/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20874066]

so, what makes something "be"?

[Anonymous No.20874069]

urself

[Anonymous No.20874073]

>>20874066
it be so we can call it it be

[Anonymous No.20874074]

It just bee like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfYBiVAzo9s

[Anonymous No.20874078]

>>20874066
Dasein

[Anonymous No.20874089]

>>20874066
it has a property of beingness you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20874100]

>>20874066
Ontology after Gorgias is useless

[Anonymous No.20874337]

[Anonymous No.20874571]

>>20874066
Its me OP, i do it. I make things be.

[Anonymous No.20874695]

>>20874571
Please stop

[Anonymous No.20874791]

Owl facial features

[Anonymous No.20874832]

>>20874066
dasein

[Anonymous No.20875131]

Esse est percipi

[Anonymous No.20875149]

>>20874066
Hey hoping for some good related contemporaries and any secondary sources on Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20875170]

>>20874100
his argument is retard level

[Anonymous No.20875650]

>>20874066
this is a question that transcends our faulty cognitive capacities

[Anonymous No.20875785]

It's pretty simple when you think about it. The prince electors cross the river Tuonela and make nests in the heads of kings who decree what is to be from their mind castles.
https://youtu.be/xf_4uvymwRw

[Anonymous No.20875875]

To be is to have intelligibility. You can't think of something that doesn't exist. Even things that aren't contained in material bodies still exist. Like the idea of justice. Justice exists because you can think about what it is.

Now as for what causes things to be intelligible, it would be that everything is one. What I mean by that is everything intelligible is composed of parts, but the way you understand it is as an intelligible whole. You are made of different organs, but you are still a human. A crowd is made of different people, but it is still a crowd.

This principle of unity lets us understand the universe. Everything would just be matter (matter as pure potential, not atoms or particles). We can only understand that peripherally. If there is being outside of intelligibility, it is simply outside of our ability to understand.

[Anonymous No.20875896]

Was Bill Clinton a Heideggerian?

[Anonymous No.20876230]

>>20874695
no

[Anonymous No.20876650]

>>20874066
Masculinity.

[Anonymous No.20876657]

>>20875131
/thread

[Anonymous No.20876677]

>>20874066
My fat cock.

[Anonymous No.20876676]

>>20875875
Anon, I‘m sorry to say, but you’re the message for the crowd in a platonic dialogue. The extrinsic teachings, the shallow and flat. You just offered a most basic formalism.

[Anonymous No.20876680]

>>20874066
>what
You already lost

[Anonymous No.20876702]

>>20874066
God

[Anonymous No.20876815]

>>20874089
Existence isn't a property.

>>20874066
Something is because it 'is', existence is fundamental.

[Anonymous No.20877462]

>>20874066
That is a very Clintonian question

[Anonymous No.20877496]

I'm tired of petersonian discourse

[Anonymous No.20877941]

>>20877496
You're the dumbest creature that has ever lived.

[Anonymous No.20878103]

>>20876815
>Existence isn't a property.
Why not?

[Anonymous No.20878113]

>>20874066
The fact that you exist. You don't have to overthink a simple thing.

[Anonymous No.20878337]

>>20878103
Because that would make it an “it”, which makes it a being, not Being itself. Being isn’t a being, it’s what makes being possible (all uses of it to describe Being here are provisional).

[Anonymous No.20879271]

>>20874066
There isn't anything that makes everything else "be". That question assumes that there is some possibility other than "to be", therefore the question itself is your problem. There is only existence.

[Anonymous No.20879301]

>>20875875
>You can't think of something that doesn't exist
Well... right now I'm thinking of a golden mountain so I don't know what you mean.

[Anonymous No.20879364]

>>20879301
ffs the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.20879383]

>>20879301
thoughts are still something which exists you moron

[Anonymous No.20879679]

>>20878337
Why can't that which makes being possible not be a being?

[Anonymous No.20879688]

>>20879679
Seems a bit recursive, innit?

[Anonymous No.20879689]

>>20879383
Confusion of represented with representation error.

[Anonymous No.20879696]

>>20879688
There isn't anything inherently contradictory about recursiveness. Recursion is a common property in many mathematical proofs, objects, and theories, for instance.

