What is...

[hardy_practice]

...cannot cease to be.

[j_menz]

Your "Delete" button is broken?

[hardy_practice]

Being has no 'Delete' button!

[outin]

Whatever Bob and m1469 have seems to be contagious...

[senanserat]

What is dead can never die.

[hardy_practice]

What is dead can never die.

I think you mean whatever never was can't never have been.

[senanserat]

I think you mean whatever never was can't never have been.

I know what you're trying to do, and it terrifies me to know that you know that I know.

[j_menz]

Being has no 'Delete' button!

But becoming does.

[Bob]

Whatever Bob and m1469 have seems to be contagious...

What the...


*Bob sniffs his armpits.... just to be sure.*

[hardy_practice]

But becoming does.

Thus, he concluded that "Is" could not have "come into being" because "nothing comes from nothing". Existence is necessarily eternal. That which truly is

• , has always been
• , and was never becoming
• ; that which is becoming
• was never nothing (Not-
• ), but will never actually be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

[j_menz]

Parmenides

Whose argument would be all the more convincing had he not rather spoiled it by dying.

[hardy_practice]

Whose argument would be all the more convincing had he not rather spoiled it by dying.

Only the bit that never existed in the first place.

[j_menz]

Only the bit that never existed in the first place.

Ahh, but where is the proof that there was ever any such bit?

[hardy_practice]

The 'bit' never was.

[dima_76557]

What is... ...cannot cease to be.

Could you give a little more context? The tail of a stressed, disoriented snake that starts eating itself, for example, could certainly be an exception to the rule.

[hardy_practice]

Could you give a little more context? The tail of a stressed, disoriented snake that starts eating itself, for example, could certainly be an exception to the rule.

More Parmenides:

 In his opinion truth lies in the perception that existence is, and error in the idea that non-existence also can be. ...Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Basically Parmenides was a very important school of thought.  Plato failed to accept it and passed that failure on to Aristotle and then we had SCIENCE - which should never have happened!

[lostinidlewonder]

How long did you not exist before you came into existence? You could have waited trillions to the power of trillion years, perhaps one trillion trillion big bangs ago? If there is a microscopic chance you will come into existence then you will have that chance eventually. Your time now is precious, soon you will return to a long period of nothingness, but eventually you will return again though not know that you have.

[hardy_practice]

How long did you not exist before you came into existence? You could have waited trillions to the power of trillion years, perhaps one trillion trillion big bangs ago? If there is a microscopic chance you will come into existence then you will have that chance eventually. Your time now is precious, soon you will return to a long period of nothingness, but eventually you will return again though not know that you have.

That's all science.  Blame Plato for that mindset.

[Bob]

Was there time before you existed?  That could all be an eternity/instant.  Timeless.  No time at all and an endless stretch of time.

[outin]

Where's Thal when we need him 

[Bob]

He might say something like, "In the beginning, the was a banjo..."

[outin]

... the was a banjo...

Now this is getting even more weird...Thal contemplating on the essence of the?

[dima_76557]

More Parmenides:

 In his opinion truth lies in the perception that existence is, and error in the idea that non-existence also can be. ...Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Basically Parmenides was a very important school of thought.  Plato failed to accept it and passed that failure on to Aristotle and then we had SCIENCE - which should never have happened!

It seems to me that Parmenides is talking about his vision of God, Who is said to have no beginning and no end and is entirely self-sufficient. As far as I can judge with my limited reasoning, Parmenides' law applies to God only, because everything else that exists is physical, was created by God, and needs at least an environment to exist in. It can therefore also cease to exist in its present form within that environment.
P.S.: In that context, I have to reject your conclusion about science.

[hardy_practice]

Was there time before you existed?  That could all be an eternity/instant.  Timeless.  No time at all and an endless stretch of time.

The mind, according to Kant, does not passively receive information provided by the senses. Rather, it actively shapes and makes sense of that information. If all the events in our experience take place in time, that is because our mind arranges sensory experience in a temporal progression, and if we perceive that some events cause other events, that is because our mind makes sense of events in terms of cause and effect...Time and space, Kant argues, are pure intuitions of our faculty of sensibility, and concepts of physics such as causation and inertia are pure intuitions of our faculty of understanding.

