Everything that can be thought of is

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m going to play Socrates for a moment. * dons toga *

Long ago, a man named Parmenides said (roughly) that “that which can be thought of is.” Since his time, we have all become wise beyond belief, and our great wisdom has given us reason to ignore everything that ignorant people in the past ever said.

Nevertheless, I am foolish enough to take Parmenides seriously. Now let me clearly explain what he was definitely *not *saying: He was not saying that every thing you can imagine (a winged pig, for example) exists.

Rather, he was saying – approximately – that nothing can be thought of that is not, and everything that can be thought of is thinkable precisely because it exists. This is, in some ways, quite similar to the thought of Wittgenstein or even to the empiricists.

If true, it has tremendous potential to cut out BS from our discourse. But is it false?

Give me an example of something that can be thought of, that most certainly does not exist. It cannot be anything composite (a square planet) because each aspect of a composite has existence – the mind simply combines “what is” in a new way.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m going to play Socrates for a moment. * dons toga *

Long ago, a man named Parmenides said (roughly) that “that which can be thought of is.” Since his time, we have all become wise beyond belief, and our great wisdom has given us reason to ignore everything that ignorant people in the past ever said.

Nevertheless, I am foolish enough to take Parmenides seriously. Now let me clearly explain what he was definitely *not *saying: He was not saying that every thing you can imagine (a winged pig, for example) exists.

Rather, he was saying – approximately – that nothing can be thought of that is not, and everything that can be thought of is thinkable precisely because it exists. This is, in some ways, quite similar to the thought of Wittgenstein or even to the empiricists.

If true, it has tremendous potential to cut out BS from our discourse. But is it false?

Give me an example of something that can be thought of, that most certainly does not exist. It cannot be anything composite (a square planet) because each aspect of a composite has existence – the mind simply combines “what is” in a new way.

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “nothing can be thought of that is not”. Do you mean nothing can be thought of that is logically impossible? Do you mean that nothing can exist that doesn’t exist actually?

There’s a lot of room for some very different understandings, given the terms you’re using. St. Anselm, for example, thought that this argument proved the existence of God, but St. Thomas Aquinas showed that the argument was faulty insofar as such proof goes.

I need a bit more clarification to know exactly what you’re intending with this.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Areopagite]

I’m going to play Socrates for a moment. * dons toga *

Long ago, a man named Parmenides said (roughly) that “that which can be thought of is.” Since his time, we have all become wise beyond belief, and our great wisdom has given us reason to ignore everything that ignorant people in the past ever said.

Nevertheless, I am foolish enough to take Parmenides seriously.

Just FYI, Socrates thought Parmenides was the devil.

The basics of what Parmenides said has been adopted by many modernist philosophers (most notably, in my mind, Kant). The Pre-Socratics managed to cover every philosophical error which the modernists eventually (and unknowingly) rediscovered.

Now let me clearly explain what he was definitely *not *saying: He was not saying that every thing you can imagine (a winged pig, for example) exists.

Rather, he was saying – approximately – that nothing can be thought of that is not, and everything that can be thought of is thinkable precisely because it exists. This is, in some ways, quite similar to the thought of Wittgenstein or even to the empiricists.

If true, it has tremendous potential to cut out BS from our discourse. But is it false?

Give me an example of something that can be thought of, that most certainly does not exist. It cannot be anything composite (a square planet) because each aspect of a composite has existence – the mind simply combines “what is” in a new way.

First of all, some definitions (and this will be drawn from Aristotle and Thomas Aquians)

Being: That which can exist (also includes things that actually do exist as well)

Real Being: That which can exist outside the mind (this can include possible and actual existence)

Ideal Being: That which exists in the mind (but can also exist in reality as well … like a pink elephant … as long as the essence is not contradictory)

Logical Being: That which exists in the mind and cannot exist in reality

The idea of a “square circle” is a logical being, as it cannot exist in reality, but we can nonetheless have some idea of it, even though we can’t actually see how something like that could exist (because it combines two things that cannot be combined). I suppose that would be a composite though…

But logical being also includes symbolic relations of things. For example, the relation between words and their meanings (if I’m not mistaken) are not real relations but a relation solely in the mind. Also, logic is obviously a logical being. It nonetheless has a foundation in reality, but it does not exist in reality. Also the idea of “negation” and “privation” and “absence” are logical beings, not real beings, but, once again, have a foundation in reality (unlike the square circle).

However, if you are talking about whether one can conceive of any new essence that cannot exist in reality … then you can’t do it … provided that the essence is not self-contradictory (like a square circle).