[Anonymous No.20879704]

>>20875875
I am thinking you are gay.
You can't think of something that doesn't exist.
Thus, you are gay.

[Anonymous No.20879718]

>>20875131
Berkeley's argument assumes the limits of the possibilities of certain appearing properties. That's how he derives contradictions in certain abstractions to show they are empty, including the abstraction "material existence".

[Anonymous No.20879725]

>>20878113
If I didn't exist, things could still be.

[Anonymous No.20879767]

>>20879689
you are the one confused; the other guy is speaking to a broader, metaphysical point that escapes your understanding.

[Anonymous No.20879829]

>>20879383
I'm the anon of the golden mountain. I just used that example to put forward the idea that thought itself is an abstraction that springs from language and that is in itself limited. Any correlationist position (heidegger) that assumes that we can only access Thought or Being are wrong in the sense that you can access the ultimately reality without the intermediation of thought which is just a mechanism. Access to the Being through raw phenomenal experience is possible and has been extensively studied in Buddhism. Thought has nothing to do there, so to say that we can not think of things that doesn't exist seem to imply that the existence of entities is dependent on the access that thought has to abstractions, which I don't think is true.

[Anonymous No.20879864]

Is Russell's teapot?
Yes, we're talking about it. It's not physically represented but we can easily do so. If that's analogous to God then physical representations and words can really reflect the nature of God.
The difference is the imagined teapot is supposed to be inherently physical, it's defined by a location in space and a physical form.
Unicorns exist if the idea is not defined as a physical thing. Formal logic and math exist in the same way, it has mechanisms that are not inherently physical. If you can imagine a unicorn like logic that can do work for you like having predictive/descriptive power then it's real in all relevant ways.

[Anonymous No.20879888]

>>20879829
"springs from language" I am fucking dying here lmao. If thoughts are distinct from language, then how do you get them from language? For you are looking for something where it is not, trying to get something to be other than it is, the embarrassment oh I am dying for you anon lmao

being is whole and thought, language, objects, whatever, it all "is" in an omnipresent and inescapable metaphysical sense. Anything short of that admission is just incoherent gibberish due to the contradiction of saying that "is not" is.

[Anonymous No.20879982]

>>20879679
Because that would be committing a category error, you would be treating that which makes something possible with the thing made possible. Basically, you'd be saying "well beings cause/are the condition of the possibility of beings", which would be the same as saying "there is no other factor that makes beings beings", which is saying "there is no such thing as Being", which is absurd. beings cannot cause themselves because their existence by itself IS the factor we try to examine.

[Anonymous No.20879995]

>>20874066
>be me

[Anonymous No.20879997]

>>20879982
Actually, the error is to think there is a "non being" or a "beyond being". That is the equivalent of saying that what is not is, which is gibberish.

So his answer is good, to the extent that the question admits of an answer. The real problem is that the question itself is flawed, because there is no alternative to being, there only IS, absolute and inviolate.

[Anonymous No.20880015]

>>20879888
Ok retard you are helping me in this one. As you say language and thought are the same thing. I expected you to deny this so I went to use the word spring since I thought that for you they were different.

I don't give a shit what being is for you or what's your ontology, let's go back to our discussion. Do you think that "to be is to be intelligible"? Do you think that the existence of being is dependent on it's partitions/representations: thought, language, objects, whatever? If we can not think about something that means some being has lost its entity?

[Anonymous No.20880052]

>>20880015
I didn't say "language and thought are the same thing" you ultra retard. Being is presence, To the extent there is something intelligible, that something is present, otherwise you wouldn't have it to consider. The term "dependence" has nothing to do with ontology, at most you can say one thing necessitates another. There's no dependence relationship where you can withdraw support and an "is" becomes an "is not". Go back and start with the greeks before you try talking to me about ontology.

[Anonymous No.20880063]

>>20874066
god of course

[Anonymous No.20880083]

>>20879767
Please give an actual argument next time.

[Anonymous No.20880085]

>>20874066
>implying that something exists

[Anonymous No.20880110]

>>20879982
>Because that would be committing a category error, you would be treating that which makes something possible with the thing made possible
Not even a gramatically legible sentence
>Basically, you'd be saying "well beings cause/are the condition of the possibility of beings"
No, I wouldn't. I would be saying the precondition of the possibility of beings is a being, not that it's just a being.
>beings cannot cause themselves because their existence by itself IS the factor we try to examine.
Our conversation has nothing to do with causality. It has to do with preconditions that make beings possible.

