Near perfect existence

[ToddNotTodd]

I would say you might be confusing facts with truth. Facts can change over time, but truth can never change because if it can change then it would no longer be true.

All facts will inevitably lead to an unchangeable truth.

I would say your problem is not understanding how most people use the words "fact" and "truth". This is in addition to your other problems with the English language, like adding inappropriate adjectives to nouns.

 

[quatona]

I would say you might be confusing facts with truth. Facts can change over time, but truth can never change because if it can change then it would no longer be true.

Well, if that´s your private language, then good for you.
The standard use of the word "true" refers to propositions, and a once true proposition can at some point become untrue and vice versa.
Anyway, when you silently refer to "unchangeable truths" when saying "truth", you have presented no reason to assume that the proposition "I exist" must be (unchangeably) true. You just postulated it.

All facts will inevitably lead to an unchangeable truth.

Is that supposed to be some kind of considerable argument, or have you already switched to preaching mode by now?

 

[Chriliman]

Well, if that´s your private language, then good for you.
The standard use of the word "true" refers to propositions, and a once true proposition can at some point become untrue and vice versa.
Anyway, when you silently refer to "unchangeable truths" when saying "truth", you have presented no reason to assume that the proposition "I exist" must be (unchangeably) true. You just postulated it.


Is that supposed to be some kind of considerable argument, or have you already switched to preaching mode by now?

For instance it may be a fact that I'm alive and then it becomes a fact that I'm dead(from your perspective), but this has no affect on the truth about my existence(from my perspective).

I'm not trying to preach to you, I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I believe. If you're not interested that's fine, I'm not forcing you to ask questions.

 

[Chriliman]

I would say your problem is not understanding how most people use the words "fact" and "truth". This is in addition to your other problems with the English language, like adding inappropriate adjectives to nouns.

So this explanation doesn't make any sense to you?

 

[quatona]

For instance it may be a fact that I'm alive and then it becomes a fact that I'm dead(from your perspective), but this has no affect on the truth about my existence(from my perspective).

I'm not trying to preach to you, I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I believe. If you're not interested that's fine, I'm not forcing you to ask questions.

Hmm, you started this part of the conversation, without me asking any question about your beliefs at all. You are eager to talk about your beliefs - and that´s fine. But please don´t pretend I was the one to prompt you to.

You haven´t explained here why you believe what you believe. You merely asserted that you believe that once you exist you must therefore exist forever. You have given no reason whatsoever why you think this is a reasonable assumption.

 

[quatona]

It's a fact the the sky is blue and that fact may change if it gets cloudy, but it will always be true that the sky was blue when you observed it as being blue.

Now, firstly, if exchanging fact/factual and true/truth in this statement, it will work just as well in standard language.
But more importantly, nobody disputes that once you have existed, it will always be true that you existed at that point in time (even though you may not exist anymore).
You seem to be shooting your own foot here, rather than giving reasons for your idea that your existence must be eternal because you exist at some point in time.

 

[Chriliman]

Hmm, you started this part of the conversation, without me asking any question about your beliefs at all. You are eager to talk about your beliefs - and that´s fine. But please don´t pretend I was the one to prompt you to.

Didn't you ask this question? Prompting me?

You haven´t explained here why you believe what you believe. You merely asserted that you believe that once you exist you must therefore exist forever. You have given no reason whatsoever why you think this is a reasonable assumption.

Its reasonable because existence is likely all we can know. One can never know non-existence, therefore, its unreasonable to believe non-existence is possible, its more likely to believe existence is all there is, forever.

 

[quatona]

Didn't you ask this question? Prompting me?

Yes, I did. Was it a request to explain your religious beliefs? No.
You are eager to do apologetics all by yourself, even though it´s not permitted in this forum. You are the one bringing up God.

Its reasonable because existence is likely all we can know. One can never know non-existence, therefore, its unreasonable to believe non-existence is possible, its more likely to believe existence is all there is, forever.

Sure - I wasn´t disputing that something is going to exist even when I won´t (and, yes, I am tending towards the notion that there never was nor will be a state of "nothing"), but that isn´t the claim you had made. You had claimed that a particular thing or entity (e.g. you or me) that once existed must therefore exist forever.

