Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Ask me about Philosophy

  1.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #81
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Saiko View Post
    I've not heard the term "subsistence" used in this way before. Could you describe how it differs from "existence," particularly in the context of your mention of "physical aspects." This particular topic intrigues me because I've found numbers and mathematics to be the best potential example of a necessary being that I can think of, and it makes for an interesting answer to the cosmological argument.
    Metaphysics, not metaethics. There's nothing ethical about numbers (those bastards)

    So in metaphysics there is a discussion of what can be noted as an object. Generally we think of physical things as objects, tables, chairs, etc. That's physical quality is "existence", that object exists. Meinong was a philosopher that argued that one could also have non-existent, objects. An example of this is Sherlock Holmes. We know Sherlock Holmes. He has particular qualities that we can recognize and think of him. He is an object that lacks the quality of "existence", Meinong would say he subsists.

    Subsisting objects are just those that one can think of, but they lack physical temporal qualities. Another example is a unicorn, a unicorn subsists and has its own qualities, we can talk about it etc, but there's no such thing as a physical unicorn.

    Some things can't exists or subsist by virtue of what they are. For instance a round square does not subsist. It can't. It is an impossible object that can't even be imagined.

    So back to the earlier point. Numbers then subsist. They are objects, they are things which we can use and discuss, but they are not a physical thing to exist.

  2. #82
    Regular Llama's Avatar
    Weasyl
    N/A
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    Metaphysics, not metaethics. There's nothing ethical about numbers (those bastards)

    So in metaphysics there is a discussion of what can be noted as an object. Generally we think of physical things as objects, tables, chairs, etc. That's physical quality is "existence", that object exists. Meinong was a philosopher that argued that one could also have non-existent, objects. An example of this is Sherlock Holmes. We know Sherlock Holmes. He has particular qualities that we can recognize and think of him. He is an object that lacks the quality of "existence", Meinong would say he subsists.

    Subsisting objects are just those that one can think of, but they lack physical temporal qualities. Another example is a unicorn, a unicorn subsists and has its own qualities, we can talk about it etc, but there's no such thing as a physical unicorn.

    Some things can't exists or subsist by virtue of what they are. For instance a round square does not subsist. It can't. It is an impossible object that can't even be imagined.

    So back to the earlier point. Numbers then subsist. They are objects, they are things which we can use and discuss, but they are not a physical thing to exist.
    Could this also hold true for deities? Some people seem fixated on their existence or lack thereof.

  3.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #83
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Llama View Post
    Could this also hold true for deities? Some people seem fixated on their existence or lack thereof.
    Yes, but not in a functionally useful manner.

    So if one were to adhere to the idea of subsistence, then all the various deities would subsist. As does sherlock holmes, that tea kettle between here and the sun, and all number of other stuff. The issue is subsistence is not existence. Sherlock holmes can't answer my prayers. So subsistance doesn't solve the problem of existence for those looking for deities.

  4. #84
    Senior Saiko's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Saiko
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    Yes, but not in a functionally useful manner.

    So if one were to adhere to the idea of subsistence, then all the various deities would subsist. As does sherlock holmes, that tea kettle between here and the sun, and all number of other stuff. The issue is subsistence is not existence. Sherlock holmes can't answer my prayers. So subsistance doesn't solve the problem of existence for those looking for deities.
    So, I just started an epistemology class a couple of weeks ago; and occasionally a smidget of metaphysics works its way into discussion. This primarily happens via the mention of "forms," which I've not actually heard any formal definition of. From context clues, I've gathered that forms are basically the abstract idea or concept of something that may or may not exist. For example, solipsism may claim that the chair I am sitting on does not exist; but the concept (i.e. form) must exist because I am able to perceive a chair.

    Is this definition accurate, and how does it compare to subsistence? Right now they sound synonymous to me.

  5.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #85
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    The Forms is much like the abstract ideal of something.

    The Forms first comes from Plato's work. His thoughts were that when we die there is a realm of Forms. The Forms are the complete idea of something, everything that makes it up. So we are reborn and come to life with these Forms in our minds, so we know what a chair is because we know what a chair IS.

    Subsistence is more of a specific idea with certain qualities. So Sherlock Holmes is not a Form of a man, he is not all of MAN, he's a figure that doesn't have a literal physical form, but he does have qualities that can be attributed to him.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •