Non Existence, explain this

[Areopagite]

AndyF:
Even if it bore out that non existence is perfect which it is, then you will need to prove that a being possessing the perfection of existence is “Better” than one possessing the perfection of non existence, but only then. Still, you would need to define the parameters of what Better is that is acceptable to both parties involved and you haven’t done that yet.

Yeah, I should have done that a long time ago. “Better” (and in this case “Good” … and, I guess, even “Perfect”) can have a couple different definitions.

In answering your question, I am first going to lay out as many definitions/examples of goodness that I have encountered in philosophy. I might be using slightly different terminology than what is traditionally used more often but the concepts are things that I haven’t made up (at least, I’m pretty sure) but have learned from previous philosophers. So, I am also open to corrections on what I am about to say.

Perhaps among broadest definition: *goodness/perfection pertains to fulfillment/completion/wholeness. *

Examples of Goodness as "Having Wholeness"

So, yes, in your example of nothing, you could say that a chunk of non-existence is perfect insofar as it fulfills what nothing is. You could even call that good. Since it attains what it is without deviation of any kind, it can be said to be perfect nothingness.

Another example is a pen … a good pen would be one that fulfills the role of a pen … it writes. If the pen is impaired in some way, and it does not write well or at all … it is a bad pen … it comes short in being a complete pen. A pen that fulfills its role as pen completely can be said to be a perfect pen.

Examples of Goodness as "Fulfilling Another"

There is another way we can talk about goodness … a kind of relation between two separate thing. Food can be said to be good for our bodies, for if we do not make it a part of our bodies … the body starts losing its ability to fulfill the function as a body. In such a case, the body can be said to be imperfect until it receives the food. The object of desire, the food in this case, does not necessarily need to be imperfect in itself.

Likewise, oil is good for a car, for without it, a car cannot function as a car. Oil in that sense is good.

Of course, what is a good for one thing may not be good for another. So, in this usage of goodness, it is relative to what other thing you’re talking about.

Examples of Goodness as "Fulfilling an Ultimate Purpose"

You could talk of goodness in view of a higher goal. There are different goals in different hierarchical positions. Some are more ultimate than others … and of course there is the most ultimate one on the very top …

First of all, you could say that you have good car because you can get to work on time with it. Not only is the car good in itself (that is, it drives like a car should) but it serves a higher cause … namely getting you to work.

Something can even lack goodness in the previous sense but be good in this other sense. For example, you might see a woman with a flat tire and you help her out … and through that encounter, one thing leads to another, and you eventually get married. The flat tire was bad in itself because, due to the condition it was in, it was not fulfilling its role, and neither was it fulfilling a higher role of making the car operate as it should … but another goal was achieved … namely, the marriage. In such an event, a happy couple could look back at that flat tire as a good thing.

A reverse example of this would be some inhumane torture instrument that fulfills its job well as a pain-inflictor (good in that sense) but falls short of a higher goal of keeping order, morality, and decency in a society (not good in that sense).

Continued on the next post…

 

[Areopagite]

Examples of Goodness as "Fullness of Being"
(note: I might be using “Fullness of Being” inaccurately here … but I don’t think so)

First of all, perhaps we can agree that all things come from God. That is, everything is a reflection of something in God. God cannot create anything that has something that God doesn’t have. In that sense, God is the fullness of being. All beings find their origin in God.

Also, each thing that exists has a different amount and varying kind of being. For example, an old computer might fulfill its designed function quite well, but a certain newer and up-to-date computer might not only fulfill the function of the old computer but also do things that the old computer could never do. We would thus call this new computer a better computer. For, not only can it achieve the purpose of the former, but it fulfills additional purposes and perhaps fulfills older purposes faster. Even though we can say the old computer fulfilled its designed function perfectly (and in that sense, it is good), the new computer is thus better because it surpasses the older in more ways. We might even say that the newer computer has more being … it actually reflects God more (in some way) because it can do more than the older and thus resembles God more because God can do all things. The older computer lacks certain things that the newer has … and thus, in some way, has more things/being. Maybe you are not buying this, but you would say that a newer computer that does everything an older computer can do but more is a BETTER computer.