[Anonymous No.20880122]

>>20880083
you have to go back (to the greeks)

[Anonymous No.20880126]

>>20880122
Again, no argument. Isn't it funny that I can make actual arguments while you have to resort to memes. Pretty intellectually embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.20880143]

>>20879888
>If thoughts are distinct from language, then how do you get them from language?
How do you get natural language from an encrypted code? How do you represent facts in symbols? By coming up with a mapping between the two.

[Anonymous No.20880151]

>>20880143
In your example, both exist. There can be no question of "getting" one from the other in an ontological sense, only of showing a relationship between them. They both exist, as does everything else, and any attempt to summon a new thing that "is not" from "nowhere" is gibberish.

[Anonymous No.20880157]

>>20880151
Yes, a mapping is a relationship, usually artificial. Mapping is how you can get thoughts from language without thoughts being language.

[Anonymous No.20880171]

>>20880052
>If thoughts are distinct from language, then how do you get them from language? For you are looking for something where it is not, trying to get something TO BE other than IT IS

>I didn't say "language and thought are the same thing"

Keep contradicting yourself retard. Also beautiful word salad to explain what being is. Peak obscurantism. I like how you say nonsense just to obfuscate your lack of substance. Withdraw support from dependence relationships???? What? Lmao

[Anonymous No.20880199]

>>20880171
There's no contradiction you retard. Read -> Comprehend -> Post.

I didn't say that language and thought are the same thing. I asked that if you have these two distinct things, how do you get one from the other. The fact is that ontologically speaking, you DON'T get one from the other, for the reasons provided. Instead, both exist in an absolute and inviolate sense, and they have relationships that also exist absolute and inviolate.

You complete retard, had you gone back to the greeks you would not be so confused. If I was king I would have you pilloried for at least a fortnight.

[Anonymous No.20880210]

>>20880157
Then the question is, are you trying to make an ontological point, or just a relative, temporal one. If you are just saying that a person can figure out a message from a code using some cipher, then I have no issue. The point is that in terms of metaphysics/ontology, it exists whole and inviolate. Countless retards contradict themselves by trying to say that "is not is", which is why this thread is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.20880266]

>>20880199
So for you the word springs implies a categorical division? WTF!!
You are so confused. A fucking whirlpool that springs/originates from the ocean is not different from it. It's just a specific pattern of the same substance. Dumbass

[Anonymous No.20880293]

>>20880266
"Springs from" implies change/creation, and in an ontological discussion that's a non-starter. We've known that since the 5th century at least; you have to go back.

[Anonymous No.20880359]

>>20880210
Just a relative, temporal one. Though I guess you might get away with saying translation mappings exist always in some platonic realm, sort of like how in Spinoza's metaphysics, in book two proposition eight he talks about existences preserving essences even if they aren't realized therein in the existence.
>Countless retards contradict themselves by trying to say that "is not is", which is why this thread is where it's at.
In a certain sense, is not is. See Plato's sophist dialogue. Essentially, there are certain types of "relative non-being", for instance, not red, that can exist since every predicate can be expressed as a double negation of itself, and thus as an absence.

[Anonymous No.20880399]

>>20880359
I am saying that ontologically/metaphysically, the code, the cipher, the deciphered message, and their relations, all exist in the context of the Whole. It sounds like you weren't talking about metaphysics, so I think we just got our wires crossed.

>Plato's Sophist
My position is that Plato got this one wrong, and as a consequence his understanding of reality breaks down into gibberish. The Eleatic Philosopher character does fine until Plato has him backstab Parmenides and take up some platonic nonsense about non-being.

Prior to that, he has the right approach of highlighting a section of being (the sophist) within the Whole by making his way through increasingly fine distinctions. He is also right in expressly defining negation as "other than". Even when we say that "x is not y" we are always affirming; x IS other than y (and y also is, for we are referencing something by it). Affirmation at all points.

Of course, Plato then stumbles and tries to drag the Eleatics down into a pit of incoherent platonic gibberish. Like affirming "absence" in its own right and pretending it's not committing the contradiction of "is not is". That sort of thing has been inexcusable since the 5th century at least.

