dejavu wrote:All existence is inherent because of infinity.
Yes, existence exists inherently because of the Infinite, but I suspect that is not what you meant. I suspect that you meant that all things that exist exist inherently, which is not true. Let's go back and look at the definition of inherent that was given earlier in the thread:
DHodges wrote:dejavu wrote:I mean what is commonly meant by the word. Any old dictionary definition should do.
What is commonly meant by "inherent existence" is that an object exists "from its side."
For instance, a chair is inherently a chair, meaning that there are qualities in the object itself (inherent in it)that make it a chair, rather than being a matter of interpretation, or a matter of the relationship between that object and some other objects or subjects.
Under this view, a chair is a chair, regardless of whether there is anyone to call it a chair or whether anyone ever sits in it.
Do you agree with that definiition?
The converse view that the group of objects referred to as "chairs" is arbitrary and defined by whether people place them in that group, and they are put in that group based on their use (or potential use) to some group as a place to sit (and other characteristics) - and so the group is defined
relationally, not because of an inherent property of the object itself.
Language being a complicated affair, we could go further and look at how particular objects might be classified as a divan, a sofa, a loveseat, a hammock, a stool, a toy chair in a doll house, or just a rock or a log suitable for sitting on, and whether those objects fall into the category "chair." Is that classification based on inherent properties of those objects? Might different people classify them differently? Might it work differently in different languages or cultures?
Let's say that there is a wooden chair in the corner. Picture it. You and I may have pictured two entirely different chairs - you may have pictured one that was screwed and glued together, sanded, and a light color varnish applied, where I pictured a chair of a peg-in-hole design that had been hammered together, left unstained, unvarnished, and had gone a gray-ish dingy color from age. For simplicity's sake, let's use the peg-in-hole chair that I pictured.
Is it inherently a chair? It does have chair-qualities that make it a chair, but it is also a stack of wood. It is also the subject of our mind's eye as we picture it. It is also a conversation piece. If a little girl with a Barbie starts playing with it, it could quickly become a house for Barbie. It is also a very large number of molecules. Can you see how it could be all of these things simultaneously? If so, how can the dictionary definition that David found be true?
"What is commonly meant by "inherent existence" is that an object exists "from its side."
For instance, a chair is inherently a chair, meaning that there are qualities in the object itself (inherent in it)that make it a chair, rather than being a matter of interpretation"
dejavu wrote:DHodges:
What is commonly meant by "inherent existence" is that an object exists "from its side."
For instance, a chair is inherently a chair, meaning that there are qualities in the object itself (inherent in it)that make it a chair, rather than being a matter of interpretation, or a matter of the relationship between that object and some other objects or subjects.
Under this view, a chair is a chair, regardless of whether there is anyone to call it a chair or whether anyone ever sits in it.
Do you agree with that definiition?
Spot on Dave. From its side, by itself, in itself, of itself etc.
Let's now look at the other definitions that you accept:
1. by itself: It needs nothing else to make it a chair.
Really? The chair made itself? It didn't need a tree, or a carpenter, or a hammer? Obviously not true. Even the envisioned chair needed an envisioner.
2. in itself: It is nothing but a chair.
The list above shows that it is many more things; it can fit into many more categories.
3. of itself: it is a chair made of chair
Even if it were a chair made from a previous chair, it is still also of wood, of molecules, etc.
In all fairness, to repost the rest of your response:
dejavu wrote:
Spot on Dave. From its side, by itself, in itself, of itself etc. ----This (and here is where I think most of the misunderstanding surrounding this topic arises) in no way breaches the relational aspects of a things existence, ie. its dependency on all that it is not, as there really is nothing but existence. The universe exists inherently (in itself) --therefore every separate facet that may be differentiated from all else through perception can not help but share its inherency.
Its "dependency on all that it is not" negates both the by itself and of itself definitions that you supplied.
there really is nothing but existence
You got it right here. All that is, exists.
Now here's the the next step that explains why jupiviv is also right to say that the Infinite can not exist: The Infinite includes All, including all that exists and all that does not exist. Something that contains that which does not exist can not exist itself.