If that didn’t convince you, let me give you another example. A human is rational, whereas an animal is not. A human thus has the power to understand abstract truth, whereas an animal merely can grasp sense impressions and rely on instinct. Though a deer, for example, can theoretically be perfect as a deer, nonetheless, an animal with a rational faculty (i.e. a human) is better. The human is better than a deer (at least in this regard), for the human has a kind of being that the deer has not. Thus, if something has more being than something else, that something is better. That is because the the thing with more being is closer to God who has all being (all possible powers). Even though a deer can be said to be perfect (as a deer), a human is more perfect because a human has rationality. Rationality, then, can be said to be a perfection. Likewise, animals have the perfection of having senses, whereas plants do not, though plants can be perfect plants (though that is “perfect” in a different sense). Also, in this sense, no creature is perfect because no creature is completely filled with all perfections. Only God has all the perfections, and in this way He is perfect. He has fullness of being.

I’m going to stop here for now because it is very long. Do you object so far? I apologize to anyone who notices a mistake in my reasoning. Please mention it if there is one. I wouldn’t be too surprised. I also apologize if you killed yourself in the attempt to follow my argument. If you have, you’re a better man than I.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You could say that God is essence, from the verb essere “to be”. So God is the source of life, and is being. Yahweh, the name for God in the Old Testament means “I am”. Existentialists believe that existence preceeds essence, however Christianity believes that essence preceeds existence. I don’t know what I’m talking about now.

There is nothing higher then that which is being in its very nature of being; “being”, being another term from existence. Anything that begins to exist or proceeds in time, is not being by nature, but rather is that which participates in the reality that is being in itself. This being that is being by nature, is God; God being defined as the root and sustainer of all things.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You do not know the limits of logic. One can only know reality through experience.

First of all you cannot know scientific truth from what you experience with the senses, such as time, space and matter, since these things could be just illusions. Science is based on faith. But you can know being in its most general sense. You know reality because you exist. If you did not exist, you could not know anything. Thus you cannot not exist and at the same time have knowledge of your existence. It is therefore evident that one can know certain logical truths about existence, such as the law of non-contradiction, without ever having epistemological knowledge about sense experiences. The reason being is that we imminently know existence through our own existence, and in knowing, we ought to be aware that there is a fundamental ground of logic that we can identify with objective existence.

Thus we have good reason to believe that logic tells us something true about reality.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So, yes, in your example of nothing, you could say that a chunk of non-existence is perfect insofar as it fulfills what nothing is. You could even call that good. Since it attains what it is without deviation of any kind, it can be said to be perfect nothingness.

There is no such thing as perfect nothingness. Absolute Nothingness is not a nature that can be described positively by itself. Nothingness is not real. It is a negation of being, and is only meaningful in respect of being, just like evil is only meaningful in respect of the greatest good. If there was absolutely nothing, then nothingness would exist as a positive state of being, which is a logical contradiction because nothing has no being. If it were so that absolutely nothing existed, then It would be an “objective logical truth” that non-existence is perfect; and yet logic, objectivity, and truth, would not exist in non-existence and so neither would perfection. Nothingness is not real, and therefore nothing positive can be said of it. Terms such as the “objective good” are only meaningful in terms of existence, since good applies to the reality of existing things. True perfection is by definition something that cannot fail to exist because it has no flaws in its being. Something that does not exist, is not perfect or good.

