Time is too precious
to think about
Time is too precious
Time is too precious
to think about
Time is important.
Change and difference create value.
God means nothing without man.
The imperfections of man generates
the perfection of God.
Yet, God’s perfection
is nothing and everything.
For that is the power
of a knowledge that comes
It seems to me that everything we do is for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to survive. We eat, sleep, exercise, work, play, wear clothes, buy houses, read, write, speak, listen, study, teach, sing, have sex, defecate, pretty do everything as a way to survive.
We create institutions to survive. Health care, education, science, philosophy and religion are just some of the institutions we have as a way to survive as a group rather than as an individual.
Seen this way, religion is no different to the ballroom dancing club, tennis club, academic associations that we create in order to survive. Religion, God, souls, mind and self, therefore, are concepts to help us, and should be studied as a biological and anthropological necessities. It should be off-limits to scrutiny.
If we are to take nominalism as 1) the rejection of universals, or 2) the rejection of abstract objects (of the mind) then I am neither.
What I reject is that universals or abstract objects are things in the conventional sense, or even real objects (of the mind). This sentient/animate being conceptualises universals, abstract objects and concrete objects, that is, conceptualisation is a process of a thing, this thing, and not a thing-in-itself. A process is a “characteristic” of a thing.
The communicative symbol is the only “thing” in common between a universal or abstract object (of the mind) in mine and another person’s mind.
So I was pushing with it with the example I gave on deductive reasoning earlier. But there was a point to this – that it does have much to do with the type of subjects and predicates you choose. Here are some mixed examples from here with my commentary:
Here we have an abstract system which is completely based on artificial rules. But also will this work in, say, base-6? Why do we assume base-10?
Built into the definition of birds is feather. So we have a tautology.
Judgment and a matter of degrees, the kind of tires you may have and who is driving or a combination of these.
A matter of degrees.
Part of the definition of plant so a tautology again.
Self defining term.
The major premise is reversed with the minor one.
This is an unusual case with naked foal syndrome but mutations may occur for better or worse. The question remains does a mane define a horse?
Admittedly, this is not the best page for examples. The point though is formal logic is highly restrictive in its use and content. It also says much about language as a medium for communicating truth, particularly when tautological definitions are used. Mathematics seems a better medium but then it is formed upon an abstract system not apply in reality. For this attempts have been made with set theory.
I do not mind enumerative and eliminative induction methods, and probability in the shape of abduction. It only needs to be stated from the outset. Rigour is possible with these if used carefully.
Consider this common example for an argument of deductive reasoning.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
We start with a major (general) premise, move to a minor (particular) premise, then draw a conclusion. Not so difficult. But let’s look at the major premise again.
All men are mortal.
I have met many men. Hundreds, perhaps thousands. But to be sure I have not met all men. Every time I go shopping I see someone I have yet to meet. So what am I basing this statement upon, if it is not based upon observations of the men I have met until now. Where do I find the universal truths? I may ask my wife, children, relatives, friends and co-workers too “have you met any man who isn’t mortal?” and usually (there is always one wisecrack who would claim “yes, I have!”) get a favourable answer (does hearsay count?), but I still have not confirmed that all men are indeed mortal.
What I really have done is enumerated (enumerative induction) all of my experiences with men and come to a probable conclusion that this statement ‘all men are mortal’ is a “truth”. What I really should be saying is that “all the men I have met (and heard about) are mortal”. It would not be truthful to make that major premise. It seems, then, all deductive reasoning is based on an assumption from an experience of high-probability without acknowledging itself to be doing so. There is no true deductive reasoning that can be true as such, only probable conclusions.
Now I am not saying probability are not good. I am saying exactly the opposite, that we only ever have most-probable-answers and likely-to-be-true statements to work with. I am saying, deductive reasoning is flawed, therefore, we should move on.
Yes, I have privileged access to my thoughts, words and actions.
But what access do I have of someone else’s thoughts, if it is not only their words and actions. Equally, no one has access to my thoughts except for my own words and actions.
The concepts in one’s head remains in there until it reveals itself in the form of matter as representation to me or as representation to them.
