Is Everything Physics?

[cairaiii]

Should I change my major to physics? Is it really all that matters? Does anything defy physics?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Is it really all that matters? Does anything defy physics?

Those are very different questions: Physics can tell you a lot about what a thing is, but it can't really tell you anything about what it means, except in the context of other physical things. A thing does not need to defy physics in order to have meaning far beyond it.

 

[The Nihilist]

Those are very different questions: Physics can tell you a lot about what a thing is, but it can't really tell you anything about what it means, except in the context of other physical things. A thing does not need to defy physics in order to have meaning far beyond it.

This is nonsense. I understand how a word can mean something, but what can a a rock mean? What can the world mean? Is the meaning of the world the same as the definition of the world?
At the same time, it doesn't make sense to say that only physics matters. The question that makes sense to ask is what matters to you, cairaiii?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

This is nonsense. I understand how a word can mean something, but what can a a rock mean? What can the world mean? Is the meaning of the world the same as the definition of the world?
At the same time, it doesn't make sense to say that only physics matters. The question that makes sense to ask is what matters to you, cairaiii?

Metaphysics is pretty lame, one of the reasons i dont read much of Heidegger, Ontology and the stuff that partains to the being of the "self" which delves into the metaphysics of consciousness and the workings of nothingness are the only things i can conform myself to commend. Heideggers conception of the Idea of Nothing is interesting in his essay "What is Metaphysics" I did a different version of this thesis and won like 200 dollars in a writing composition.

 

[DailyBlessings]

This is nonsense. I understand how a word can mean something, but what can a a rock mean? What can the world mean? Is the meaning of the world the same as the definition of the world?

Well, what do you think? If your conclusion is that nothing actually does have any meaning, that is still an important statement, and one with wide-reaching implications. I'm not interested in telling you what to think, when you've a capable mind of your own. I will point out that many people, in many places and traditions, do indeed ascribe as much meaning to a rock as to a word, and glean a great deal of spiritual knowledge from the nature of the universe.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Well, what do you think? If your conclusion is that nothing actually does have any meaning, that is still an important statement, and one with wide-reaching implications. I'm not interested in telling you what to think, when you've a capable mind of your own.

Your name contradicts mine!

 

[DailyBlessings]

Your name contradicts mine!

Oh, ha! That's a funny coincidence. I see it as an expansion of Sartre's well-known assertion, though, not a simple contradiction. Sartre was right in suggesting that essence does not precede existence, but I see them as having very conjugal relationship. Existence is essence, if you will, but both are indicative of a certain purpose.

 

[The Nihilist]

Well, what do you think? If your conclusion is that nothing actually does have any meaning, that is still an important statement, and one with wide-reaching implications. I'm not interested in telling you what to think, when you've a capable mind of your own. I will point out that many people, in many places and traditions, do indeed ascribe as much meaning to a rock as to a word, and glean a great deal of spiritual knowledge from the nature of the universe.

You have misunderstood. My criticism is more linguistic in nature; it is my contention that the sentences "The universe has meaning," and "The universe has no meaning,"are not coherent sentences. You have to explain what idea you intend to convey when you say one of these sentences, and you must do so within the definition of the word "meaning."


I'm not really convinced Heidegger was a metaphysician

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You have misunderstood. My criticism is more linguistic in nature; it is my contention that the sentences "The universe has meaning," and "The universe has no meaning,"are not coherent sentences. You have to explain what idea you intend to convey when you say one of these sentences, and you must do so within the definition of the word "meaning."


I'm not really convinced Heidegger was a metaphysician

Im not implying he was, but he wrote very thorough accounts and incorporated a very confusing phenomenological method into his writings concerning primarily with the metaphysics of non-essential things.

I havent concieved myself into much Heidegger, im busy living up highschool and im yet to pick up and finish Being And Time or Being and Nothingness.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Oh, ha! That's a funny coincidence. I see it as an expansion of Sartre's well-known assertion, though, not a simple contradiction. Sartre was right in suggesting that essence does not precede existence, but I see them as having very conjugal relationship. Existence is essence, if you will, but both are indicative of a certain purpose.

He implied essence as what makes the existence purposeful to the individual...he implied that because we "are" and aware that we "are" we are incapable of
simply existing with complete purpose which is just to exist, and thus the essence for existing atleast for us is only an existent because we are aware that we "are".

The consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to conciously recognize the nothingness of its existence. We cannot simply exist such as a rock, animal, or plant simply because we are aware that the rock, animal, and plant exist. Existence is essence only to the non-conscious beings. Essence is the pursuit of purpose...if you will for conscious beings...the pursuit to just simply exist.

 

[DailyBlessings]

You have misunderstood. My criticism is more linguistic in nature; it is my contention that the sentences "The universe has meaning," and "The universe has no meaning,"are not coherent sentences. You have to explain what idea you intend to convey when you say one of these sentences, and you must do so within the definition of the word "meaning."