 

[centurionguard]

There is no such thing as perfect nothingness. Absolute Nothingness is not a nature that can be described positively by itself. Nothingness is not real. It is a negation of being, and is only meaningful in respect of being, just like evil is only meaningful in respect of the greatest good. If there was absolutely nothing, then nothingness would exist as a positive state of being, which is a logical contradiction because nothing has no being. If it were so that absolutely nothing existed, then It would be an “objective logical truth” that non-existence is perfect; and yet logic, objectivity, and truth, would not exist in non-existence and so neither would perfection. Nothingness is not real, and therefore nothing positive can be said of it. Terms such as the “objective good” are only meaningful in terms of existence, since good applies to the reality of existing things. True perfection is by definition something that cannot fail to exist because it has no flaws in its being. Something that does not exist, is not perfect or good.

I can certainly appreciate the human logic your using here. However; this logic is (“only”) in direct proportion to mankind’s limited capacity to understand and make theoretical conjecture about this see-able world outside of ourselves. Before human sciences theoretical proposal of the Big-Bang Theory I would venture to guess that there must have been some massive void to fill this expansive unimaginable universe we see in the splendor of God’s glory today. Some might call this void (“nothingness”) as far as the human mind is capable of understanding the unfathomable mystery of how God created the Universe.
If (“Nothingness”) does exist, only God the creator is capable of understanding it’s mystery because it is far beyond the scope of human intellect or any other sentient being inside and outside of this one particular universe that God has created. Who can say with certainty that their are not other universes or dimensions which though may be fascinating; they are really none of our concern.

 

[AndyF]

Before I go further, it needs to be said that I think I express the sentiments of the people here in thanking you for the well thought out elucubration that you present here and in the previous post.

Examples of Goodness as "Fullness of Being"
(note: I might be using “Fullness of Being” inaccurately here … but I don’t think so)

First of all, perhaps we can agree that all things come from God.

All things appear in this realm when it is created. Within this state and within the boundaries of His realm, yes. In this context all things are good TO HIM that He creates, past tense. Is it typical for a being that cannot be effected find everything good? In order to answer that question we need a range of possibilities.

God cannot create anything that has something that God doesn’t have.

So if non existance is not within this jurisdiction, or imposes some limitation to His influence, then nothing may have an equivalent. It would appear all conceptual beings have non life eternal,eternal contentment, and that without any influence by God.

If that didn’t convince you, let me give you another example. A human is rational, whereas an animal is not. A human…

An aware being needs social interaction. Mary ran to her cousin for feedback, the list goes on. He gauges his worth by what other beings say about him and what is said to him. He is imbued with the dignity that comes from being created in His image, and because of the grace for the potential for a degree of beatification. A being that is destined to judge angels can only be viewed as having a measure of value or worth.

Categorizing a bit lower in your list are the inanimate objects without souls. (A very good summary here and well explained I might add.) God gives us value and tells us how much he loves us. A creator would always convey in various ways this love, the love that is valued more than the inanimate objects and animals and has the “Highest Fullness of Being” as you explain. If this is so, any mention of someone in the third person should also convey that dignity.

God instructed St. Paul and inspired his words. But there is something wrong. Apparently, a metaphor of us can not come up with a higher dignity than the dignity reserved to clay pots. A clay pot that is supposed to be comfortable in knowing he may have been created for destruction. Having got the message, the existing aware being may wish he had at least been deserving a dignity of the deer in your analogy. My point is God does not seem to convey the dignity that would normally set us apart from other creation. The existing aware come away with the feeling they are aware things rather than conveyed aware beings. I could go on in scripture with various other accounts, and do not even need to deviate from NT.

In fact if I had been assigned the job, in the spirit of social action between beings, also in what God expects of us(paradoxes notwithstanding), then I should not be afraid to object to having my fellow beings described as clay pots. But apparently even Paul would do has he is told for self preservation while in this wonderful existing (coerced) state.

So in summary there is no one we could count on who will represent our dignity of being and that says it all. Every once in a while our spiritual self esteem could do with some uplifting. The irony is that the non existing have none of these problems.

Andy

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can certainly appreciate the human logic your using here.

