/lit/ - Literature

Things don't perish they just change states

>>13489054
Well to some theories matter doesn't but certainly parts of things do. To cut a wooden cube in half will not perish the wood but the cube in it will be destroyed and the half cube will come into being. If nothing's perishes then it draws out the question "how can there's be production and becoming of there is no perishing?" or "from whence comes things that were not?" Or will you entertain the absurdity of production being possible but perishing not?

>>13488872
>why rock not break but my poop do
fucking revolutionary thinking

Bump for replies

The substrate for both eternal and perishable things is eternal and the one and the same. The substance in question has within itself perishable items that do not change the whole of what it is. An unmoved mover, if you will, that is the base upon which all else follows.

>>13489171
Cubeness isn't real it's an artifact of human psychology

>>13488872
Define perishable

>>13489617
I feel like this is one of the only valid positions, so far as I can tell it's the platonic "participation" of non mutual influence you are talking about or perhaps the prime movers or christians account here is what you were hinting at?

>>13489636
Potential for nonexistance, or exiting out of the actual. Destruction, tearing down a house and removing the houseness from the bricks or in some way destroying or processing matter, baking bread or boiling water.

>>13489054
This.

>>13489622
Name something that isn't

>>13489678
If houseness exists, it doesn't go away just because one house is knocked down.

>>13489171
I don't see any production...

>>13489718
It's one particular house that was destroyed.

>>13489719
If you take a wooden cube and heat it up or move it from Athens to Thebes the "wooden cube in Athens" is destroyed and the "wooden cube in Thebes" or the "hot wooden cube" is produced

>>13489739
In that case the only thing that really changed was the assortment of bricks etc. Nothing was destroyed

>>13488872
'Eternal' functions on the substrate of metaphysics of presence, the meaning of being as presence, and is less a philosophical surety than the concept itself suggests which begs the question. The energy of whatever substance dissipates.

>>13489751
Yeah and if I step on some ant it'll produce a "squashed ant"

>>13489696
Presumably there's some outside reality that we perceive so that's real, radical skepticism and solipsism are for chumps

>>13489171
It changed state from a cube to two half cubes dummy

>>13489663
More platonic or Aristotelian, though it could also be Christian, given their inclination to agree with the Greeks.

God FUCK phaedo shit was nonsensical the whole time

>>13489752
not him but the house as you know it was destroyed.

>>13490589
"The house as you know it" doesn't exist in reality. Take away the observer and there's no such thing as a house.

>>13488872
>suppose
into the trash

>>13490619
>observation does not make things/concepts exist

>>13488872
I don't see how the principle being eternal means that the things that fall under the principle must be eternal.

>>13490936
>observation makes things/concepts exist

There is no such thing as a philosophical "substance" or a "principle of nature." There, solved.

>>13492601
I'll have you know that it's considered bad form to bring reality into these conversations. You owe this thread an apology.

>In Cratylus' eponymous Platonic dialogue, the character of Socrates states Heraclitus' claim that one cannot step twice into the same stream. According to Aristotle, Cratylus went a step beyond his master's doctrine and proclaimed that it cannot even be done once.
>Socrates & Plato & Aristotle BTFO'd