This is because any thing that can be thought of (i.e. Ideal Being) has the potential to exist in reality (i.e. Possible Real Being).

Does that answer your question?

 

[punkforchrist]

Interesting stuff. To be more explicit, we cannot say that a winged-pig must exist by our very ability to conceptualize it, but wings exist, and so do pigs. Our ability to combine the two results from the existence of each. This is much like Hume’s challenge to think of something completely original, something that doesn’t exist or has never existed. The only exception Hume himself accepted was a new color. He may have been wrong about that, though, since if we consider black and white, we actually have a model for the absorption and reflection of all colors.

It comes back to Anselm, then: if we can conceive of God, does that imply His existence?

 

[Eucharisted]

I am thinking of nothingness right now. There is nothing that exists that is like nothingness, because everything is something. So it is possible to think of “something” that dose not exist. And if you tell me that my thought doesn’t count because nothing isn’t something and so it can’t be thought it, I will reply that, while nothing isn’t something, it can still be thought of, and, if you reply to my reply that nothing cannot be thought of because it doesn’t exist, I will reply to your reply to my reply to your challenge that you have proven my point. Because nothing doesn’t exist.

 

[Kalos]

Here are a few lines of Parmenides’ poem imported from Wikipedia:

*Thinking and the thought that it is are the same; for you will not find thought apart from what is, in relation to which it is uttered. (B 8.34-36)
For thought and being are the same. (B 3)
It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but nothing is not. (B 6.1-2)
Helplessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts; they are carried along deaf and blind alike, dazed, beasts without judgment, convinced that to be and not to be are the same and not the same, and that the road of all things is a backward-turning one. (B 6.5-9)
Thus, he concluded that “Is” could not have “come into being” because “nothing comes from nothing”. Existence is necessarily eternal. Parmenides was not struggling to formulate the conservation of mass-energy; he was struggling with the metaphysics of change, which is still a relevant philosophical topic today.

Moreover he argued that movement was impossible because it requires moving into “the void”, and Parmenides identified “the void” with nothing, and therefore (by definition) it does not exist. That which does exist is The Parmenidean One, which is timeless, uniform, and unchanging:

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown. (B 8.20-22)
Nor was [it] once, nor will [it] be, since [it] is, now, all together, / One, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek? / In what way, whence, did [it] grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow / You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought / That [it] is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow / Later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus [it] must either be completely or not at all. (B 8.5-11)
[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous… Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together, but all is full of what is. (B 8.5-6, 8.22-24)
And it is all one to me / Where I am to begin; for I shall return there again. (B 5) *The problem that philosophers were dealing with was how to explain “being” or “isness”. The nagging question was: Why is there something rather than nothing? In other words, what gives a thing being? Parmenides came up with the break-thru formula which could be stated: “Whatever is, is”

I guess this was a pretty cool solution for its day, but like the “Big Bang” theory of the universe, you can only take it back so far and you need something more. At this point, theology takes over to lead us to the ultimate truth. The Bible informes us that the true source of being for everthing that exists is God. He is the only one who has the property of being within Himself. He is the unmoved mover. The uncaused cause. He needs no one to think of Him. He simply is. He is the “I AM”.

hope this helps

 

[James_S_Saint]

Geez… Parmenides gets SO horribly misunderstood in translation.

He is trying to discuss the nature of existence. He proposes that you cannot point out [think of] anything that isn’t already [made of] present. There is no past or future. There is only “now”. And everything of now comes only from what already was, hence never from nothing and also never to nothingness.

He is right that movement is really only an illusion. This is a complex discussion in itself.

But I’m not sure what you mean by…

Give me an example of something that can be thought of, that most certainly does not exist. It cannot be anything composite (a square planet) because each aspect of a composite has existence – the mind simply combines “what is” in a new way.

Every geometric shape cannot exist in physicality. No part of them is “what is” and thus their combined forms are not mere composite of what is. Yet I can propose a desert with flowing form on the bottom of an ocean and made of exact geometric pentagonals of geo-sand mixed with dodecahedron specks giving softness to order and flow to the persuasion of wind from more infinity small spheres afloat.

I’m obviously not certain where you were headed with any of this, but existence is only because of “difference”.

 

[Areopagite]

He is trying to discuss the nature of existence. He proposes that you cannot point out [think of] anything that isn’t already [made of] present. There is no past or future. There is only “now”. And everything of now comes only from what already was, hence never from nothing and also never to nothingness.