Sorry, but i don’t think you do.

What you are saying is groundless in respect of what my post was attempting to convey. I can know for certain that which applies to being in general. What you are saying is that I cannot know “epistemological truth”, in respect of what is presented to me by my sense impressions (space time and energy); for all i know the universe does not exist; at least not in the same sense that i do. Science is based upon faith, not knowledge, or acquired truth.
But i can know my self imminently, and there are certain undeniable facts about being that follow necessarily from knowledge of self. For example; i cannot not exist and have knowledge of that fact. Similarly, i cannot have knowledge of self and at the same time not know that i exist. I cannot think with out proceeding from one moment to the next, etc. I can know that, in respect of being, there is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction, for being is fundamentally that which “is” rather then that which is “not”. In fact i become aware that being in itself is fundamentally logical in respect of existence and my experience of it, and in so far as i experience existence in its most general sense, this truth cannot be false. A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time; this is absolutely true of objective reality, and i can know this truth.

I am a meta-physician; not a scientist.

I would appreciate your posts more if you could explain why my previous post did not reflect certain truth.

Before human sciences theoretical proposal of the Big-Bang Theory I would venture to guess that there must have been some massive void to fill this expansive unimaginable universe we see in the splendor of God’s glory today. Some might call this void (“nothingness”) as far as the human mind is capable of understanding the unfathomable mystery of how God created the Universe.

That really depends on how you define nothing. Nothing as far as its defined, is that which does not exist. It is that which has no being. This is what i am speaking about when i talk of nothing.

If (“Nothingness”) does exist

Thats a Contradiction in terms

, only God the creator is capable of understanding it’s mystery

We are capable of understanding some things. One thing we can understand is that we exist, and thus there is such a thing as existence, as apposed to non-existence.

they are really none of our concern.

You can remain unconcerned if you so please.
Thanks for your reply.

 

[AndyF]

MindOverMatter:

and is only meaningful in respect of being

Correct, and is the platform on which this thread is launched. It is not for the feint hearted delving into mind bending contortions it’s destined to bring. I think if one wishes to remain in the empirical, he’ll get nothing from here.

We need to bring non existence into a state for the purpose of our conversation, and I admit that isn’t easy.

But there are certainties, some aspects of this iceberg that reveals it’s tip in various ways. The tip reassures us that at least one Being is capable of accessing it’s wealth for the raw material for creation. We even have subtle references to it’s reality, in “not being born”. So there is an underwater portion that intrigues us and is pertinent for it’s potential for a haven.

Nothingness is not real, and therefore nothing positive can be said of it

Neither can it be negative, therefore it’s discussion cannot be objected. Of course we can create a “bogeyman” if that suits our purpose, and some will try, but that is illogical too has we are trying to change the characteristic of nothing. Which is the answer we seek on this thread. “Why is it negative”(when you say it is not positive)?. I appeal to that same logic you aspire to.

True perfection is by definition …

the highest or most nearly perfect degree of a …trait.

It is the most perfect of the trait of …nothingness. We can even describe degrees. For instance if it contained a guark, it would have characteristics that make it imperfect of itself, but brings it closer to the perfection of existing. If it helps, picture a thermometer.

Andy

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is the most perfect of the trait of …nothingness.

Redefining the word nothing and perfection will not lead us to objective truth. Sure; for the sake of arguement you can apply perfection to nothingness, but only in a purely “subjective” sense. And subjective it remains. It has no objective truth what-so-ever. I thought objective truth is what we wanted to find out. Now…time for a little roll around:ehh::

 

[centurionguard]

Sorry, but i don’t think you do.

