Identity

[bricklayer]

There are two kinds of identity: necessary identity and contingent identity.
Necessary identity is implied. It is the state of being as is. ( i.e. I am)
Contingent identity is inferred. It is the state of being as described. (i.e. You are)

Identity ontologically follows existence:
Being exists
Being is being

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The other type of identity close to philosophy os personal identity. I am a fan of the existentialists and they would have rejected the abstracted metaphysics in favour of a more concrete, experiential, personalised take onm the same issues.

I think its a valid concern that philsophy does not abandon its roots in a practically exigent world, in favour of "pure thought". Then again if it floats your boat, then sail it!

 

[The Paul]

The language you're using certainly gives off an air of scholarly sophistication...

...but a combination of speaking plainly and checking our logical structures against what we can directly observe is quite a bit more useful.

Quite famously, you can play word games and deliver a very erudite proof that a fast moving object can't overtake a slow moving object.

But of course, anyone who's actually interested in the way things really are will dismiss it out of hand.

 

[bricklayer]

The other type of identity close to philosophy os personal identity. I am a fan of the existentialists and they would have rejected the abstracted metaphysics in favour of a more concrete, experiential, personalised take onm the same issues.

I think its a valid concern that philsophy does not abandon its roots in a practically exigent world, in favour of "pure thought". Then again if it floats your boat, then sail it!

You got my number. I am an advocate is the base, the very simplest of ideas, the first-principles of logic: existence, identity, non-contradiction, exclusion, contigency, necessity, etc. An idea must be self-evident or be reducable to the self-evident for me to accept the idea as valid. Therefore, I give constant consideration to that which is, to me, self-evident.

There are quite a few "educated" people who do not recognize the elements of logic, reason and rhetoric. I suspect that you are not completely unfamiliar with a slide rule or a Frisbee either. Very perceptive GrowingSmaller.

 

[bricklayer]

The language you're using certainly gives off an air of scholarly sophistication...

...but a combination of speaking plainly and checking our logical structures against what we can directly observe is quite a bit more useful.

Quite famously, you can play word games and deliver a very erudite proof that a fast moving object can't overtake a slow moving object.

But of course, anyone who's actually interested in the way things really are will dismiss it out of hand.

I used about twenty words in my OP, half of them under five letters and none of them completely unfamiliar to anyone who has yet to read them except you.

"scholarly sophistication" ? I'm a bricklayer not an intellectual. What gives you the impression that I can "deliver an erudite proof that a fast moving object can't over take a slow moving object"?

On the othe hand, if i can prove that the slow and fast moving objects are not on an intersecting trajectory I can prove that the overtake cannot happen; i digress.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are two kinds of identity: necessary identity and contingent identity.
Necessary identity is implied. It is the state of being as is. ( i.e. I am)

Why it this "necessary"? There was a time when you did not exist, correct?

Contingent identity is inferred. It is the state of being as described. (i.e. You are)

But for me is that not a necessary idnentity in your own terms, to me at least?
So it's a matter or perspective.

Identity ontologically follows existence:
Being exists
Being is being

I can agree witht that. But what do you mean by beaing though, to be sure. Do you mean "the totality of existent objects"?

 

[bricklayer]

Why it this "necessary"? There was a time when you did not exist, correct?
But for me is that not a necessary identity in your own terms, to me at least?
So it's a matter or perspective.
I can agree witht that. But what do you mean by being though, to be sure. Do you mean "the totality of existent objects"?

Being is actualized existence.
Anything that has the potential to change, including the potential to not exist, is contingent.

That which is contingent has a contingent identity.
A contingent identity is as intended to be.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does unactualized existence exist?
What exists that doesn't have the potential to not exist?

 

[bricklayer]

Does unactualized existence exist?
What exists that doesn't have the potential to not exist?

Yes, "un-actualized" existence exists. "Un-actualized" existence has no being.
Being is actualized existence, hence the first of the first-principles: Being Exists.

Necessary existence has no potential to not exist; it has no potential at all.
Necessary existence is simple actuality.
(Contingent existence is a complex of actuality and potentiality.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, "un-actualized" existence exists. "Un-actualized" existence has no being.
Being is actualized existence, hence the first of the first-principles: Being Exists.

Can you substantiate any of this?

Necessary existence has no potential to not exist; it has no potential at all.
Necessary existence is simple actuality.
(Contingent existence is a complex of actuality and potentiality.)

I was asking you to name something that has no potential to not exist.

 

[bricklayer]

Can you substantiate any of this?


I was asking you to name something that has no potential to not exist.

Because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time, I am left to believe the the entire matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change.
Because anything subject to change is subject (contingent), I am left to believe that there is nothing in the "physical universe" that explains its own existence.
Therefore, I am left to believe that necessary existence is metaphysical-spiritual-eternal.

In other words, I cannot point to any material, spacial, or temporal thing that I believe to be necessary.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And the reason you espouse necessity (necessariness?) is that you can't believe in an infinite regression?

I.e., since you cannot point to anything that is necessary, you believe something is necessary because you don't believe in infinite regression.

Is this correct?

(By the way, through some quirk of English, the word you were looking for was "spatial".)

 

[bricklayer]

And the reason you espouse necessity (necessariness?) is that you can't believe in an infinite regression?

I.e., since you cannot point to anything that is necessary, you believe something is necessary because you don't believe in infinite regression.

Is this correct?

(By the way, through some quirk of English, the word you were looking for was "spatial".)

I do not believe in infinite regression of cause-effect sequence. I am left to believe that the existence of cause-effect sequence begs an efficient cause.

I'm going to loosen up my nomenclature here; I am left to believe that the existence of that which changes begs the existence of that which cannot change. I am left to believe that the existence of that which has the potential to not exist begs the existence of that which cannot not exist.

 

[qualitas occulta]

I think we all forget at times that saying something necessarily exists does not make it so, bricklayer especially.

 

[bricklayer]

I think we all forget at times that saying something necessarily exists does not make it so, bricklayer especially.

That's it? That's all you get out of it? Stunning

 

[The Paul]

I think we all forget at times that saying something necessarily exists does not make it so, bricklayer especially.

I know, right!?

 

[The Nihilist]

That's it? That's all you get out of it? Stunning

Well, you did just dismiss out of hand an infinite causal regression. Kinda doesn't really look like you're arguing seriously.

 

[bricklayer]

Well, you did just dismiss out of hand an infinite causal regression. Kinda doesn't really look like you're arguing seriously.

Infinite regression cannot be actualized.

 

[The Nihilist]

Infinite regression cannot be actualized.

I'm not sure I know what that means.

 

[bricklayer]

I'm not sure I know what that means.

Infinite regression exists in that the idea of infinite regression exists, but infinite regression cannot be actualized. It cannot be actualized because it would be self-defeating. In other words, to regress there must exist progress; infinite regression prohibits progression.
Again, regression also implies change. Anything subject to change is, by definition, subject. Anything subject is, by definition, finite.
Infinite change cannot be actualized. Any change for an infinite would be either from finite to infinite or infinite to finite; both are self-defeating.