He is right that movement is really only an illusion. This is a complex discussion in itself.

Wh … wha … what?!

Movement is an illusion! Plato would even disagree with that! Plato! In fact, Plato set out to debunk Parmenides’ claim that all change was an illusion. You see, Parmendies (as you correctly wrote) believed that everything was One. Thus, all change, all difference, all movement was an illusion, because such things in order to exist have some principle of multiplicity with them. But, of course, Parmenides was (unknowingly) thinking about how God exists, and not how the created, material order exists.

I am thinking of nothingness right now. There is nothing that exists that is like nothingness, because everything is something. So it is possible to think of “something” that dose not exist. And if you tell me that my thought doesn’t count because nothing isn’t something and so it can’t be thought it, I will reply that, while nothing isn’t something, it can still be thought of, and, if you reply to my reply that nothing cannot be thought of because it doesn’t exist, I will reply to your reply to my reply to your challenge that you have proven my point. Because nothing doesn’t exist.

Aristotle (and Thomas) would say that “nothing” is not a real something but a logical something. It is a logical being because it exists in the mind but not in reality (and does not even have the potential of existing in reality).

 

[James_S_Saint]

Wh … wha … what?!

Movement is an illusion! Plato would even disagree with that! Plato! In fact, Plato set out to debunk Parmenides’ claim that all change was an illusion. You see, Parmendies (as you correctly wrote) believed that everything was One. Thus, all change, all difference, all movement was an illusion, because such things in order to exist have some principle of multiplicity with them. But, of course, Parmenides was (unknowingly) thinking about how God exists, and not how the created, material order exists.

Haha…

Well, both I and Science agree with Parmenides (and Aristotle actually). But the explanation for the illusion of motion is very, very deep and that is why so very many have never realized it. It isn’t important that anyone realize it unless they are looking into the nature of existence itself.

In effect, it is much like what you see as motion of waves. In the case of real water, the water merely goes up and down, but the wave travels horizontally. The water is not actually moving in the direction of the waves. The waves are merely expressing an average height of the water at a given point. That average is not the water, but a property of the water. The average height of the water shifts horizontally, but the water does not.

But when it comes to our perception, all we can see or detect in existence is the waves, not the water, because we also are merely waves. With pictures this sort of discussion goes much much easier and really gets into the real ditty-gritty of the true nature of existence and eventually to its cause - God the Father.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, both I and Science agree with Parmenides (and Aristotle actually).

No … Aristotle bitterly disagreed with Parmenides. Parmenides denied the existence of change, whereas Aristotle did not. Aristotle said that things were changing (and moving) all over the place. Where the heck are you getting that he agreed with Parmenides? He practically burned him as a heretic.

But the explanation for the illusion of motion is very, very deep and that is why so very many have never realized it. It isn’t important that anyone realize it unless they are looking into the nature of existence itself.

Forgive me, this sounds a bit esoteric and … ahem … not true.

In effect, it is much like what you see as motion of waves. In the case of real water, the water merely goes up and down, but the wave travels horizontally. The water is not actually moving in the direction of the waves. The waves are merely expressing an average height of the water at a given point. That average is not the water, but a property of the water. The average height of the water shifts horizontally, but the water does not.

But when it comes to our perception, all we can see or detect in existence is the waves, not the water, because we also are merely waves. With pictures this sort of discussion goes much much easier and really gets into the real ditty-gritty of the true nature of existence and eventually to its cause - God the Father.

Um … well maybe motion is an illusion like waves on water (even though the water is moving) but this analogy does not prove that at all. Is there, perchance, any proof of this? Any philosophical or even scientific demonstration of these bold claims? Hm?

God the Father is unchanging, surely, but God the Father is not creation … creation does have motion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No … Aristotle bitterly disagreed with Parmenides. Parmenides denied the existence of change, whereas Aristotle did not. Aristotle said that things were changing (and moving) all over the place. Where the heck are you getting that he agreed with Parmenides? He practically burned him as a heretic.

Don’t misunderstand. I did not say that they agreed in person, but that they were both actually right except in saying the other was wrong (much like Science and religion).

Forgive me, this sounds a bit esoteric and … ahem … not true.

It is a deep subject, well outside the scope of this forum. It is serious metaphysics (the real kind, not the pop-art).

God the Father is unchanging, surely, but God the Father is not creation … creation does have motion.

God is what creates the illusion of motion - existence.

