ProggyMan

I think you missed the point.

Dotoar

Did I?

What do you mean with "in a sense"? Under which conditions does 'nothing' exist?

Wouldn't you say that it's exactly the opposite, that everything exists independent of its context, and that the relationships comes with our understandings of said objects?

Self-contradictory.

That may be, if you by truth mean 'what is'. But untruth sure is a much bigger restraint, conceptualizing 'what isn't'.

__________________

ProggyMan

I just mean that what we think of as 'objects' having some innate quality of existence is flawed. So, in a sense, no-thing exists.
No, I think that you are mixing up the order. Our understanding is what creates the illusion of objects in the first place, when all the really exists is the context. The qualities we assign these objects have no existence apart from the relationships they have to other objects. No dark without light, hot without cold etc.
How so? I don't think any answers any of us will ever find can really be categorized as true because the very nature of truth defies categorization.
True.

Dotoar

I think you're confusing the objects themselves with our cognitive concepts which refer to said objects. Because I don't think that you would deny that there are such things as what we commonly refer to as stones for example, right?

The key issue here is what I bolded which once again points back to the abovementioned; Our conceptualization of existence, or rather, the objects and phenomena that are suspended in it.

What I was hinting at was that "I dont think there's any true answers" is a claim that, like every possible claim one can think of, owes its existence to, well, existence itself.

__________________

TockTockTock

Oh, these debates. I had a lot of fun with these on that Big View website. Eh, I like Persig's concept of existence which states how nothing can exist until a human being acknowledges its existence. Because enable for something to truly exist, then it must be perceived as such. Seems like an egotistical concept, but if you think about it a little while... well, it MAY make sense.

EDIT: There's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion.

ProggyMan

I see what you're saying but understand that there is no underlying reality behind the concept of a 'stone'. Just as there is no underlying reality to a concept of 'self'. These are simply methods we've evolved of putting reality into pretty little boxes. Consider this: Would it be possible, hypothetically, to take the stone and put it into a vacuum? Is it possible to fathom such a thing? That's all I mean when I talk about no-thing existing.


Same as above, I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Dotoar

I'm open for that possibility, but extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

Yes, of course. That applies to all cognitive processes that may or may not lead to conclusion.

It was pretty easy to pick apart on a fundamental level. If the premises are wrong, the conclusions will be too. There's no use in dabbling in wrongly derived opinions if the issue lies within their foundation.

Whack or not, would you say that it was wrong?

Now, remember what you said here...

...contradicts with your obvious presumtion of 'reality' here.

Yes, it's perfectly possible on a logical level. Anyone can imagine a stone and nothing but a stone, right? A stone bears some typical qualities, such as colour, size, shape, structure, hardness and material, all of which consists the substance of the concept 'stone'. The concept is indeed imaginary, but it points to an object that we can identify in reality.



Is it the truth that that statement was made and is upheld by you?

__________________

TockTockTock

Nope.

ProggyMan

Really, you can imagine a stone with nothing to contrast it with? Seriously try to imagine only a stone and nothing else. It's impossible.
a semantical error on my part, it's just a convenient word to use, no bearing on the discussion.