And since you are appealing to what "we know": We do know that people die, and that objects rot and disassemble and don´t last forever.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chriliman]

Now, firstly, if exchanging fact/factual and true/truth in this statement, it will work just as well in standard language.
But more importantly, nobody disputes that once you have existed, it will always be true that you existed at that point in time (even though you may not exist anymore).

You seem to be shooting your own foot here, rather than giving reasons for your idea that your existence must be eternal because you exist at some point in time.

I'm not shooting myself in the foot because either way it can't be proven, this is why I must accept it as true (believe it)

You accept it as true that you will cease to exist when you die. You can't prove this which is why you must accept it as true (believe it)

No shooting of feet involved here.

 

[quatona]

I'm not shooting myself in the foot because either way it can't be proven, this is why I must accept it as true (believe it)

You don´t seem to have the concentration span to even only follow the shortest of thoughts.
I didn´t address your belief (you won´t get me into apologetics, no matter how hard you try), I addressed your argument. Specifically, I pointed out the incosistencies in your use of the term "true".
But I have spent dozens of posts now addressing your arguments - upon which each and every single time you simply forget about your most recent argument in discussion and moved on to the next claim.
I´m tired of this. I have been trying to find favourable explanations for your behaviour (simply because I am never happy with concluding "this person must be dishonest"), but even the most favourable assumption I can come up with isn´t favourable, exactly.
Obviously, this is not a good basis for me to continue.

Thus, just a few basic points, and then I´m done here:

Metaphysics is the realm where our fantasy, our wishes, dreams and hopes can go wild. No belief concerning this realm can actually be disproven. I consider this a great thing. That´s why I am completely fine with people being privately superstitious, religious, esoteric and whatnot. I myself hold some private beliefs for which there is no rational justification (except maybe that they help me sleep at night or make it through the day or generally provide me with meaning). Nothing wrong with that. That´s what metaphysics are for, and that´s a very beautiful, personal and subjective thing. So far so good.

But:
If a person starts proclaiming these beliefs openly as "truths" (as you do), he is leaving the realm of private beliefs, and his claims will be treated accordingly.
Also:
If a person starts trying to argue rationally, logically for his metaphysical beliefs (as you do), these arguments will be scrutinized (which has nothing to do with the beliefs themselves, but merely with the quality of the arguments presented).

 

[Chriliman]

But that doesn't change the fact that it was true then.

Right, I believe truth is timeless and eternal. Facts are based on time. (Notice, I said I believe)

By the way, speaking of Freodin, you were supposed to show two of his statements which contradicted each other. Were you able to find any such or not?

Yes, here. But I wasn't suppose to show two, I was just supposed to show where He contradicted himself.

Its amazing how everyone in this forum is only questioning me. No one seems to question each other. I guess if you're not making a truth claim you should never be questioned, so you can just freely question others and never have to worry about explaining your own beliefs.

 

[Chriliman]

You don´t seem to have the concentration span to even only follow the shortest of thoughts.
I didn´t address your belief, I addressed your argument.

Ultimately, what my argument comes down to is that each individual either believes they will cease to exist when they die or they believe they will continue to exist in some kind of afterlife. The reason we have to believe one or the other is because from our current reality neither can be proven, but only one is true.

I'm trying to argue that the belief that one will continue to exist even after death is more reasonable because existence is all we know. We cannot know non-existence, so to believe one will cease to exist after death seems less reasonable. The reason it seems less reasonable is because a person would have to accept the truth that non-existence is possible, even though this truth can never be known, thus making acceptance of this truth unreasonable.

Existence after death can be known, which is why I choose to accept this as true because it seems more reasonable.

 

[Freodin]

Never heard about that. Sources, quotes?
Anyway, this sentiment is alien to me, personally. So I´m not even sure why I should read any further.

Yes, that would have been me.

I tried to explain to Chriliman what I meant with that, and what it encompasses... but it seems I failed.