As I work through my philosophy it is slowly becoming clear that it is best named Object Philosophy. I had considered “concept philosophy” as well but because my philosophy is about fully engaging with the physical world in a meaningful way it seems more accurate a name than concept philosophy, even though concepts play a huge part in it.
Object Philosophy explains how the ontology of things, and the processes of conceptualisation (concepts) and symbolisation (signifiers) relate, and how many of our fundamental assumptions have been wrong, leading to many of the problems and dead-ends in current philosophy, thinking and way of life.
forever, we come in
“halfway through the show”.
never to go back
to the beginning of time,
to our parents’ birth or
even to the last minute
or second that had just past.
for that is time’s character.
there is neither reverse to reality,
nor fast forward, but only ‘play’
we must live with it, deal with it,
but also enjoy the show while it’s on.
In the future, human beings may (will) disappear from the face of the earth and cease to exist in the universe.
“Aliens” may visit earth and see the bones and ruins and surmise in an act of archeology what kind of being created these things. They will see the books and writings (words) but not understand them. For they have no access to the concepts (mind-objects) that no longer exist. What is left are only things and words (as things).
There are no concepts lying around to be found like cultural artefacts. For that is the case. That is the only reality.
“Back in June I said that everyone is trying to will the coronavirus out of existence. And look where that has gotten us to,” my friend said.
While it is fine to think of everything as objects of the mind one still questions whether it is helpful to do so or not.
Because in the end, objects of the mind of object of reality must be dealt with in terms of being objects of reality, not as objects of the mind.
In short, given that all things are equal to prioritise the mind over matter is more problematic the opposite.
If we are to survive this pandemic we need to take physical as well as mental precautions. We cannot believe that by simply ignoring it or by willing it away, it will go away.
Do not look for the answers you want. Take the answers you get.
I am a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. Does that make me anti-Oilers, anti-Jets, anti-Bruins? Or does that just make me a Leafs fan?
I am a Buddhist. Does that make me anti-Christian, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu? Or does that just make me a Buddhist?
Do you see where I am going with this?
The “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” thinking turns everyone else into an enemy when there is no evidence for this. And you can never assume that the other person also thinks like you. There is no evidence for that either.
There are five main faculties. In ordinary language these are sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. It may be obvious but they need to be named. The most used faculty is sight. Your eyes work like a video camera and monitor. The camera captures light creating an image of the things in view and thus determining the space. The faculty of sound does something similar but only in audio form. The faculties of smell, taste and touch are more “localised” where distance and direction is not so important whereas intensity of source is.
Simultaneously, these five faculties give you all the information about the reality, informing you about what exists, their relationship in space and also inform you of time. This information however, needs to be interpreted in synchrony. And this is done by the mind. The act of mental interpretation is called perception.
Earth formed not long after the sun formed. But was does “forming” mean?
It is a process not so much deliberate as accidental. The conditions for conducive the weak forces of material mass brought about a lumping together that can only be called planetary formation. This accidental formation then is a process.
In the early 2000s a man named Steve Jobs invented a device (or a better one at least. Others too were working on similar a product) that could make phone calls, replace your diary and notebook, connect to the internet and not require a keyboard but on a multi-touch sensitive screen. Again, what do we mean by “invent”?
It is, in this case, a process not so much as accidental but deliberate. The conditions were also conducive of putting ideas together to invent the iPhone. This deliberate inventing is also a process.
Whether we talk about planet or iPhones they are things. The forming and inventing are processes that cannot be said to exist as thing but as processes of things.
The word processes, in plural form, hints at the limits of language. To make processes a thing is not only to nominalise but also to noumenalise it. The act of giving a concept a signifier is to nominalise. The act of giving the sign (signifier-concept unit) quality of substance – that is to become a thing – is to noumenalise. Similar acts can be and are done regularly to qualities.
There are two problems. Firstly, the process of noumenalisation is so pervasive that almost goes unnoticed. And secondly, it leads to the perception that there is more than what actually exists.
And it is with this second problem that comes about the unbridgeable gap between ontology and metaphysics.