What you are saying is groundless in respect of what my post was attempting to convey. I can know for certain that which applies to being in general. What you are saying is that I cannot know “epistemological truth”, in respect of what is presented to me by my sense impressions (space time and energy); for all i know the universe does not exist; at least not in the same sense that i do. Science is based upon faith, not knowledge, or acquired truth.
But i can know my self imminently, and there are certain undeniable facts about being that follow necessarily from knowledge of self. For example; i cannot not exist and have knowledge of that fact. Similarly, i cannot have knowledge of self and at the same time not know that i exist. I cannot think with out proceeding from one moment to the next, etc. I can know that, in respect of being, there is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction, for being is fundamentally that which “is” rather then that which is “not”. In fact i become aware that being in itself is fundamentally logical in respect of existence and my experience of it, and in so far as i experience existence in its most general sense, this truth cannot be false. A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time; this is absolutely true of objective reality, and i can know this truth.

I am a meta-physician; not a scientist.

I would appreciate your posts more if you could explain why my previous post did not reflect certain truth.

That really depends on how you define nothing. Nothing as far as its defined, is that which does not exist. It is that which has no being. This is what i am speaking about when i talk of nothing.

Thats a Contradiction in terms

We are capable of understanding some things. One thing we can understand is that we exist, and thus there is such a thing as existence, as apposed to non-existence.

You can remain unconcerned if you so please.
Thanks for your reply.

What you are saying is groundless in respect of what my post was attempting to convey. I can know for certain that which applies to being in general. What you are saying is that I cannot know “epistemological truth”, in respect of what is presented to me by my sense impressions (space time and energy); for all i know the universe does not exist; at least not in the same sense that i do. Science is based upon faith, not knowledge, or acquired truth.

Everything that you have stated here is based purely on the perceptions of your own human intellect though some of does have a basis of truth I do no see how you can state:

Science is based upon faith

What kind of faith are you referring to: human faith or Faith in God ?

“epistemological truth”

The means for acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood depends upon what TRUTH you are referring to. Truth about God or truth about human theoretical science ? There is a huge difference.

I am a meta-physician; not a scientist.

Neither am I.

That really depends on how you define nothing. Nothing as far as its defined, is that which does not exist. It is that which has no being. This is what i am speaking about when i talk of nothing.

What you define as nothingness here is the (“human definition of nothingness according to how the limited human intellect perceives nothingness”) Science defines no absolutes. It only perceives absolutes according to limited human intellect. God on the other hand being supreme and and supernatural is the ONLY absolute.

We are capable of understanding some things. One thing we can understand is that we exist, and thus there is such a thing as existence, as apposed to non-existence.

No arguments here.

You can remain unconcerned if you so please. Thanks for your reply.

If I was unconcerned why would I even bother to give (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m certainly not your enemy. What I meant by the universe was not our concern is that both you and I have a bigger challenge than worrying about the mystery of Gods universe. Its our focus on God which demands our greater interest.

Peace
Chris

 

[Areopagite]

Before I go further, it needs to be said that I think I express the sentiments of the people here in thanking you for the well thought out elucubration that you present here and in the previous post.

Thanks. That does mean a lot.

My post here, or at least parts of it, might not be up to snuff. I might have misinterpreted a lot of your words. I’m first going to address some of your earlier things too.

And if God desires/ed this method [of allowing people to choose whether or not to exist before they exist (which Areopagite denies the possibility of)]?

How do you reconcile this limitation you impose with God’s ability to do anything? Perhaps he can’t make things not exist either? Never been proven.

Then he would be implementing choice when there wasn’t any, then, assigning punishment for one of the options chosen. Your describing an ogre, not the God I know.

The way I justify putting a limitation on God’s omnipotence with regard to doing a metaphysical absurdity is that God can do anything, and metaphysical absurdities are really not even things. Correct me if I’m wrong. It’s like a square circle … it cannot be conceptualized … it has no being at all whether actual or potential. A square circle combines conflicting definitions and thus conflicting essences. A square circle is not a thing. Therefore God cannot do or make it.