What exactly is the difference between mere existence and perfect existence, in your terminology? If - as it seems - no such distinction is possible the qualifier "perfect" is not only redundant but meaningless. And, of course, not to be equivocated with the perfect quality of a certain existence (whatever you might think this is).
Since everything you wrote hinges on this, I´ll abstain from commenting on it until you have clarified what a non-perfect existence (in contrast to this "perfect existence" you keep talking about) would be.

I don't think such a qualifier is meaningless... but it can be seen as redundant.

The problem that I see - and why I chose to take that position in this conversation here between Chriliman and me: it is quite common for people to assume that "existence" could be different, even "better". They assume that there is some kind of standard, some kind of blue-print of how existence ought to be - the "perfect" existence. That "ought to" existence differs - negatively, of course - from the "real" existence.

And here I disagree: plans and intentions and hopes and dreams do exist - the supposed "ought to". But it doesn't exist on the same level, with the same identity.
There isn't an "ought to" existence in the same way as the "real existence". There is only the real one.

If it is the only one that exists - can exist - it is of course the best that there can be. Perfect.


Not that you need to adhere to this reasoning... but it is at least consistent.

Chriliman keeps stating that I contradict myself with it... but he wasn't able to point out where. I am still waiting for his explanation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm trying to argue that the belief that one will continue to exist even after death is more reasonable because existence is all we know. We cannot know non-existence, so to believe one will cease to exist after death seems less reasonable. The reason it seems less reasonable is because a person would have to accept the truth that non-existence is possible, even though this truth can never be known, thus making acceptance of this truth unreasonable.

Existence after death can be known, which is why I choose to accept this as true because it seems more reasonable.

The above is a good example of what I was talking about before. You employ word salad in what I can only assume is an attempt to make your words seem like an argument. But it isn't.

your inability to comprehend non existence has nothing to do with what's more reasonable or not. It may sway you, but it's not an argument.

 

[quatona]

Hey Freodin,

Yes, that would have been me.

I tried to explain to Chriliman what I meant with that, and what it encompasses... but it seems I failed.

I don't think such a qualifier is meaningless... but it can be seen as redundant.

I can´t help thinking that if there is only one way for something to be (if there is no factual, potential, conceptual or conceivable alternative), a valuating qualifier is meaningless: It could as well be replaced by its opposite.

The problem that I see - and why I chose to take that position in this conversation here between Chriliman and me: it is quite common for people to assume that "existence" could be different, even "better". They assume that there is some kind of standard, some kind of blue-print of how existence ought to be - the "perfect" existence. That "ought to" existence differs - negatively, of course - from the "real" existence.

Exactly. In which case there would be a comparandum (at least hypothetically), which would allow us to start evaluating the different scenarios.
But that´s not what Chriliman argued (to me). He said (paraphrased) that existence is per se "perfect" (i.e. independently of the qualities found within a certain way or form of existence). Please note the danger of equivocating "this particular existence" (as opposed to a factual or conceivable alternative existence) and "the fact that something exists".
Also, there is a fundamental difference between "existence" (as in "the fact that something exists") vs. "(the quality of)my existence/life" (which I can compare to that of the life of others) and "(the quality of) this society" (which can also be compared to that of other societies). Chriliman keeps equivocating these meanings of "existence".

And here I disagree: plans and intentions and hopes and dreams do exist - the supposed "ought to". But it doesn't exist on the same level, with the same identity.
There isn't an "ought to" existence in the same way as the "real existence". There is only the real one.

Completely d´accord.

If it is the only one that exists - can exist - it is of course the best that there can be. Perfect.

Well, it´s also the worst there can be, or the most mediocre there can be, or the most comfortable, or the most miserable.... That´s why I say such qualifiers are not only redundant but also meaningless. They don´t tell me anything.

Chriliman keeps stating that I contradict myself with it... but he wasn't able to point out where. I am still waiting for his explanation.

Well, I´ve spent a considerable part of my time today talking with him, and I have found him to be predictably dropping each single point once it had been addressed, moving on to try something completely different. So you better not hold your breath.

 

[quatona]

Ultimately, what my argument comes down to is that each individual either believes they will cease to exist when they die or they believe they will continue to exist in some kind of afterlife. The reason we have to believe one or the other is because from our current reality neither can be proven, but only one is true.

