Self-evidence (main q)

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#421  Postby Regina » Apr 15, 2012 2:03 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Regina wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The time for humanity's education about life and existence is soon at hand.

Care to elaborate?

Yes. When the time comes.


Image

Which translates into a massive business opportunity for all kinds of foils, I tellz ya!
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#422  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:05 pm

Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:

Take it up with the characters who cook up such concepts, not with me. Did you read the page at the link I posted?



You did not ask me my definition of "existence", you only stated, in gross and glaring contradiction to fact, that there is only one definition of existence.

My definition of existence is "a jive-ass word signifying a pseudo-concept the primary purpose of which is to smuggle gods and/or mentally ill solipsist/idealist drek into every damn discussion".

Please oh please demonstrate that I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'd be tickled pink.

Show me one definition of existence that does not include "that which exists".


Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!


Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#423  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:07 pm

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Show me one definition of existence that does not include "that which exists".


Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!


Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#424  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:11 pm

Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:

Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!


Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


"continuance in being or life; life"
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#425  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:12 pm

ex·ist·ence   [ig-zis-tuhns]
noun
1.
the state or fact of existing; being.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#426  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:12 pm

mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#427  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:13 pm

to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#428  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:13 pm

lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!


Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


"continuance in being or life; life"

How does that exclude "that which exists"?
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#429  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:18 pm

We can all use words in various ways. But if the meaning is synonymous then it makes not the slightest difference.
Last edited by Destroyer on Apr 15, 2012 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#430  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 2:20 pm

Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Destroyer wrote:
How does that exclude "that which exists"?


The problem with this has to do with the word 'exist'. I think you will define it as 'to have existence'. You do know what 25 cents and a circular trip around the dictionary will get you: A brightly coloured gumball. Don't dislocate your jaw whilst chewing it.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 15, 2012 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#431  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:22 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#432  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 2:24 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".


See above, and my problem with the word 'exist'.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#433  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:25 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".


Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".


See above, and my problem with the word 'exist'.

If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#434  Postby lobawad » Apr 15, 2012 2:29 pm

"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#435  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 2:30 pm

Destroyer wrote:
If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.


Well, can we choose to have problems with any word or not? Your problem solving ability in this department has not shown up. All we know is that the end is nigh. It always is, my man, so you don't get lots of points for saying the end is nigh. You've defined the word 'existence' in terms of the root word in 'existence', namely 'exist'. Let's get those gumballs a-rolling.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 15, 2012 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#436  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:31 pm

lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#437  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:32 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.


Well, can we choose to have problems with any word or not? Your problem solving ability in this department has not shown up. All we know is that the end is nigh. It always is, my man, so you don't get lots of points for saying the end is nigh.

That's true.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#438  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 2:33 pm

Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!


Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot." And it is also used to specify equality, as in, "2 plus 2 is 4". Above, you are using the word is to say "2 is 2" or "2 is 1 plus 1" or "2 is 4 minus 2". Get my drift?
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 15, 2012 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#439  Postby Destroyer » Apr 15, 2012 2:36 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!


Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot."

Is that not what I have been saying all along?. "That man is an idiot" could very well be reversed for "that man is a unique genius".
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Self-evidence (main q)

#440  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 15, 2012 2:38 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!


Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot."


Is that not what I have been saying all along?


No, it is manifestly not what you have been saying all along. All along, you have been saying "a rose is a rose". Or, more floridly (no pun intended) "to be a rose is to exist as a rose".
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 15, 2012 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest