Aristotle Physics and Metaphysics

[IWantGod]

is non-existence real yes of course. You can certainly be non-existent and real.

Please explain how you have come to that conclusion?

what do you mean by terms such as nothing, real, non-existence?

 

[billcu1]

Please explain how you have come to that conclusion?

what do you mean by terms such as nothing, real, non-existence?

[According to Leibniz, existence is not a property]

“Existence. It can be doubted very much whether existence is a perfection or degree of reality; for it can be doubted whether existence is one of those things that can be conceived – that is, one of the parts of essence; or whether it is only a certain imaginary concept, such as that of heat and cold, which is a denomination only of our perception, not of the nature of things. Yet if we consider more accurately, [we shall see] that we conceive something more when we think that a thing A exists, than when we think that it is possible. Therefore it seems to be true that existence is a certain degree of reality; or certainly that it is some relation to degrees of reality. Existence is not a degree of reality, however; for of every degree of reality it is possible to understand the existence as well as the possibility. Existence will therefore be the superiority of the degrees of reality of one thing over the degrees of reality of an opposed thing. That is, that which is more perfect than all things mutually incompatibles exists, and conversely what exists is more perfect than the non-existent, but it is not true that existence itself is a perfection, since it is only a certain comparative relation [comparatio] of perfections among themselves.”

Some of the philosophy is mine. Based on other very good sources the Vedas. Karma concepts. I hope that above says something. This not pure Aristotlean concepts no.

Notice too here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

In what was given to Adam and Abraham,

"In Kabbala is understood as God prior to his self-manifestation " Means there was a “Non-manifest” period. Karma is individual and “reality” is individually observed.

 

[IWantGod]

[According to Leibniz, existence is not a property]

“Existence. It can be doubted very much whether existence is a perfection or degree of reality; for it can be doubted whether existence is one of those things that can be conceived – that is, one of the parts of essence; or whether it is only a certain imaginary concept, such as that of heat and cold, which is a denomination only of our perception, not of the nature of things. Yet if we consider more accurately, [we shall see] that we conceive something more when we think that a thing A exists, than when we think that it is possible. Therefore it seems to be true that existence is a certain degree of reality; or certainly that it is some relation to degrees of reality. Existence is not a degree of reality, however; for of every degree of reality it is possible to understand the existence as well as the possibility. Existence will therefore be the superiority of the degrees of reality of one thing over the degrees of reality of an opposed thing. That is, that which is more perfect than all things mutually incompatibles exists, and conversely what exists is more perfect than the non-existent, but it is not true that existence itself is a perfection, since it is only a certain comparative relation [comparatio] of perfections among themselves.”

Some of the philosophy is mine. Based on other very good sources the Vedas. Karma concepts. I hope that above says something. This not pure Aristotlean concepts no.

This is the idea that there are multiple existences. It does appear that way since we perceive things as existing with different natures.

The other alternative is that there is only one true act of “Existence”. This is to say that Existence is a nature on to itself. We are not the nature that is existence. Our natures move and have their being in Existence. We are more like virtual-existence than actual existence itself. This would mean that as far as our being is concerned there is a real distinction between our natures and the nature that is existence, and our “actuality” (the act of our nature) is wholly dependent upon the power of Existence. We exist analogously; existence is not identical with our nature. We merely have the act of Existence.

Of course, i disagree with your concept of existence.

 

[billcu1]

This is the idea that there are multiple existences. It does appear that way since we perceive things as existing with different natures.

The other alternative is that there is only one true act of “Existence”. This is to say that Existence is a nature on to itself. We are not the nature that is existence. Our natures move and have their being in Existence. We are more like virtual-existence than actual existence itself. This would mean that as far as our being is concerned there is a real distinction between our natures and the nature that is existence, and our “actuality” (the act of our nature) is wholly dependent upon the power of Existence. We exist analogously; existence is not identical with our nature. We merely have the act of Existence.

Of course, i disagree with your concept of existence.

Two people look at a car. They agree it’s a car. It’s red, but one says “The car is ugly” the other says" Are you kidding? That care is beautiful". Objectively what is the car? Beautiful or ugly?

Bill

 

[IWantGod]

Two people look at a car. They agree it’s a car. It’s red, but one says “The car is ugly” the other says" Are you kidding? That care is beautiful". Objectively what is the car? Beautiful or ugly?

Bill

Preference is beside the point. If you are saying that all things are relative, then fare enough. What your argument leads to as far as ontology is concerned is the break down of logical distinctions. For you there can be a square triangle. For me there cannot.

 

[davidv]

Two people look at a car. They agree it’s a car. It’s red, but one says “The car is ugly” the other says" Are you kidding? That care is beautiful". Objectively what is the car? Beautiful or ugly?

Bill

What is objective is the car and its surroundings. What is not objective are the individuals’ judgments of the car. Beauty is subjective.

Where,
Objective is independent of subjects.
Subjective is dependent on subjects.

 

[billcu1]

What is objective is the car and its surroundings. What is not objective are the individuals’ judgments of the car. Beauty is subjective.

Where,
Objective is independent of subjects.
Subjective is dependent on subjects.

There are two “realities” here. The car is “empty of inherent existence” it has no existence in and of itself. Nor do we. Our existence is a gift. Right? Ok the car is neither beautiful, nor ugly (there’s no such thing, only an “absence” of beauty) Not neither nor both. But in two different realities there are two opinions.

 

[billcu1]

Preference is beside the point. If you are saying that all things are relative, then fare enough. What your argument leads to as far as ontology is concerned is the break down of logical distinctions. For you there can be a square triangle. For me there cannot.

“Preference” or Karmic burden. Is what it’s all about.

 

[IWantGod]

“Preference” or Karmic burden. Is what it’s all about.

That doesn’t really explain much.

 

[davidv]

There are two “realities” here. The car is “empty of inherent existence” it has no existence in and of itself.

Based on what exactly? If it does not exist, how can it be perceived?

Nor do we. Our existence is a gift. Right? Ok the car is neither beautiful, nor ugly (there’s no such thing, only an “absence” of beauty) Not neither nor both. But in two different realities there are two opinions.

This seems to be based on unstated premises that have not be demonstrated to be true.

 

[IWantGod]

The car is “empty of inherent existence” it has no existence in and of itself. Nor do we. Our existence is a gift. Right?

To some degree i would agree with this. The car is empty of intrinsic existence. Our “nature” is not existence. But we are “actual” through the act of existence which in itself is distinct from our nature. Without a Nature that is Existence we are nothing at all, because we have no existence in our nature (Existence and our nature is not identical). So one could say that we are not existence (we are nothing in and of our selves) but at the same time we do have actuality (we are real through the act of Existence; we are not nothing) without contradiction.

 

[billcu1]

To some degree i would agree with this. The car is empty of intrinsic existence. Our “nature” is not existence. But we are “actual” through the act of existence which in itself is distinct from our nature. Without a Nature that is Existence we are nothing at all, because we have no existence in our nature (Existence and our nature is not identical). So one could say that we are not existence (we are nothing in and of our selves) but at the same time we do have actuality (we are real through the act of Existence; we are not nothing) without contradiction.

Agreed