[Anonymous No.20880401]

>>20874066
there's no being, only processes

[Anonymous No.20880423]

>>20879718
>Berkeley's argument assumes the limits of the possibilities of certain appearing properties.
Lol no.
Which hack did you read to come to this understanding of Berkeley?

[Anonymous No.20880434]

>>20880401
Ok troon

[Anonymous No.20880547]

>>20880401
What makes a process be?

[Anonymous No.20880559]

>>20880547
he's not

[Anonymous No.20881251]

>>20876676
>Anon, I‘m sorry to say, but you’re the message for the crowd in a platonic dialogue. The extrinsic teachings, the shallow and flat. You just offered a most basic formalism.

[Anonymous No.20881341]

>>20874066
Urself

[Anonymous No.20881642]

>>20874066
Daily reminder that Heideggger was a cuck. His wifey got pregnany by a bull (their family doctor). Heidegger used to get sloppy seconds and he was always there, tongue extended, for the "cleanup".

[Anonymous No.20882361]

>>20874078
Who?

[Anonymous No.20882811]

>>20882361
It's the ding an sich, the thing that things (remember it as "the dingy that dings"), the being that Beings, it's the ontological and pre-ontological metaphysical transposition of the "to be", a Parmenidian instead of a Heraclitian response, in opposition neo-Kantian developments which led philosophers to gravitate towards a more epistemological stance when it came to what really is out there. It's basically the dingy that dingies.

[Anonymous No.20884529]

>>20879888
>If thoughts are distinct from language, then how do you get them from language?
>Thoughts are not distinct from language
In terms of thought input, how do we recognize things visually then? In terms of output, if things are being done without "thought", are they instinctive then? So, animals and newborn babies don't "think" in this case?

[Anonymous No.20884846]

>>20879696
>There isn't anything inherently contradictory about recursiveness. Recursion is a common property in many mathematical proofs, objects, and theories, for instance.
Yeah, no argument there, as far as your sentence goes.

Mathematicians exist. They don't create existence. Infinite regress doesn't feel like a sound idea, here. This isn't a proof about natural numbers or anything similar. Maybe fractals get closer to the idea but, again, these are concepts that presuppose existence. Ideas represented by symbols and images that require minds to have any meaning at all (and "meaning" might as well be a synonym for "existence" when it comes to such Platonic things as fractals) can invoke recursion, sure. Recursion isn't inherently empty/contradictory/paradoxical, as you wrote. Still, as above, it doesn't seem to add anything to the nature of being itself (interesting to note that it leads to such interesting and/or useful concepts *within* existence, maybe it's a hint). Plenty of banter about it involved in ontological debates iirc.

[Anonymous No.20884912]

>>20884529
I didn't say that thoughts are not distinct from language. I am instead disagreeing with the idea of getting one thing from another, IF that process is given ontological significance.

without getting into the different threads and figuring out which speaker said what, the conversation began in terms of ontology/metaphysics and confusion occurred when some people who did actually accept an eternalist mode entered the conversation. I did not realise that their statements were in agreement with my metaphysical model, and that they were just talking about change/temporality as something relative within an ontologically unchanging, eternal world.

As an example of how one thread played out, read:

>>20880143
>>20880151
>>20880157
>>20880210
>>20880359
>>20880399

[Anonymous No.20884986]

>>20880110
It comes down to the fact that thinking that a thing being the precondition of "things" is a simple mistake of reasoning. It's like including the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word. The mistake made is trying to equivocate between "thing" and "thingness"; when you try to make thingness a thing it then includes it within the category that it itself is supposed to generate/explain.

Again, an analogy might be best here because of how difficult the topic is to discuss in normal language: what you propose is like trying to identify the set of all possible and impossible and conceivable numbers with just another number; the point being that trying to label all of that as a number is a simple impossibility and mistake. There is no "biggest number" or "most basic number" that grounds and contains all numbers. This asides from the fact that the set of all numbers may be and probably is different from the precondition of numerality itself, something which may or may not be the case when it comes to Being.

[Anonymous No.20885056]

>>20879725
You don't know that for sure.

[Anonymous No.20885098]

>>20874074
What is this utter shit?

[Anonymous No.20885141]

>>20881251