/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12827726]

>time is the only constant
despite the fact that that claim supposedly doesn't change
>there are no absolutes
aside from that claim which is an absolute
>zeno's paradox
>basic bitch problems with relativism

Why is /lit/ shillng process philosophy? It's retarded and falls apart after a second's''s skepticism

[Anonymous No.12827831]

>cant even handle a simple paradox

Change is the only constant in phenomenal reality. Noumenal reality is unchanging- I'm guessing.

There are no absolutes is just philosophic irony.

>Zeno's Paradox

Diogenes: Bitch please.

[Anonymous No.12827892]

All reality is Becoming.

[Anonymous No.12827899]

just as Socrates saw how Zeno only said the same thing fourty times to say what Parmenides said, most of the Presocratics all said the same thing from a different lens. They all taught the same.

[Anonymous No.12827996]

>>12827726
retarded logician who is doing analytical philosophy here.
there is a study in philosophy called Mereology, it generally is about philosophy about parts and whole in the geometry or physical space.
In logical sense, mereology become an alternative tool of set theory.

in here, there is a view called "Mereological nihilism". you can interpret this view as "mereology is just a wordplay".

in 2000s, a paper came out; It says nihilism is false, if one concept can be constructed.

The first person to try to rigorously construct that concept, was Whitehead.
and I'm probably should read process and reality because of this.

I'm not smart enough to refute these guys are shilling or not, but he is definitely not retarded. he is goddamn profound in some places.

[Anonymous No.12828223]

Time is obvious subjective.

[Anonymous No.12828225]

>>12827831
>Noumenal reality is unchanging
Cringe

[Anonymous No.12828279]

>>12828225
Problem?

[Anonymous No.12828914]

Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.12828949]

>>12828914
*walks*

[Anonymous No.12828969]

>despite the fact that that claim supposedly doesn't change
>aside from that claim which is an absolute
No, those are brute facts.
>Why is /lit/ shillng process philosophy?
Because the alternative is claiming you've seen something eternal, i.e.: the very first thing philosophers came up with that the skeptics ran away from. Let me know if your skepticism made you see something eternal in your agitated flight.

[Anonymous No.12828976]

>"Well you know, Calculus solves Zeno

[Anonymous No.12829031]

>>12827899
That’s why you read Plato :) .

[Anonymous No.12829134]

>>12828225
>cringe
you're trying too hard to fit in, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.12829163]

>>12827726
Zeno's paradox isnt even a problem. It does not establish any reason by which one second does not elapse after one second. It just displays divisibility. No reason at all is provided for why a duration is not surmounted in the time it takes to elapse said duration. Also it presumes time to be divisible, when passage is only divisible in the abstract. In reality times flow is absolutely continuous and there is no such thing as a moment. We live in a temporal thickness and there is no clear line wherein the past ceases to blend into the present. Zeno is phenomenologically ass, and conceptually ass. Just as a fun extra, time is nothing other than the flowing of phenomena.Time considered without the passage of form and feeling does not exist. It is atemporal eternity. Also, process philosophy does admit permanence of witnessing. Get fucked shitposter.

[Anonymous No.12829201]

>>12827726
>that claim supposedly doesn't change
But it does change, and that was his point, and that was why Nietzsche regarded him as a precursor to himself, a philosopher who regarded the nature of reality to be irrational.

>that claim which is an absolute
It's not intended to be an absolute claim. You're just reading that into it, because you don't understand the nature of consciousness behind the assertion.

[Anonymous No.12829232]

>>12827726
THE EXTENSIVE CONTINUUM 107

Unfortunately Descartes' treatment of 'endurance' is very
superficial, and subsequent philosophers have followed
his example.

In his 'Achilles and the Tortoise' Zeno produces an
invalid argument depending on ignorance of the theory
of infinite convergent numerical series. Eliminating the
irrelevant details of the race and of motion—details which
have endeared the paradox to the literature of all ages—
consider the first half-second as one act of becoming, the
next quarter-second as another such act, the next eighth-
second as yet another, and so on indefinitely. Zeno then
illegitimately assumes this infinite series of acts of becom-
ing can never be exhausted. But there is no need to
assume that an infinite series of acts of becoming, with
a first act, and each act with an immediate successor is
inexhaustible in the process of becoming. Simple arith-
metic assures us that the series just indicated will be
exhausted in the period of one second. The way is then
open for the intervention of a new act of becoming which
lies beyond the whole series. Thus this paradox of Zeno
is based upon a mathematical fallacy.

The modification of the 'Arrow' paradox, stated above,
brings out the principle that every act of becoming must
have an immediate successor, if we admit that something
becomes. For otherwise we cannot point out what
creature becomes as we enter upon the second in question.
But we cannot, in the absence of some additional premise,
infer that every act of becoming must have had an imme-
diate predecessor.

The conclusion is that in every act of becoming there is
the becoming of something with temporal extension; but
that the act itself is not extensive, in the sense that it is
divisible into earlier and later acts of becoming which
correspond to the extensive divisibility of what has
become.

[Anonymous No.12829290]

>>12827726

M Y W O R D S W I L L N E V E R P A S S A W A Y

[Anonymous No.12830150]

bumpe

[Anonymous No.12830170]

ITT: a buttblasted cathocuck angry at the fact that his "philosophy" was BTFO before it was even invented

[Anonymous No.12830191]

>>12829201
>dude reality is like irrational just don’t worry about it lmao
and these people call themselves philosophers

[Anonymous No.12830238]

>>12830191
>Heraclitus or Nietzsche
>"just don't worry about it lmao"
You call this bait?