For your consideration

For your consideration (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

e01n -> For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:12:21 AM)
quote: 1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence. 2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute. Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. 3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute). 4. Substance cannot be caused. Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused. 5. Substance is infinite. Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite. Conclusion: There can only be one substance. Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances. Discuss.

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:22:24 AM)
One must divine the difference in a material that is miscable and one which is frangible. Only then can we let substance enter into this discussion. a priori, Locke

popeye1250 -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:31:27 AM)
I agree. We're all made up of "Stardust."

meatcleaver -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:33:30 AM)
I'm going to have a drink and think about it.

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:38:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I agree. We're all made up of "Stardust." Ya, Hoagy Carmichael; you very funny guy! Emporer Hirohito

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:39:34 AM)
Hey! Who died and made you Emperor? --Norton I, Emperor of America and Protector of Mexico

Emperor1956 -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:44:09 AM)
No one died...yet. E.

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 5:46:01 AM)
Ah, but I am descended from sun god, you by comparison are lowly sewer worker. Ralph Kramden Hirohito

LadyEllen -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:13:20 AM)
If there are two infinite substances, then how can one limit the other if each is infinite? For either to act as a restraint, limitation or dependent factor on the other, would mean that neither counts as a substance under premise 1 ? E

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:21:10 AM)
LE - there is a logical "hole" in your statement of the final proof. Premise 1 as the definition of substance forms the basis of the derived premises and proofs, not the other way around. Thus, your argument falls apart by it's structure but not by it's content. Right conclusion, mind - just a bad road to it... (BTW - this was my "Neighbor of the Beast" post. Yay me!)

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:22:33 AM)
Seriously, the proof in conclusion is not a proof, it is horridly flawed, it has not been necessarily and sufficently proven that an infinite limits another infinite. In fact Georg Cantor has proven to my satisfaction (and many others) that this cannot possibly be the case. YHWH

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:24:41 AM)
Ron... shhhh... please don't spoil the fun for the others... BTW - any luck finding natural fibers at Ax-Man? I think that'd be the only way to hold this argument together these days... [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:29:59 AM)
I haven't been to AxMans but I have some hemp, I am dying for a bulk source of flax yet, and will see the Ax. Thank IAM that I can shut up now, I really am not facile enough with Abelian numbers to carry the fight. Ron

LadyEllen -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:32:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: e01n LE - there is a logical "hole" in your statement of the final proof. Premise 1 as the definition of substance forms the basis of the derived premises and proofs, not the other way around. Thus, your argument falls apart by it's structure but not by it's content. Right conclusion, mind - just a bad road to it... (BTW - this was my "Neighbor of the Beast" post. Yay me!) Perhaps, but if premise 1 is incorrect then the rest falls, and the final conclusion shows that premise 1 is flawed. How one gets to an answer is not as important as having an answer I feel, and I'll admit, I dont go in for conventional methodologies for much. E

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:38:25 AM)
e0in: Well everything is relative to something else, I do believe. Note: Is this actually a thread about the sometimes supposed differences between POV between random Dominants and submissives? (or did you manage to wade through the Mother Thersa thread on this message board, perchance)? yuk yuk.(and I am just teasing).[:D][;)][:)] - Susan

GhitaAmati -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:44:37 AM)
Everything is something, therefore even nothing must be something, therefore nothing doesnt exist....

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:47:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen: Perhaps, but if premise 1 is incorrect then the rest falls, and the final conclusion shows that premise 1 is flawed. How one gets to an answer is not as important as having an answer I feel, and I'll admit, I dont go in for conventional methodologies for much. MNOttertail (aka Ron) got there first by citing the classical refutation of this philosophical grammar - magister dixit. You on the other hand are arguing that the proof should be circular and independent - much more Null-A and Null-E... Quite nice. Very apropos to WIITWD. But is there a way to refute this using only Classical and linear grammars without recourse to external authority?

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO: Note: Is this actually a thread about the sometimes supposed differences between POV between random Dominants and submissives? (or did you manage to wade through the Mother Thersa thread on this message board, perchance)? yuk yuk.(and I am just teasing).[:D][;)][:)] And even though you make the joke... yes, that's my point. Mercifully, Mother Teresa has nothing to do with it... at this time. [;)]

popeye1250 -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:55:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati Everything is something, therefore even nothing must be something, therefore nothing doesnt exist.... Sure Ghita, tell that to a Black Hole!

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 6:57:12 AM)
e01n: Thanks. If that's your point, I believe I agree (I don't think I will ever make myself go through a thread like the one I mentioned again.....but - 'ya know what "they" say - never say never..)[:D][:)] - Susan

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125