I'm trying to argue that the belief that one will continue to exist even after death is more reasonable because existence is all we know. We cannot know non-existence, so to believe one will cease to exist after death seems less reasonable. The reason it seems less reasonable is because a person would have to accept the truth that non-existence is possible, even though this truth can never be known, thus making acceptance of this truth unreasonable.

Existence after death can be known, which is why I choose to accept this as true because it seems more reasonable.

It´s great you have given up on proclaiming "truths".
It´s also great that at all significant points you throw in a "seems".
Except: A statement based on plenty of "seems" does not an argument make. It leaves nothing to discuss or address. All that´s left to say is: "If it seems so to you...".
Plus, it´s funny you demand rational justification for those beliefs you don´t hold, but you feel you yourself can get away with an "argument" based on and circled around "seems".

 

[Freodin]

Hey Freodin,

I can´t help thinking that if there is only one way for something to be (if there is no factual, potential, conceptual or conceivable alternative), a valuating qualifier is meaningless: It could as well be replaced by its opposite.


Exactly. In which case there would be a comparandum (at least hypothetically), which would allow us to start evaluating the different scenarios.
But that´s not what Chriliman argued (to me). He said (paraphrased) that existence is per se "perfect" (i.e. independently of the qualities found within a certain way or form of existence). Please note the danger of equivocating "this particular existence" (as opposed to a factual or conceivable alternative existence) and "the fact that something exists".
Also, there is a fundamental difference between "existence" (as in "the fact that something exists") vs. "(the quality of)my existence/life" (which I can compare to that of the life of others) and "(the quality of) this society" (which can also be compared to that of other societies). Chriliman keeps equivocating these meanings of "existence".


Well, it´s also the worst there can be, or the most mediocre there can be, or the most comfortable, or the most miserable.... That´s why I say such qualifiers are not only redundant but also meaningless. They don´t tell me anything.

Well.... yes. Or maybe. Or rather, no.
You are correct: it doesn't tell you anything. And maybe the redundance of the qualifier "perfect" does indeed make it meaningless. But it still can be compared: to this ideal image of "existence".

I tried hard to keep this distinction of "existence per se" and "the circumstances with this existence"... but at least in regard to Chriliman, it seems I failed.

I also tried to keep my argument distinct from Aquinas' "perfection" argument as well as Leibniz' "best of all possible worlds" one. I found it rather amazing that Chriliman hadn't bothered to bring these up... they would have provided an at least potential counter to my reasoning. (Not that I wouldn't have been prepared for that. )

Well, I´ve spent a considerable part of my time today talking with him, and I have found him to be predictably dropping each single point once it had been addressed, moving on to try something completely different. So you better not hold your breath.

He has that habit of changing direction when a discussion doesn't go where he wants it to go.

Aber die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt, wie es so schön heisst.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can´t help thinking that if there is only one way for something to be (if there is no factual, potential, conceptual or conceivable alternative), a valuating qualifier is meaningless: It could as well be replaced by its opposite.

One of my pet peeves is imprecise language. Phrases like "perfect existence" drive me nuts, given my definition of the word "existence" and my hatred of the inherently imprecise word "perfect".

To me, existence is like a light switch. It can be "on", but it makes no sense to say that it's "perfectly on".

 

[quatona]

One of my pet peeves is imprecise language. Phrases like "perfect existence" drive me nuts, given my definition of the word "existence" and my hatred of the inherently imprecise word "perfect".

To me, existence is like a light switch. It can be "on", but it makes no sense to say that it's "perfectly on".

Imprecise use of language wouldn´t be that much of a problem - if people weren´t under the impression that a statement must be meaningful if only it has a proper grammtical structure. A lot of philosophical "deepness" is just owed to such errors.

Another phrase that gives me the creeps: "Existence exists" or "The existence of existence....".

 

[Ana the Ist]

For instance it may be a fact that I'm alive and then it becomes a fact that I'm dead(from your perspective), but this has no affect on the truth about my existence(from my perspective).

I'm not trying to preach to you, I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I believe. If you're not interested that's fine, I'm not forcing you to ask questions.

Your perspective has no effect on reality. Just because you think you'll exist eternally doesn't make it so.