[hardy_practice]

It seems to me that Parmenides is talking about his vision of God, Who is said to have no beginning and no end and is entirely self-sufficient. As far as I can judge with my limited reasoning, Parmenides' law applies to God only, because everything else that exists is physical, was created by God, and needs at least an environment to exist in. It can therefore also cease to exist in its present form within that environment.

It's not really about people or god's - it's about existence.

[j_menz]

according to Kant

Perhaps you should read him. His Wikipedia article does him something of an injustice.

[j_menz]

it's about existence.

Ah, but necessary or contingent?

[hardy_practice]

A - that quote is not wiki and B - I was reading (and understanding) Kant as a teenager!

[dima_76557]

It's not really about people or god's - it's about existence.

How can we know that for sure? We should be very careful with our conclusions because between the original and what we can read now in our own languages are several translations in other languages that could possibly have distorted the real meaning of the original.

The first step to understand anything at all about anything is to drop our own god-complex (as if we are the center of the universe and as if we are above anything else). Until then, we will cause nothing but suffering for ourselves and others, while our only mission here is to simply be, show compassion towards the weak and helpless, and live a life of contentment as long as we are given that opportunity.

[outin]

A - that quote is not wiki and B - I was reading (and understanding) Kant as a teenager!

Who wasn't?

Oh, wait, me! I was much more keen on Marx 

[hardy_practice]

How can we know that for sure? We should be very careful with our conclusions because between the original and what we can read now in our own languages are several translations in other languages that could possibly have distorted the real meaning of the original.

Doesn't matter some philosophers (see Bertrand Russell) interpret him differently.  As it happens Parmenides and I came up with the same conclusion independently!  That's why I quoted him.  With Kant it was more of a learning process.    

Who wasn't?

Oh, wait, me! I was much more keen on Marx 

Funny, I'm off to his library on Wednesday.

[dima_76557]

As it happens Parmenides and I came up with the same conclusion independently!  That's why I quoted him.  With Kant it was more of a learning process.  

Well, congratulations then. I still don't quite understand your interpretation of the shared conclusion though. Since Parmenides is no longer with us, could you enlighten us?

I gave this subject some more thought today and it seems to me that since a goddess gave this wisdom to Parmenides and the poem itself is highly metaphysical, then I must conclude:
"What Is" (=not subject to change and cannot cease to exist) is God, universal moral values, the immaterial, possibly also the Arts.
"What Is Not" is "nothing" in the sense of "insignificant", "bound to perish", "mortals", "material stuff", etc.
Any other explanation seems to lead towards "the Way of the Mortals", very much against the advice of the goddess in the Poem.

[hardy_practice]

And that, in the world of modern philosophy, I'm sure is a perfectly acceptable interpretation.  I, however, am interested in it on a far more personal level.  Do you 'partake' of existence? i.e. aware of your existence?  If so, how did the idea or concept of non-existence come to coexist under that same roof?   and does this 'partaking of existence' not invalidate non-existence as a concept?  or in other words existing is just that.  Presumably there's some malevolent force that feels its interests are best served by dishing up this non-exist concept to you.  All very difficult to put into words.  

[dima_76557]

And that, in the world of modern philosophy, I'm sure is a perfectly acceptable interpretation.  I, however, am interested in it on a far more personal level.  Do you 'partake' of existence? i.e. aware of your existence?  If so, how did the idea or concept of non-existence come to coexist under that same roof?   and does this 'partaking of existence' not invalidate non-existence as a concept?  or in other words existing is just that.  Presumably there's some malevolent force that feels its interests are best served by dishing up this non-exist concept to you.  All very difficult to put into words.

I "partake" of existence in the sense I explained, yes. I think most people who do not care for material things only do so in one way or another.

At the same time, I am also very well aware of my own insignificance. I see no conflict here. What we see in the Poem is simply riddle-solving culture. Only the ones with eyes that see beyond the visible can solve it.

This paradox is solved by simply defining the terms "existence" and "non-existence" in the spirit of the context in which they were given. "Non-existence" is not necessarily an "illusion" (something that does not physically exist) as some may assume, because as it is described, it's still material, tangible, etc. The only synonym for "non-existence" that makes sense to me in the context is "insignificance".

[hardy_practice]

"Non-existence" is not necessarily an "illusion" (something that does not physically exist)

'Non-existence is' - how can one say that?  or non-existence does not physically exist?   Wittgenstein knew these absurdities all have their origin in language.  You need to be careful.

