Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:52 am

Are you saying that indefinite things do exist, but then when a conscious mind names them, they change and become definite?

Yes, they are kind of like background noises until they are identified.

I'm asking if things (or unthings) in their very being can be indefinite and even when seen and identified are still indefinite.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 6:57 am

Felix wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:52 am

Yes, they are kind of like background noises until they are identified.

I'm asking if things (or unthings) in their very being can be indefinite and even when seen and identified are still indefinite.

What is an "unthing".

It's impossible Eternal Forms are trickery. A trickster is either so by accident not by intention, or a trickster is so by intention. In both cases the trickster is dealing in shadowland not the light of the Sun.

It's impossible Eternal Forms are trickery. A trickster is either so by accident not by intention, or a trickster is so by intention. In both cases the trickster is dealing in shadowland not the light of the Sun.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 6:57 amI'm asking if things (or unthings) in their very being can be indefinite and even when seen and identified are still indefinite.

"I doubt that I have any correct conception of a vague object. How, for instance, shall I think of an object that is vague in its spatial extent? The closest I can come is to superimpose three pictures. There is the multiplicity picture, in which the vague object gives way to its many precisifications, and the vagueness of the object gives way to differences between precisifications. There is the ignorance picture, in which the object has some definite but secret extent. And there is the fadeaway picture, in which the presence of the object admits of degree, in much the way that the presence of a spot of illumination admits of degree, and the degree diminishes as a function of the distance from the region where the object is most intensely present. None of the three pictures is right. Each one in its own way replaces the alleged vagueness of the object by precision. But if I cannot think of a vague object except by juggling these mistaken pictures, I have no correct conception."

(Lewis, David. "Many, but Almost One." 1993. Reprinted in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, 164-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 170)

"The only intelligible account of vagueness locates it in our thought and language. The reason it's vague where the outback begins is not that there's this thing, the outback, with imprecise borders; rather there are many things, with different borders, and nobody has been fool enough to try to enforce a choice of one of them as the official referent of the word 'outback'. Vagueness is semantic indecision."

(Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. p. 212)

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 6:53 amhe educated, urban elite, the rich and the powerful have science. The poor use magic and religion to scare the hell out of the rich. And it works right well, witness how the wealthy in the West (and also East) are trembling in their shoes because terrorists might come at any moment, filthy poor people who believe and practice magic

What could possibly make you thing the wealthy and the powerful who have science (though that's somewhat debatable) are trembling in their shoes because the hocus pocus pros are at their heel? Terrorists have killed many, many more of the poor than the rich. Also, never once, with maybe an exception or two have the filthy poor benighted peons ever overwhelmed the the wealth and power lords. In the West it was the emerging philosophies of the Enlightenment intellectuals which attempted to balance the power equation even then being only partially successful.

GaryLouisSmith: I'm asking if things (or unthings) in their very being can be indefinite and even when seen and identified are still indefinite.

How does one determine the "very being" of something that one cannot describe? - or for that matter, of something one can describe? Is its very being different than it's tangible qualities?

GaryLouisSmith: And it works right well, witness how the wealthy in the West (and also East) are trembling in their shoes because terrorists might come at any moment, filthy poor people who believe and practice magic.

LOL, history has shown that technical power beats magical thinking every time.

Consul wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:22 pm

Vagueness and indefiniteness are different things. Consider the statement, If x is a man then x is mortal. That little word "a" is the indefinite article. Without words that point to something indefinite - a/an, any, all, some etc. - one could not speak in generalities and therefore one could not make any scientific laws. For all x, is x is F, then x is G. If that indefiniteness exists only in thought, then all scientific laws are only "in the mind" and either reality "out there" is lawless or a mind, maybe The Mind, creates and controls the world.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:27 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 6:53 amhe educated, urban elite, the rich and the powerful have science. The poor use magic and religion to scare the hell out of the rich. And it works right well, witness how the wealthy in the West (and also East) are trembling in their shoes because terrorists might come at any moment, filthy poor people who believe and practice magic

What could possibly make you thing the wealthy and the powerful who have science (though that's somewhat debatable) are trembling in their shoes because the hocus pocus pros are at their heel? Terrorists have killed many, many more of the poor than the rich. Also, never once, with maybe an exception or two have the filthy poor benighted peons ever overwhelmed the the wealth and power lords. In the West it was the emerging philosophies of the Enlightenment intellectuals which attempted to balance the power equation even then being only partially successful.

I should think that a great anti-theist like you could feel the horror of all those religious people out there killing his world with their polluting, stupid ignorance.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:14 pm It's impossible Eternal Forms are trickery. A trickster is either so by accident not by intention, or a trickster is so by intention. In both cases the trickster is dealing in shadowland not the light of the Sun.

I think you have misunderstood the Liminal, which is where the Eternal Forms reside. The Liminal is that boarder line between the real and the unreal, between existence and non-existence, between sense and nonsense, between your mind and the world, between fiction and non –fiction, between art and religion. Between sunlight and the shadows. The trickster sits on that boarder line selling his wares. Are they of value or worthless? Is he not a trickster, but God Himself? Have I right here spoken anything meaningful at all?

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 9:20 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 3:27 pm
What could possibly make you thing the wealthy and the powerful who have science (though that's somewhat debatable) are trembling in their shoes because the hocus pocus pros are at their heel? Terrorists have killed many, many more of the poor than the rich. Also, never once, with maybe an exception or two have the filthy poor benighted peons ever overwhelmed the the wealth and power lords. In the West it was the emerging philosophies of the Enlightenment intellectuals which attempted to balance the power equation even then being only partially successful.

I should think that a great anti-theist like you could feel the horror of all those religious people out there killing his world with their polluting, stupid ignorance.

Nothing to do with what I wrote or replied to.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 9:50 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 9:20 pm

I should think that a great anti-theist like you could feel the horror of all those religious people out there killing his world with their polluting, stupid ignorance.

Nothing to do with what I wrote or replied to.

You don't seem to understand the insidious, almost invisible way that magic really works.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 10:05 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 9:50 pm

Nothing to do with what I wrote or replied to.

You don't seem to understand the insidious, almost invisible way that magic really works.

I respond to logic not magic even if when replying directly to someone's post. As mentioned, I replied directly to your post, easy to understand even if you disagree. Your response was non sequitur to what you wrote and what I responded to. Btw, terrorists don't attack with magic; they attack with bombs and weapons. Magic doesn't kill sixty people at one time.

Felix wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 6:10 pm

GaryLouisSmith: I'm asking if things (or unthings) in their very being can be indefinite and even when seen and identified are still indefinite.

How does one determine the "very being" of something that one cannot describe? - or for that matter, of something one can describe? Is its very being different than it's tangible qualities?

GaryLouisSmith: And it works right well, witness how the wealthy in the West (and also East) are trembling in their shoes because terrorists might come at any moment, filthy poor people who believe and practice magic.

LOL, history has shown that technical power beats magical thinking every time.

You need to start paying attention to those nettlesome little inconveniences and minor accidents that occur to you if you want to "see" magic. Pay attention to those things that science and history willfully overlook.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 10:16 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 10:05 pm

You don't seem to understand the insidious, almost invisible way that magic really works.

I respond to logic not magic even if when replying directly to someone's post. As mentioned, I replied directly to your post, easy to understand even if you disagree. Your response was non sequitur to what you wrote and what I responded to. Btw, terrorists don't attack with magic; they attack with bombs and weapons. Magic doesn't kill sixty people at one time.

Exactly, you are a direct man, but magic only works indirectly and among non sequiturs. People don't tremble because bombs go off; people tremble because bombs might go off.