Lets dicuss the nature of "existence" (lets all try to be charitable)

[Betterave]

You are changing absence into an object. If something real ceases to exist, it is true that it has become absent from existence, but it does not follow from this fact that “absence” exists in its place, this is to say absence does not have an act of reality, because “absence from existence” signifies non-existence. " We can say the words, but we are not talking about something that exists.

SO, does non-existence exist? Is non-existence real? Of course not. However something which has lost a part of its essence or actuality can certainly exist.

I asked you a question: " could absence from existence be absent from existence?"

You begin to answer it with the assertion: “You are changing absence into an object.”

Are you claiming that the fact that I asked you this question entails that I “chang[ed] absence into an object”? I don’t see why you think that. Could you explain?

Again that depends on what you mean by “blindness” and the context in which you have chosen to express the word.

Is there something in existence which has lost the actuality of sight? Yes

Is there something in existence that has gained in addition to its being or essence the actuality of absence? No, it is clear that such is not possible, because act and absence, reality and non-reality, are absolutely distinct.

Does the blind man have an act of reality? Yes, in so far as there is a man who has lost the actuality of sight.

Does blindness have an act of reality? No, in so far as blindness is by definition the absence of the actuality of sight.

Again, my question was: Could blindness be absent from existence?

Could you just answer the question? I’m not looking for answers to other questions, just this one.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I asked you a question: " could absence from existence be absent from existence?"

You begin to answer it with the assertion: “You are changing absence into an object.”

I answered it with a fact, and then i showed why that fact was true. Yet you keep on committing the same conceptual error.

Again, my question was: Could blindness be absent from existence? Could you just answer the question? I’m not looking for answers to other questions, just this one.

That depends on the context of the question. The question was answered in a strictly ontological manner, ontology being the context in which this thread is operating. Its like asking, “does no limbs exist”. A “person” with no limbs exists; but “no limbs” in and of itself and by itself is not an act reality. No limbs, by definition, is the absence of the reality of limbs. Thus “no limbs”, in a strictly ontological sense, does not exist, although the concept certainly does. Blindness is the absence of the reality of sight. Do people who cannot see exist? Yes. Does blindness have an ontology? No, in so far as blindness only signifies the absence of the reality of sight and is thus not real object in and of itself. The word “blindness” is just a sign pointing to the the absence of what use to be real or actual. A new reality has not been “added” in the place of sight, and that is simply because blindness is not an act of reality; it is not an act of existence. Its a negation.

So back to your question, “could blindness be absent from existence”. The answer is simply this: it didn’t “exist” in the first place, since it does not have an act of reality. You are confusing conceptual categories with existential categories.

 

[Betterave]

I answered it with a fact, and then i showed why that fact was true. Yet you keep on committing the same conceptual error.

With what fact did you answer my question? And what conceptual error do I keep on committing (and where do I keep on committing it)?

(You should really try to focus on showing me my errors, as opposed to telling me that I’m committing them. If you don’t show me first, then your telling me that I am in error is just you begging the question, which gets tiresome after a while.)

The question was answered in a strictly ontological manner, ontology being the context in which this thread is operating.

What does that mean?? (Even though you ignore a lot of my questions, I’ll keep asking.)

Its like asking, “does no limbs exist”. A “person” with no limbs exists; but “no limbs” in and of itself and by itself is not an act reality. No limbs, by definition, is the absence of the reality of limbs

. Thus “no limbs”, in a strictly ontological sense, does not exist, although the concept certainly does.
Again, what does “in a strictly ontological sense” mean?

Blindness is the absence of the reality of sight. Do people who cannot see exist? Yes. Does blindness have an ontology?

What does “have an ontology” mean?

So back to your question, “could blindness be absent from existence”. The answer is simply this: it didn’t “exist” in the first place

, since it does not have an act of reality. You are confusing conceptual categories with existential categories.

This answer is not an answer to my question, but a misunderstanding of it, it seems, since my question - “could blindness be absent from existence?” - does not imply that blindness did exist in the first place (or “exist” - and, again, I’m curious what the function of the scare quotes is here for you). Just so you don’t misunderstand again, let me repose the question: “whether or not blindness ever existed, is blindness such that it could be absent from existence?”

Presumably your answer here will be that it is still nonsense to suggest that blindness could ever have existed, because blindness has always been and always will be absent from existence. If that is your claim, however, as it seems to be, then I don’t see why you think it’s true, although you certainly do seem quite insistent that it is.