Likewise, “a conceptual being which has no actual existence being able to make an actual decision to exist or not exist” cannot be conceptualized because surely it is not possible for a purely potential thing to do an actual thing. It offends logic. Therefore, you could say, it is not a thing. Therefore God cannot do it, because God’s omnipotence only extends to everything … not to non-things. (I didn’t make this up)

If you are to hold that God’s omnipotence can contradict metaphysical necessity, then we should probably continue that on the other thread that deals with that question. But, in short, if God can contradict metaphysical necessity, then we officially cannot talk of God at all, either in the negative or the positive, for He could constantly contradict our logic. Theology would be meaningless. I am not prepared to accept that.

Using your logic in previous arguments, something can not have more goodness than nothing.

I hope this objection has been refuted in my last post, for I showed there are different kinds/levels of goodness, ones that did not solely pertain to the fulfillment of a thing as the thing it is (just as “nothing” can be a perfect “nothing” … in some sense … I think) but there are uses of the word that pertains to “fullness in being” (and I hope that’s the right phrase) … that is, things that have more being are better than those which have less. Thus, something, since that implies being, has more goodness than nothing, which has no being.

All things appear in this realm when it is created. Within this state and within the boundaries of His realm, yes. In this context all things are good TO HIM that He creates, past tense. Is it typical for a being that cannot be effected find everything good? In order to answer that question we need a range of possibilities.

So if non existance is not within this jurisdiction, or imposes some limitation to His influence, then nothing may have an equivalent. It would appear all conceptual beings have non life eternal,eternal contentment, and that without any influence by God.

I may be horribly misunderstanding you.

I do think that non-existence and nothing is in some way out of God’s jurisdiction and influence, because everything is within God’s jurisdiction, and nothing/non-existence does not fall under the category of everything. **Nothing is not a thing. Non-existence is not an existence. To deny those truths would be violating the principle of non-contradiction.
**
All conceptual beings, since they do not have existence of their own, definitely do not have actual life eternal … and definitely do not have actual eternal contentment either. This is because they do not actualy exist (and contentment would seem to require consciousness no? … unless you have a different definition of it). However, they potentially have life eternal and potential eternal contentment. This, I suppose, applies also to their receptivity of God’s actions too. Actuality vs. Potentiality stuff is good stuff to think about here, I think (Aristotle, of course, was big into that).

In your last post, when you talk about the dignity of things, I really start to lose you and fail to see the point being made. Especially here …

A clay pot that is supposed to be comfortable in knowing he may have been created for destruction.

Clay pots can’t know anything obviously … I’m confused.

… this wonderful existing (coerced) state.

Our existence is not coerced. Coercion has to do with going against our will. Thus, our existence was not coerced because we were not ever willing against God’s decision as he created us. That is because, once again, we cannot will anything so long as we don’t exist.

Every once in a while our spiritual self esteem could do with some uplifting. The irony is that the non existing have none of these problems.

I suppose that you could say the non-existing have none of these problems, but they have the greater misfortune of not existing. Once again, as said by many saints, the souls in hell are better off than the souls that never existed, because the former has more actual being.

I was sort of all over the place, but I wasn’t follow your argument. My fault, perhaps. No worries.

 

[geometer]

Why would logical deductions about metaphysics be certainties? It seems that there has been a great disregard for metaphysical facts in this thread.

If anyone believes that they have based what they wrote on facts of metaphysics, please restate them. And the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are premises of logic. They are not metaphysical facts…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why would logical deductions about metaphysics be certainties? It seems that there has been a great disregard for metaphysical facts in this thread.

If anyone believes that they have based what they wrote on facts of metaphysics, please restate them. And the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are premises of logic. They are not metaphysical facts…

What do you think metaphysics is. And who says that Metaphysics doesn’t use logic? In fact; what are you talking about?

 

[geometer]

What do you think metaphysics is. And who says that Metaphysics doesn’t use logic? In fact; what are you talking about?

Metaphysics is the exploration of the nature of reality.

