate, perhaps battle with his fate, as Nietzsche once put it, with his socialization and the free will with which he has been endowed. Perhaps, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, he will come to have a great influence on his age. Perhaps, like Solzhenitsyn or, perhaps, like Xavier Herbert, he could write for sixteen hours a day to tell his story.

You wrote you have

He must battle, too, with a prophetic view of the modern age which can only be "proved" in part and which can be so variously interpreted that agreement is difficult and often impossible to forge among the children of men. The story of personal development, like that of artistic change, is not one of progress, like the development of tools, alphabets, or air conditioners; rather, this development embodies the unique expressions of individual souls situated in their own ages, responding to and emerging from the mesh of experiences and cultural habits unique to them. That unique emotional expression, which consistutes the expressive genius of the individual, speaking out from his own place in the world and in history, is what constitutes art--not a checklist of mimetic requirements--and is at the heart of the story of my personal experience. It is not so much my desire to change the world, an elusive exercise at best, it is rather my desire to make sense of it that is the aim of my expressive force and purpose.

With David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, and with Edward Gibbon, I have come to regard my life and, indeed, all of history, "as a drama of human passion." For human passion is many things, some associated with sexual love and others with strong emotion and belief. The former perpetuates the species, is a source of immense pleasure and, for me, for most of us, many problematics; the latter is the motivational matrix behind so much of action. Passions are timeless and the circumstances in which they occur are never the same. Beliefs, on the other hand, especially a belief, a commitment, to a new religion, are seen by most, most of those who were part of my life in some way, as a strange exoticism, at best a movement that impressed them and at worst one that was simply not for them. I have often been an outsider, but one learns as far as possible to make both yourself and others feel at home. My task became to win friends and influence people, to get on some inside, so to speak.

As self-representation, autobiography is perhaps uniquely suited to validate, to explain and analyse, the experience I have had with my bi-polar disability and to counter stereotypical representations which I find arise, in some ways quite naturally, in the course of my life. But this work is not so much an attempt to justify myself before the court of life, so to speak. If this work is ever read to any significant extent, I will be gone to the land of those who speak no more and self-defence will hardly matter then, at least not to me. This work is, rather, a representing of myself to myself and in doing this, others may find that the content and process I go through is useful for them as they go through the process of self-understanding.
_________________
Enough for now!:yawnb:

You wrote you have been associated with the Baha'i faith. In fact I was once highly inspired by it. In Delhi, there is a big temple called the Lotus Temple an d there I got in touch with holders of this faith and that time I bought books on this.

Then I have been out of touch with this faith. Really something in this has kindled a blaze of faith in him.

By birth I am a Hindu, yet now I feel I am not Hindu, and to be a Hindu is to divide oneslef along religious lines. That I can not do now.

Though I can not belong to any particular faith, I just garner inspirations from different faiths.

[aeroport]

Folks, you're thinking about this way too much. I'm telling you...
*sings*
We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
Thats the way that lady luck dances
Roll the bones

[blazeofglory]

Folks, you're thinking about this way too much. I'm telling you...
*sings*
We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
Thats the way that lady luck dances
Roll the bones

Jamesian, what do you feel being there to communicate with the one you have never seen and got company of. I believe you take it for granted, and every body does in point of fact. It is technology that enabled us to be together virtually.

Let us de-construct old ideas. We are together because there is no reason for this, and it has nothing to do with questioning.

But we can think differently and our togetherness has a meaning, and the fact why you chose me through many others are there to post has a meaning.

Basically I raised this question seeking different answers from different persons.

All I wan to assert is there is an interlink and we are invisibly connected, maybe ethereally or otherwise all of us are wired to one another. We are really as much connected with one another as every leaf with its tree.

Please revist this idea and reply.