[dima_76557]

'Non-existence is' - how can one say that?

 
I didn't. I said "non-existence" is - as if it were an entry in a dictionary.
"Non-existence" ≠ "illusion" - that's what I said. Parmenides' language doesn't even have the verb "to be" in the present, and neither does the Russian language.

"Is" in Parmenides' text *could* also be translated as "appears (to be)" or "presents itself". So, something that "presents itself" as something which it is not - Is Not, as opposed to something that is what it really is. Now that has really serious consequences: "A lie is a lie" and "the truth is the truth". And further within the context: "there is only truth in the immaterial".

This must have been rather disappointing for those with an agenda, so "this can't possibly be correct". "Let's translate and interpret it differently to suit our cause", and that's how we got what we have now.

or non-existence does not physically exist?

 
I never said or meant that. Maybe there's an intonation problem in what I wrote? What I meant is this: "That which is termed as non-existent" ≠ "That which does not physically exist".

Wittgenstein knew these absurdities all have their origin in language.  You need to be careful.

Do you mean "one", or "me" in particular? In post #28, I already warned about the language barriers that may give rise to misinterpretation somewhere along the road of translating from one language into another and yet into another. One fragment is not even known in the original; we have a Latin translation only.

Since you and some of the other native speakers of English on this forum cannot even understand each other within the boundaries of one language, how can we expect a correct understanding of something that was filtered through several languages in a row?

[hardy_practice]

Do you mean "one", or "me" in particular? In post #28, I already warned about the language barriers that may give rise to misinterpretation somewhere along the road of translating from one language into another and yet into another. One fragment is not even known in the original; we have a Latin translation only.

Since you and some of the other native speakers of English on this forum cannot even understand each other within the boundaries of one language, how can we expect a correct understanding of something that was filtered through several languages in a row?

No, I mean language itself.  That we can say 'is not' is absurd.  Mortals extrapolate from there and everything goes topsy turvy.  And that includes Plato!

[dima_76557]

No, I mean language itself.  That we can say 'is not' is absurd.  Mortals extrapolate from there and everything goes topsy turvy.  And that includes Plato!

We can't really blame them. Here are the synonyms for "to be":
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/be
Depending on your agenda, you can interpret Parmenides as you like.

Also: what seems to be very beautiful late at night may turn out to be very, very ugly in the morning.

[hardy_practice]

How's your Italian?  This is the guy who floats my boat!  Trouble is there are no translations of his work out there.

He was twenty-three, was already a lecturer at the University, and one day, while working on his first book on the "Fisica" (Physics) of Aristotle in his small study, he was swept away by a surge of new thoughts. " it was as being inside a vortex, in a maelström, and below the earth appeared and the eternal being materialized as it were the bottom of the sea ". It is from that moment that his philosophical adventure began. The philosophy of Emanuele Severino inserts itself in the ontological debate initiated by Heidegger, but that, unlike Heidegger, propounds a return to the ancient thought of Parmenides of Elea. For Severino, the principal question to be faced goes back to classic philosophy and concerns the contradiction or the agreement between the being and the not-being or becoming. The philosopher tackles the problem keeping in mind current authors such as Nietzsche and Heidegger. The general thesis is that the sin and the error of the West and of Christianity included, consist in their distancing from the precepts of Parmenides according to which only the act of being is and can be thought and defined. In choosing not to respect the teachings of Parmenides and introducing the concept of "becoming" in thought and in history, the West found itself in a situation without exit that has brought about the present dominion of reason and technology.

...The abandonment of the "being" of Parmenides and the choice of the "becoming" is the folly of the West, the path of the night, the original space where the forms of western culture, with its social and political institutions, have moved. Faced with the anguish of "becoming", the West, responding to the logic of the remedy, has evoked the "immutables" (God, the laws of nature, dialectics, the free market, the ethical or political laws, ecc.).

from: https://www.filosofico.net/severinoenglish.htm

To the list of "immutables" I'd add institutions (like the school I teach at - the kids think it exists for chrissake!)

[dima_76557]

How's your Italian?

Limited to the top 10 dishes in the Italian cuisine + a glossary of Italian expressions in music notation.

[hardy_practice]

Well, I think the upshot of all this is that in place of belief, faith etc you place acceptance.  Acceptance that what is, cannot cease to be.   Now that's hard to do because it's real, unlike faith, belief etc.  Any child can do those!  (which is in fact what childhood does - because after all childhood isn't real either!)