Why don’t you answer my question?

 

[Areopagite]

Why would logical deductions about metaphysics be certainties? It seems that there has been a great disregard for metaphysical facts in this thread.

If anyone believes that they have based what they wrote on facts of metaphysics, please restate them. And the law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity are premises of logic. They are not metaphysical facts…

“Metaphysics” is a very abused word today, so your question is understandable, I think.

The use of the word “metaphysics” based on Aristotle’s writings is the best, I would argue, since he was the one who coined the term and drew the concepts out very clearly that lasted for over hundreds and hundreds of years, through the Scholastic period.

Metaphysics, Aristotle basically says, is the science (i.e. organized body of knowledge) dealing with truths that transcend all other sciences. It is knowledge that transcends all other knowledge, and is relevant to all other knowledge. Included under metaphysics is ontology, which studies being and existence. Also under metaphysics is universal science, which studies first principles, like the law of non-contradiction. What is also included under metaphysics, interestingly, is natural theology.

To reject metaphysics would be to reject necessary knowledge that makes all other knowledge possible, like the principle of non-contradiction and the idea of being and existence. Any logical system presupposes metaphysical principles such as these otherwise logic is meaningless and useless … for if the principle of non-contradiction was false, the very essence of logic is undermined. Also, at least in my study of logic, at least a small rudimentary knowledge about being and existence is necessary, otherwise the terms in the propositions cannot be understood and grafted into logical forms. The “all” and “some” quantities and negative and affirmative qualities that logical systems use must first be understood ontologically, at least in my view.

If one, thus, does not accepts metaphysicals facts then nothing makes sense. For this reason, I claim they are certain, for if they are not certain, then nothing is certain, and the statement “Nothing is certain” is even uncertain. Complete absurdity results unless one affirms metaphysics.

 

[AndyF]

MindOverMatter:

I thought objective truth is what we wanted to find out. Now…time for a little roll around

OK, I see the problem.

We are exercising Aristotle’s ground rules for the study of truth. 1/We are aware of our existence. 2/We use reason.

We can either exist or we don’t. Some have corresponded the reality of negativity with the truth of non existence, or vice versa. Assuming the truth of these statements, I desire to know what it is about this state/place that is negative.

Your arguing that existing, or extolling the benefits of existing somehow makes non existence negative is an appeal to ignorance. So you have no answers.

Andy

 

[geometer]

You are rejecting metaphysics for epistemology. Logic and its premises are established in epistemology. There are philosophers who have rejected the logical premises of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity. Those are pure abstracts and have no reality, even if we do find them useful, most of the time.

So back to my question. Give me the statements about reality that your arguments are based on, the raw facts. And then if you are good, then I will let you deduce a few things…

 

[MindOverMatter]

There are philosophers who have rejected the logical premises of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity. Those are pure abstracts and have no reality, even if we do find them useful, most of the time.

If one rejects the universality of these truths, then there is no basis for acquiring knowledge of truth; for truth becomes a mere tautology; a relative concept.

So back to my question. Give me the statements about reality that your arguments are based on, the raw facts. And then if you are good, then I will let you deduce a few things…

What is the point of asking for logical proof when logic is invalid? In fact, how does one invalidate logic according to logic? The arguments have been given tons of times. Perhaps you are not capable of understanding them.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MindOverMatter:

Your arguing that existing, or extolling the benefits of existing somehow makes non existence negative is an appeal to ignorance. So you have no answers.

Andy

I said that nothing is a negation of being, it is not a thing in itself.

In earlier posts i argued that positive statements about existence cannot be used on that which has no existence, no reality. You are saying that some kind of abuse is taking place by a persons existing. But if existence is good by nature of being, then it is not possible that a persons being is not good, regardless of whether or not a person thinks otherwise. An abuse cannot take place where there is no existing person. A persons has to first exist, and it is only when a person exists, that morality is applicable.