Being as such is in any instance of an ontological cogitation, in an absurd struggle towards escaping from itself. If it is the case that Being as such is such a fundamental, unintelligible problem then in the event of its own resolution to its being at all, it will dissolve into non-Being as such. For if the complete and absolute conception of itself as the Presence and Absence at all has been reached - thus, if there is no greater possibility than itself, i.e. that which makes it as Being possible at all - it would not Be anymore at all, for it would have dissolved itself out of the sheer infinite transcendence beyond its own possibility. There would as well be no nothingness or non- existence, because there would be no Being. But now there arises the problem of to whom or to what instance this property of problem and resolve really belongs. Is it merely a psychological dilemma? It cannot be merely psychological as Being as such is Being as such through and through. It means that there are no gaps of nothingness in between Being as a whole. Being, as we shall see, is a solid, static continuity.
It is one essence. No individuals can have predicaments as there are none. Any problem as such is a struggling not even within Being, but as Being itself. From our point of view there is only one abstract essence; and our perspective is no perspective at all. It is continuous in and as Being – present and absent at the same time. Moreover, if being is essential an unresolved problem – it is an infinite singularity, as we shall see, of presence and absence at all -it is an oneness absurdly struggling as itself. And it seems not capable of escaping itself and its possibility. For every resolve is merely an event that is allowed by something greater - indeed another problem - than itself. And it is indeed all there really is, for it is Is. Is is as itself. As presence is something there need not be, it is a problem trying to become nothing. But it can not as it requires an anticipation of non-Being which is ontologically not a possibility. Indeed non-Being is not a possibility as possibility as such is existent.
The fundamental condition on which all previous philosophical endeavours has been actuated is that of the problematic cogitation subjected to the absurd absolute of unintelligible infinity of existence as such. While this ontological contemplation is eventual not via Being as such, but continuous in and as Being proper, it has not in any instance (as in the history of philosophical participation) really expressed itself literally as possessing the will or anticipation towards the ontological escape proper, where this escape is not an abandon of life, but indeed an escape from existence or, Being as such. For is it not the true sense of any instance of ontological analyses to resolve itself, i.e. to ultimately free the entire problem from existing at all. If that is the case, then existence or the ontological dilemma itself which is such a fundamental problem, as we are beings subjected to the forces and unknown of mere nature and are as such smaller than our environment and as we are not in any way capable of viewing existence from above or creating our own existence or being as such, should be the one true subject and object from which we would want to escape from into complete non-existence. But indeed there is the impossibility of such an absurd event. It is the problem of existence we are dealing with and not the problem of non-existence. We merely have to ask the question: Can there be or are there non-existence as such? The reality is that the idea of non-existence is generated by an existing entity or process. Existence as such can not contemplate non- existence as such – it is contra-definitive, i.e. defeating the essential definition and dimensions of existence as such. Existence does not posses qualities of non- existence in order to anticipate non-existence as such, for existence is wholly existence without any non-existential attributes. No entity or Individuality can anticipate its entire, absolute opposite, because the object of definition of opposites as such are to completely distinguish between to complete opposites - there are no common qualities. But then, opposites proper are not possible.
That would mean that the two supposed opposites originated from two opposite Beings as such, for if they did not then they do have a common origin or essence and consequently are not entirely different from one another. In other words, throughout the whole of existence, nothing can be opposite of the other - all must be tints or mere reflections of one fundamental Being. And the upshot of such a conclusion is that the whole of existence simply must be a solid oneness or unit. There can not be open spaces of discontinuity or non-being in between Existence as such. Existence is existence through and through.
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
KharmaDog :"I once again say to you Philosophicus, you muddy your own waters to appear deep." You are only proving your own ignorance and idiocy - I guess you would say that to all other philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Sarte, etc. as their philosophical works are much more dense and complicated than mine. It is your intellectual capacity which limits you to comprehend real philosophy - try reading the works of Witgenstein or Kant and you will see the same "muddy waters".
Please, this forum is for philosophers, not for people seeking a quick answer in a simple form which an infant can understand.
"In other words, throughout the whole of existence, nothing can be opposite of the other - all must be tints or mere reflections of one fundamental Being. And the upshot of such a conclusion is that the whole of existence simply must be a solid oneness or unit. There can not be open spaces of discontinuity or non-being in between Existence as such. Existence is existence through and through."
do you mean that we truely are not individuals at somepoint? all of humanity and animal-types are a single soul?
I would rather say that Living means Dying - from the moment of birth, nature starts gnawing on us, wearing and tearing us - we are always on our way out of life, because the human heart only pounds a certain genetically predetermined couple of times....so it's a countdown to imminent death.
Aha...But physically we do grow and 'improve'...as we reach adult-hood we are fitter, stronger, more intelligent and show a greater level of understanding of the world around us...Therefore, life cannot be seen as a simple degredation of biological matter...
__________________ Come, my child...Your life begins here...
technically we are meant to live eternal lives (according to religion), which would make place for having a mind and body that matures so rapidly. It would be neat to see how much a human being could learn if life expectancy was just extended by 100 years
Phil is refering to us being a singular consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
He just wanted to waste many posts trying to seem like a professor instead of strolling in like the man and saying it in one sentance like your boy just did.
SaTsuJiN, if we lived even up to the age of 100000 yrs, it would have made no difference. Experience and knowledge is a relative condition - it's like a child growing bigger and needing bigger size clothes - it never feels like he's got bigger clothes on, because his body has grown proportionally.
Alpha Centauri - I happen to be a professor in Philosophy here in South Africa at the University of Riebeecks, I'm currently on vacation so I thought I'd check out some forums on the net.
"I happen to be a professor in Philosophy here in South Africa at the University of Riebeecks, I'm currently on vacation so I thought I'd check out some forums on the net."
I'm just a random guy. If that doesn't make you feel bad about coming on here and just confusing a simple point to make yourself seem smart, it should do.
Alpha Centauri: "I'm just a random guy. If that doesn't make you feel bad about coming on here and just confusing a simple point to make yourself seem smart, it should do."
I DON'T KNOW WHAT 'SIMPLE POINT' YOU'RE REFERING TO? IF MY ELABORATIONS CONFUSE YOU, I'M SORRY, BUT PHILOSOPHY IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, MY FRIEND, PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ARGUED OVER SO-CALLED SIMPLE MATTERS FOR MILENIA, AND THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MORE COMPLICATED TREATISES THAN MINE OF SEEMINGLY SIMPLE SUBJECTS.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
Philosophicus you once again attack me based on the intelligence that you perceive that I lack. A judgemental person you are and one who seems to attack anyone who questions their belief or belief structure.
I have read much philosophy, and I never find it to be as convoluted as you try to make your personal philosophies sound. It is high brow hogwash and narcissistic self absorption that makes one think that one must over complicate or over indulge a thought with 25 cent words to sound intelligent.
The mark of intelligence is to be able to convey your thoughts and ideas in a succinct as manner as possible. Plato could discuss his ideas with the greatest minds of his time, or he could relate his ideals to commoners and slaves.
I will not trade degrees, personal successes or IQ scores with you, I will however that you use spell check at least occasionally and check your grammar if you are going to try to wow people with your superior intellect.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
KMC Community Forums
Escapism
Jan 6th, 2005 12:05 PM
