>you can’t talk about things that don’t exist >btw change doesn’t exist and I’m gonna talk about this a lot
Parmenides is proof that ancient people were moronic
>everything is like a bunch of systems interconnected within systems >but they're not all just one thing because I said substances do not exist.
Process phil is really all about not thinking too hard about it
And overtime it remains just what it is and nothing else. An unchanging worm through time. How parmenidean!
1 month ago
Anonymous
No it doesn’t. Every time it diversifies novelty is produced.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s clear that you made this thread thinking process philosophy was one sided “only change exists” when in reality process philosophy is basically centrism that admits unity, plurality, act, potential, etc are all active elements in experience which work together rather than negating each other. You should be attacking Buddhism or something instead. In fact Whitehead’s inclusion of eternality and “objective immortality” in process and reality was actually objected to by people who actually believe only change exists and so this guy had to write pic related as revamp of process and reality that removed God and the eternal objects. Whitehead straight up says in the first chapter of process and reality “eternal objects never become.” He is not a radical temporalist but actually a midway between Heraclitus and Parmenides in the same way that Plato was.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Sounds like standard pluralism.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It is, as I said Whitehead is a philosophical centrist much like Aristotle or even Plato because he believes that philosophy should account for ALL the elements of experience, and we have to admit as a fact the reason eg parmenides comes up with eternality and heraclitus with becoming is that both eternality and becoming are elements of experience. If you want a more exciting or extreme pluralism read Deleuze or Buddhists texts.
Whitehead’s philosophy is not necessarily cyclic however, as I said novelty is produced whenever the entities diversify. Whitehead was clearly influenced by some kind of Christian eschatological eternal progress which is his major flaw in my opinion, although I don’t know if I would be confident in saying that novelty can’t be produced forever, I see no reason why “God” should always direct novelty into the same direction of increasing poetic value.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Also I should say novelty is also produced whenever the entities come together as well since there is a creative “decision” involved in concrescence
>>you can’t talk about things that don’t exist
He's right moran. Try to think about "nothing". It's impossible. Space, blackness, whiteness, etc, are all things.
So you just said a meaningless sentence. Why did you even say it? That is a performative contradiction. All words in our language involve things that become, you would be silent if you really believed they didn’t exist.
>All words in our language involve things that become
Becoming something from something else, not from nothing. It's the difference of 0 = 0 as opposed to 0 = 'almost one'. Unless you think stuff just pops in and out of existence?
1 month ago
Anonymous
That’s not what Parmenides says but anyway it’s cool if you want to believe that but without things being able to spontaneously come into existence there is no way to explain why any diversity in the universe exists at all, I can and have written tens of thousands of words on this but basically if you’re right that all change is only transformation then inductive inference should not exist at all and change itself ends up being impossible, not really looking to debate this though as the plebeians on this board could not teach me anything new and could not understand my arguments without me putting in a shit ton of effort
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm sure your efforts are better appreciated... in some place that does not exist
1 month ago
Anonymous
Parmenides doesn't say things don't change, he says that things always have been and are, and will be, its not denying change, change in this sense is looking at the world from a very limited perspective. Its sort of denying causality, that things have an origin from nothing.
1 month ago
Anonymous
> Parmenides doesn't say things don't change
Yes he does. He says motion doesn’t exist. Parmenides whole position is that all change involves non-being. > Its sort of denying causality
Causality can exist without existing by necessity. In fact it’s rather absurd to say that causality itself had a cause. The existence of causality proves that things can come from nothing.
1 month ago
Anonymous
yes the concept can exist, just like the concept of a talking mouse, that doesn't prove anything though
>you can’t talk about things that don’t exist
>btw change doesn’t exist and I’m gonna talk about this a lot
Parmenides is proof that ancient people were moronic
>everything is like a bunch of systems interconnected within systems
>but they're not all just one thing because I said substances do not exist.
Process phil is really all about not thinking too hard about it
They are one thing moron. That is what concrescence is. It’s one thing that diversifies and is unified again repeatedly.
And overtime it remains just what it is and nothing else. An unchanging worm through time. How parmenidean!
No it doesn’t. Every time it diversifies novelty is produced.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s clear that you made this thread thinking process philosophy was one sided “only change exists” when in reality process philosophy is basically centrism that admits unity, plurality, act, potential, etc are all active elements in experience which work together rather than negating each other. You should be attacking Buddhism or something instead. In fact Whitehead’s inclusion of eternality and “objective immortality” in process and reality was actually objected to by people who actually believe only change exists and so this guy had to write pic related as revamp of process and reality that removed God and the eternal objects. Whitehead straight up says in the first chapter of process and reality “eternal objects never become.” He is not a radical temporalist but actually a midway between Heraclitus and Parmenides in the same way that Plato was.
Sounds like standard pluralism.
It is, as I said Whitehead is a philosophical centrist much like Aristotle or even Plato because he believes that philosophy should account for ALL the elements of experience, and we have to admit as a fact the reason eg parmenides comes up with eternality and heraclitus with becoming is that both eternality and becoming are elements of experience. If you want a more exciting or extreme pluralism read Deleuze or Buddhists texts.
Sounds almost like Empedocles
Whitehead’s philosophy is not necessarily cyclic however, as I said novelty is produced whenever the entities diversify. Whitehead was clearly influenced by some kind of Christian eschatological eternal progress which is his major flaw in my opinion, although I don’t know if I would be confident in saying that novelty can’t be produced forever, I see no reason why “God” should always direct novelty into the same direction of increasing poetic value.
Also I should say novelty is also produced whenever the entities come together as well since there is a creative “decision” involved in concrescence
>>you can’t talk about things that don’t exist
He's right moran. Try to think about "nothing". It's impossible. Space, blackness, whiteness, etc, are all things.
So you just said a meaningless sentence. Why did you even say it? That is a performative contradiction. All words in our language involve things that become, you would be silent if you really believed they didn’t exist.
>All words in our language involve things that become
Becoming something from something else, not from nothing. It's the difference of 0 = 0 as opposed to 0 = 'almost one'. Unless you think stuff just pops in and out of existence?
That’s not what Parmenides says but anyway it’s cool if you want to believe that but without things being able to spontaneously come into existence there is no way to explain why any diversity in the universe exists at all, I can and have written tens of thousands of words on this but basically if you’re right that all change is only transformation then inductive inference should not exist at all and change itself ends up being impossible, not really looking to debate this though as the plebeians on this board could not teach me anything new and could not understand my arguments without me putting in a shit ton of effort
I'm sure your efforts are better appreciated... in some place that does not exist
Parmenides doesn't say things don't change, he says that things always have been and are, and will be, its not denying change, change in this sense is looking at the world from a very limited perspective. Its sort of denying causality, that things have an origin from nothing.
> Parmenides doesn't say things don't change
Yes he does. He says motion doesn’t exist. Parmenides whole position is that all change involves non-being.
> Its sort of denying causality
Causality can exist without existing by necessity. In fact it’s rather absurd to say that causality itself had a cause. The existence of causality proves that things can come from nothing.
yes the concept can exist, just like the concept of a talking mouse, that doesn't prove anything though