Ah. Well, given the multiplicity of ideas on the matter, I don't really have an opinion about what form meaning ought to take. I do think there are legitimate uses of the term though.

 

[DailyBlessings]

He implied essence as what makes the existence purposeful to the individual...he implied that because we "are" and aware that we "are" we are incapable of
simply existing with complete purpose which is just to exist, and thus the essence for existing at least for us is only an existent because we are aware that we "are".

Right. I'm pretty much with him on this.

The consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to conciously recognize the nothingness of its existence.

If we were simply brains floating in the void, this might be true.

We cannot simply exist such as a rock, animal, or plant simply because we are aware that the rock, animal, and plant exist.

I would disagree that rocks much less plants or animals simply exist. They exist in more or less exactly the same way that we do. In a cognitive sense rocks are not entities, but they are consciously or otherwise engaged in a constant relationship with other existent things. Action and motion, and constantly revised relationships in a system of related subjects, are the essence of existence. Our brains are less important than Sartre imagined, because the existence of certain modes of thought reflect truths that are not dependent on consciousness to exist.

Existence is essence only to the non-conscious beings.

This I disagree with, and it's where Sartre might have a row with me. Existence is still essence for the rest of us, if you properly understand essence.

Essence is the pursuit of purpose...if you will for conscious beings...the pursuit to just simply exist.

Essence is an observation of purpose, but it the purpose extends beyond simple existence, as you put it, and it does include non-conscious objects.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Right. I'm pretty much with him on this.
If we were simply brains floating in the void, this might be true.

I would disagree that the existence of rocks much less plants or animals simply exist. They exist in more or less exactly the same way that we do. In a cognitive sense rocks are not entities, but they are consciously or otherwise engaged in a constant relationship with other existent things. Action and motion, and constantly revised relationships in a system of related subjects, are the essence of existence. Our brains are less important than Sartre imagined, because the existence of certain modes of thought reflect truths that are not dependent on consciousness to exist.
This I disagree with, and it's where Sartre might have a row with me. Existence is still essence for the rest of us, if you properly understand essence.
Essence is an observation of purpose, but it the purpose extends beyond simple existence, as you put it, and it does include non-conscious objects.

I think im not including the pre-reflective consciousness, ill have to re-read, thanks for the insight.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ah. Well, given the multiplicity of ideas on the matter, I don't really have an opinion about what form meaning ought to take. I do think there are legitimate uses of the term though.

This is not a matter of forms. What definition of the word "meaning" do you intend when you say "The universe has meaning," or whatever you said exactly?
Or were you speaking nonsense?

 

[L4T3R4LUS]

Should I change my major to physics? Is it really all that matters? Does anything defy physics?

Why would you want to fill reality with a bunch of non-sense equations and formulas--that is not even a good grasp of reality? The only thing physics will do is raise more questions; and when these questions are answered then you will have more questions to answer--soon you will believe that reality consists merely of letters and numbers. You'll poke your eye out, son.

Seriously, the only thing you can do with physics is make money--that sweet indulgent fluid, o greed, o yes. Your vision is a fog that dissapears when the spirit redirects you.

 

[The Nihilist]

Why would you want to fill reality with a bunch of non-sense equations and formulas--that is not even a good grasp of reality? The only thing physics will do is raise more questions; and when these questions are answered then you will have more questions to answer--soon you will believe that reality consists merely of letters and numbers. You'll poke your eye out, son.

Seriously, the only thing you can do with physics is make money--that sweet indulgent fluid, o greed, o yes. Your vision is a fog that dissapears when the spirit redirects you.

Clearly Lateralus has no idea what physics is.

All you can do is make money? You're thinking of business school, kiddo.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Why would you want to fill reality with a bunch of non-sense equations and formulas--that is not even a good grasp of reality? The only thing physics will do is raise more questions; and when these questions are answered then you will have more questions to answer--soon you will believe that reality consists merely of letters and numbers. You'll poke your eye out, son.

Seriously, the only thing you can do with physics is make money--that sweet indulgent fluid, o greed, o yes. Your vision is a fog that dissapears when the spirit redirects you.

Thats one of the largest dolt statements concerning a very large and important field of any technical study....The universe is based purely on mathematics, It is through mathematical study.....and the use of our mathematics that we created to study it has proved this consistency. To understand mathematics is to understand the structure of everything. Mathematics is a philosophy...it is the most complicated and in-depth philosophy anyone can undertake...for that it holds its rewards.

 

[Person7]

I would say the denying the theory of gravity is easier than denying the christain called "theory of evolution" (which is really the theory of natural selection, but of course they don't know that), so some body should start denying physics. More time to burn disucssing why the theory of gravity exists.

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

Should I change my major to physics? Is it really all that matters? Does anything defy physics?

The more Men involved in Physics, the better!!


I took Physics and got a real education . . .

However, I took Organic Chemistry prior . . .

 

[nommo]

Harpur say consciousness was first, not matter.