 

[John7]

Interesting stuff. To be more explicit, we cannot say that a winged-pig must exist by our very ability to conceptualize it, but wings exist, and so do pigs. Our ability to combine the two results from the existence of each. This is much like Hume’s challenge to think of something completely original, something that doesn’t exist or has never existed. The only exception Hume himself accepted was a new color. He may have been wrong about that, though, since if we consider black and white, we actually have a model for the absorption and reflection of all colors.

It comes back to Anselm, then: if we can conceive of God, does that imply His existence?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=6705&d=1254302649

 

[James_S_Saint]

Um … well maybe motion is an illusion like waves on water (even though the water is moving) but this analogy does not prove that at all. Is there, perchance, any proof of this? Any philosophical or even scientific demonstration of these bold claims? Hm?

Actually, now that I think about it, the relativity theory is this same thing, although in its current form, it leaves out a few things so as to appear complete. That is why it requires the “bending of space/time”, because it leaves out any notion of absolute anything other than the perception of speed of light.

All Einstein really said was “If you measure everything relative to something else, all things will have relative measurement to all else.” (Duhhuh…) His mistake was equating actuality with relative measurability and thus presuming that what is, is only the measurement - “it only exists if I can see it, it is only in the form that I see, and it is only as important as I decide.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “nothing can be thought of that is not”. Do you mean nothing can be thought of that is logically impossible? Do you mean that nothing can exist that doesn’t exist actually?

Neither. It’s much more prosaic than that. I’m saying that the category of “those things that can be thought of” is entirely composed of “those things that are”. We just put them together in different ways.

Just FYI, Socrates thought Parmenides was the devil.

I believe that was in a dialogue that proved Plato’s complete misunderstanding of what Parmenides was saying, but I could be wrong.

First of all, some definitions (and this will be drawn from Aristotle and Thomas Aquians)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Interesting stuff. To be more explicit, we cannot say that a winged-pig must exist by our very ability to conceptualize it, but wings exist, and so do pigs. Our ability to combine the two results from the existence of each. This is much like Hume’s challenge to think of something completely original, something that doesn’t exist or has never existed. The only exception Hume himself accepted was a new color. He may have been wrong about that, though, since if we consider black and white, we actually have a model for the absorption and reflection of all colors.

It comes back to Anselm, then: if we can conceive of God, does that imply His existence?

Depends on what you mean. Obviously, we cannot use this to prove God as a composite. We cannot say “combine these ‘things’ we know and you’ll have God”. Rather, we have to say that God is absolutely “simple”, without composition. So far, so good.

But how can a simple thing have properties? I think the key here is that properties (as such) do not exist. The mind creates a category that is purely ad hoc, and labels it “properties”. The properties themselves can be predicated (e.g. omnipotent), but they are not properly properties. (If that makes sense).

So I suppose you can prove that something absolutely simple exists, from Parmenides’ starting point. His idea was that *only *something simple exists, and that everything else was foolishness. In some ways, I think his thinking fits very neatly with concept of absolute transcendence and another world.

Enter Plato…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Geez… Parmenides gets SO horribly misunderstood in translation.

He is trying to discuss the nature of existence. He proposes that you cannot point out [think of] anything that isn’t already [made of] present. There is no past or future. There is only “now”. And everything of now comes only from what already was, hence never from nothing and also never to nothingness.

I think he is saying both. He certainly said a third thing: that that which is-not cannot be thought of.

He is right that movement is really only an illusion. This is a complex discussion in itself.

But I’m not sure what you mean by…

Every geometric shape cannot exist in physicality. No part of them is “what is” and thus their combined forms are not mere composite of what is. Yet I can propose a desert with flowing form on the bottom of an ocean and made of exact geometric pentagonals of geo-sand mixed with dodecahedron specks giving softness to order and flow to the persuasion of wind from more infinity small spheres afloat.

Hi there, Plato.

Of course, Parmenides (and Plato after him) took the insights that “everything that can be thought of is” and “nothing can change” to mean that the physical world is an illusion. (Parm - strong sense “illusion”; Plato - weak sense “illusion”). Thus, Plato would have no trouble with your puzzle of geometric shapes: they do exist, just in another world. We know them through their approximations, but we only know shadows (not the truth).

As for me, I would say something somewhat similar. Shapes exist just like numbers exist, just like the laws of logic or physics exist. There must be some underlying reality that makes these things true: Plato was absolutely right about that. They exist in the mind of God. Our ability to think about them is one direct access we have to ultimate truth.

Let the Plato-bashing begin! :coffeeread: