We are only able to have perception and call it orderly pattern because it exists without the mind as orderly. Because of such constants i am not inclined to say that order is subjective. Even still, with you saying order is subjective, that reasoning is used to pick apart order from chaos, and there is no need for understanding of the word to notice orderly patterns. I am lost in which point you are making with order being subjective that disproves what i have been saying.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proving my ontological truth.
- Thread starter ColeBowl
- Start date
We are only able to have perception and call it orderly pattern because it exists without the mind as orderly. Because of such constants i am not inclined to say that order is subjective. Even still, with you saying order is subjective, that reasoning is used to pick apart order from chaos, and there is no need for understanding of the word to notice orderly patterns. I am lost in which point you are making with order being subjective that disproves what i have been saying.
I agree, as i have said before it is there too. Harmony and order is also present.
The principle of sufficient reason
My idea of life being attracted to living is just about as simple as this as well, but it gives reasons why existing is better than the contrary to it.
with my understanding of why compassion is important to life as well as order, i use my rational thought to act upon these ideas and surround myself with them whenever possible.
I have been asked many of these same questions in this thread already, and i gave my answers.
I Am
Member
Unfortunately in metaphysical matters like these it's not really possible, logically, to point to one conclusion or another (to prove or disprove). I'm merely giving you my oppinion. For all intents and purposes, however, you may be the one who is correct. I have to respectfully diagree on the basis of my beliefes however... but does my belief constitute fact? No... certainly not. And neither do yours. This is the problem of metaphysics in a nutshell: we're dealing here with transcendental matters which are, throughout time, tested, debated, attacked, criticized, open to interpretations, etc... by other philosophers. Unlike true science, philosophy isn't made up of static truths; rather, it's the study of ideas and concepts which form the illusive fundament of human existence.
dust1n
Zindīq
Then it exists without the mind as chaotic, because I perceive both.
Constants exist on both sides.. with your reasoning, order and chaos exist simultaneously as both truth, and thus a contra dictating statement. Objection is contradiction because it can be perceived as both.
\
He is saying YOU CAN'T KNOW ONTOLOGICAL TRUTH. TO CLAIM YOU CAN IS PHILOSOPHICAL SUICIDE.
what do you mean by "because i perceive both"?
"It seems just as likely to me know(now) that chaos and order(harmony) exist together, or simply as one." -colebowl (in this same thread)
Yes after all he did directly state that just fine. I did not catch the bit about "subjective to the abilities of the mind" meaning we cant know ontological truth. I thought it simply meant that is is variant between two people. Perhaps some people can't know ontological truth because they are so in trenched with such absurd self limiting philosophys and also among other reasons
dust1n
Zindīq
I witness both order and chaos - to say that one dictates the nature of man or reality is pointless.
"Life continues to live because of the harmonious nature of existence, which is non chaotic." -colebowl
I smell contradiction. Did you mean to say that your ontological truth was
"Life continues to live because of the harmonious/dissonant (that is, neither) nature of existence, which contains chaotic", or for short "Life continues to live because of the nature of existence." And should be known to you that eventually life will not live any longer because of that name nature of existence, as we did not exist before.
Subjectivity is not only the variant between two people, but one person and reality.
You truth doesn't pass falsification. Falsification assumes that an assertion of A=B is true only if all possibilities of A<>B are shown to be false.
"Life continues to live..." = A. "...because of the harmonious nature of existence." = B. Sometimes life continues to because of something that is not harmonious, like cannibalism.
Sorry Cole... even if you 'knew ontological truth', you couldn't even know you knew it.
It would only be pointless if you view life as pointless. What i have been saying is life picks out what is orderly and attractive or "beautiful" in order to survive, that is the ontological statement i want to make. i am not saying that it is impossible to be attracted to chaos. I am saying that chaos does not benefit life other than providing a greater understanding of what is orderly.
yes this was a contradiction. Lucky i don't believe every last bit of existence is harmonious anymore though. unfortunately i wanted this to focus mostly on ontological existence of life, too bad i made such a cosmological statement like the one you brought up.
No, i will stand by this, "Life continues to live because of the harmonious nature of existence that is in the presence of chaos" the quote you made is too broad.
That is useless statement because the fact is we exist now, it does not matter if we don't exist in the future unless we can find a way to prevent the ruin of life, threw knowing the form of our destruction. what matters is we live compassionately and act appropriately while we are here.
I don't see whats wrong with cannibalism unless you are killing people to eat them. But,if a person has a sound mind and consents to its own murder because of the benefit of ones dead body to fellow life than that is okay. I would hardly call such actions harmonious or chaotic. it is in a category all on its own. Chaos with the result of ordered outcomes. Anti-chaos.
Can you prove to me i can't know ontological truth?
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
I didn't say life was pointless, I said to think that life exists more heavily on the 'harmonious existence of nature' in comparison to the 'chaotic existence of nature' is pointless. And it is... this meager speculation has no actual usefulness to any person's existence other than making the world sound more bearable and worthy of living in - if you don't need that reassurance, than it would be a rather pointless assertion whether it was even true or not.
But this statement is only true in certain circumstances. Sometimes it is required to pick out what is chaotic in order to survive -- sometimes the attraction to beauty leads people to their own demise. It does not pass falsifiability, and your statement relies solely on context to be true.
I am saying that order does not benefit life other than providing a greater understanding of what is chaotic. In fact, they are both necessary to understand the other.
So far, the only actual perception of 'order' is done by humans. No other life form has such a precept -- if it does, you can't prove it -- at least yet.yes this was a contradiction. Lucky i don't believe every last bit of existence is harmonious anymore though. unfortunately i wanted this to focus mostly on ontological existence of life, too bad i made such a cosmological statement like the one you brought up.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you cole. Can you define order for me? What kind of order is it?
Addressed earlier... both are necessary; your conclusion is pointless and irrelevant to any useful philosophy.
In order for a statement to be true in all possible circumstances, it has to hold true in all possible circumstances. You tend to forget that the human existence is but a speck of dust on a sphere the size of eight suns. I don't know how you think 'we can find a way to prevent the ruin of life' if 'it does not matter if we don't exist in the future'. I agree with the compassionate statement, it matters only because it is beneficial to each and everyone of us; but to claim it to be some metaphysical doctrine is absurd.
Who said anything about consent of the meal? Chaos with the result of ordered outcomes is not 'anti-chaos'. It is still just chaos.
I guess you have never heard of the 'Burden of Proof'...
"If I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers. I can sketch one by one all the aspects it is able to assume, all those likewise that have been attributed to it, this upbringing, this origin, this ardor or these silences, this nobility or this vileness. But aspects cannot be added up."
-Camus
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
What is completely consist to benefiting or prolonging all life that exists? Name one.
Anything that is a catalyst for the replication of DNA such as water. appropriate temperature, i would agree the appropriate amount for all these are relative to the form of life but the point is many of these "elements" are consistent.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
dust1n
Zindīq
:cigar::rainbow1: :clap