Shakespeare nailed it

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

The only constant is the thing-in-itself (aka a billion other names around here). Everything else is a relation.

All we need to do is relate one thing to the thing-in-itself and we'll have solved life in its entirety!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:The only constant is the thing-in-itself (aka a billion other names around here). Everything else is a relation.
Often semantic issues pop up in these discussions but that's just because the discourse is not academic or scholarly, where for efficiency reasons everything is always being stated very precise and referential. For most people that would be boring reading, so full of quotes and many external references to follow, with little being added in most cases. Encyclopedic discourse!

The benefit of free-form discussion is exactly the level of ambiguity which allows to say more without necessarily becoming poetry or verbal masturbation. It might respond better to actual experience of life and thought, even or especially when it's "dangerous" and "slippery" that way. The downside is that the moment one hones in on all the used definitions, the impression might rise that they are just being bend at will to fit some preconceived notion. All definitions will have this fluidity though.

After all that preamble, I really have to object to your introduction of the term "thing-in-itself" since it seems that any "thingness" will always be derived from relations, by definition. What else would a "thing" be? Despite the ambiguity of language, it doesn't look like a good idea to speak of a "thing" in this case. It's not "nothing" either, so this is why many people continue to arrive at "all", "totality", "absolute" or even "emptiness". These are concepts and names but I think it's important to minimize the contradiction and maximize consistency, simply because that's what mind appears to do: a minimization of contradiction and maximizing of self-consistency, so we can have our experiences and evaluate them too.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:After all that preamble, I really have to object to your introduction of the term "thing-in-itself" since it seems that any "thingness" will always be derived from relations, by definition. What else would a "thing" be?
That's the intentional irony of the thing-in-itself. It's clearly metaphysical nonsense, so why would anyone use such a term? Yet the same nonsense is allowed to be used under countless other labels.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Despite the ambiguity of language, it doesn't look like a good idea to speak of a "thing" in this case. It's not "nothing" either, so this is why many people continue to arrive at "all", "totality", "absolute" or even "emptiness". These are concepts and names but I think it's important to minimize the contradiction and maximize consistency, simply because that's what mind appears to do: a minimization of contradiction and maximizing of self-consistency, so we can have our experiences and evaluate them too.
Whatever you call it, it all has the same meaning (none). I prefer the term thing-in-itself for two reasons: A) it's not trampling all of these other words that have a meaningful context (and hence creating even more ambiguity) and, B) the meaninglessness of the concept is more obvious (not hidden behind the mask and appeal of other words). To maximize consistency and clarity we should stick to one dedicated term instead of cannibalizing an ever-growing list of others.

Better yet, we should stop using such concepts altogether because, as far as I can see, the only value they can have is a delusive one. They can lead us to higher confidence in our understanding, thinking well of ourselves that we are logically complete or consistent, without considering that our premises are not truthful, so their conclusions can't be assumed to be either. They can also enable us to slander the "apparent" world in favor of some beyond or "absolute" world which is postulated; when the two are not in agreement, the "beyond" has traditionally been favored over the "apparent", and it's even had things like morality attached to it! Instead, we should understand that everything in our head is merely a model of the the empirical world in front of our eyes, and that when the two diverge it's most likely our head that is wrong rather than our eyes.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:That's the intentional irony of the thing-in-itself. It's clearly metaphysical nonsense, so why would anyone use such a term? Yet the same nonsense is allowed to be used under countless other labels.
Yes, like "it is what it is"...
RZoo wrote: To maximize consistency and clarity we should stick to one dedicated term instead of cannibalizing an ever-growing list of others.
A noble aspiration!
Better yet, we should stop using such concepts altogether because, as far as I can see, the only value they can have is a delusive one.
Just because 99% will be confused and sink deeper in a swamp of delusion with certain mushy concepts? That's no good reason. All concepts will eventually have to be abandoned or even burned to the ground. But that doesn't make them all equally useless.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Better yet, we should stop using such concepts altogether because, as far as I can see, the only value they can have is a delusive one.
Just because 99% will be confused and sink deeper in a swamp of delusion with certain mushy concepts? That's no good reason. All concepts will eventually have to be abandoned or even burned to the ground. But that doesn't make them all equally useless.
You're right! We should not stop using the concept, we should just stop believing in it. Not only is it untruthful (as is every other concept) but it lacks any utility except to deceive others or oneself (as opposed to most other concepts, which have a useful, healthy meaning).

Btw, is it really all concepts that have to be abandoned, or is it the value of truth (over utility) that needs to be burned to the ground? :-)
Locked