[dima_76557]

Well, I think the upshot of all this is that in place of belief, faith etc you place acceptance.  Acceptance that what is, cannot cease to be.   Now that's hard to do because it's real, unlike faith, belief etc.  Any child can do those!  (which is in fact what childhood does - because after all childhood isn't real either!)

I "believe" (in the sense of "somehow I know, hope, and expect") that belief, faith etc can be an exercise that may very well lead to genuine acceptance. Although what you say about religious institutions may apply (who am I to judge?), I would refrain from rejecting faith itself outright. Your phrase "Any child can do those" sounds a bit unfair towards children because who is better at accepting (=believing) anything without physical evidence than a child is? Tell them that Santa Claus exists, for example, and they will accept that as the truth.

[hardy_practice]

Your phrase "Any child can do those" sounds a bit unfair towards children because who is better at accepting (=believing) anything without physical evidence than a child is? Tell them that Santa Claus exists, for example, and they will accept that as the truth.

But he doesn't exist and that's the point!  Children believe anything (I know I've taught thousands over the years).  Childhood is an indoctrination into his/her community's social constructs.  Apart from physical growth there's not much else to it.  Their nascent knowledge of the real is covered over in layer after layer of these constructs.

Dima, you seemed to have forced me into proselytizing.  Here from Severino is stuff I also know (I've no use for belief, hope etc.):

Every feeling and thought of ours, every form and nuance of the world, every gesture of man are eternal. And also all that appears everyday and in every instant: the first fire lit by man, the weeping of Jesus at his birth, the oscillations of the lamp in front of Galileo, Hiroshima alive and its corpse. Eternal are every hope and every instant of the world, with all the contents of the instant, eternal is the conscience that sees things with their eternity and sees the folly of the persuasion that things come from nothing and return to it.

Don't ask me how I know this, that's one mystery seemingly out of reach.

[dima_76557]

But he doesn't exist and that's the point!  Children believe anything (I know I've taught thousands over the years).  Childhood is an indoctrination into his/her community's social constructs.  Apart from physical growth there's not much else to it.  There nascent knowledge of the real is covered over in layer after layer of these constructs.

They are not themselves to blame for this though. Initially, they have the right mindset to accept Parmenides' lesson. Actually, they can be really traumatised when they find out afterwards that what they were told by adults (who should have known better) and what they had accepted as "true" turns out not to exist at all, and that as a rule, "anything you cannot see, hear, feel, touch, etc. doesn't exist".

[hardy_practice]

and that as a rule, "anything you cannot see, hear, feel, touch, etc. doesn't exist".

Is that not true for one year olds? Why is that treated as such an aberration?

[dima_76557]

Is that not true for one year olds? Why is that treated as such an aberration?

I don't know. According to Parmenides' goddess, "there is no genuine trustworthiness in notions of mortals", so I'd rather keep silence.

[hardy_practice]

Do you know Plato's cave?  He may have been happy to designate those inside as mortals as opposed to those who make it out.

[dima_76557]

Do you know Plato's cave?  He may have been happy to designate those inside as mortals as opposed to those who make it out.

Who knows? For the time being, we seem to be prisoners in our own cave of madness, trying to play God. Peace of mind will not be reached anytime soon. Here are some disturbing "scientific" theories that can easily blow one's mind:

Our universe may be a hologram of another one
(This is actually a funny one in the light of "what is" and "what is not", because the real action happens there, not here).

and

Black holes as we know them do not exist
(Also very funny within this thread, especially coming from black hole specialist no 1)

and

We may be living within a black hole

[hardy_practice]

That's kids' stuff.  Here's Brouwer who should have changed the face of Mathematics with his twoities (he also denied the law of the excluded middle):

FIRST ACT OF INTUITIONISM

Completely separating mathematics from mathematical language and hence from the phenomena of language described by theoretical logic, recognising that intuitionistic mathematics is an essentially languageless activity of the mind having its origin in the perception of a move of time. This perception of a move of time may be described as the falling apart of a life moment into two distinct things, one of which gives way to the other, but is retained by memory. If the twoity thus born is divested of all quality, it passes into the empty form of the common substratum of all twoities. And it is this common substratum, this empty form, which is the basic intuition of mathematics.

[mjames]

nerds