The Metaphysical Priority of Existence.

[eventhorizen]

Though existence is a difficult concept to deal with, insofar as language and terminology find themselves faced with the insurmountable primacy of existence, it is nonetheless a concept dealing with the fundamental absolute of the valid subject. The metaphysical priority of existence comes not from its position as some ludicrous force of creation, but from guiding the mind towards the understanding of the governance of simple fact and logic over the physical.

Many will drone on at length over the fundamental priority of this or that God, some Universal Consciousness etc. as the root explaination of everything that puzzles them, failing to realise that a single metaphysical principle not only governs these spurious primal claims, but defines the boundaries, laws, rules and becomes the canvas upon which all else, all subsequent must adhere to.

Existence is remarkeably simple. It is nothing more and nothing less than being what it is you are. There is no need to define these terms in an overly complex manner, shoehorning vast personal philosophies into the midst, there is only the need to understand that the fundamental state of things cannot avoid existing. It is impossible for the basic fact, the basic truth to not exist. Should this be the case, that the basic fact and truth of everything we see and know does not exist, then there is nothing, which is the new existing basic state. Should we try to do away with existence altogether, and state that "there is no existence" then this becomes the existing fact of the way of things, or it becomes no fact, no truth, no state at all.

The metaphysical priority of Existence is metaphysical and prior because it is the single fundamental principle that governs all regression, defines all manifestation, and refutes all negation. We see the influence of the indecisive yet thoroughly absolute logical progression of this simple principle at work at the centre of the physical machinations of our relative and probabilistic Universe. The more we learn of the physical, and the more some of us apply ourselves to the metaphysical, the more we will understand that the perplexing and indefinable self evident immediacy of reality is, its self, the alpha and omega of all.

[Ummon]

Without mind, nobody would talk of philosophy.

[eventhorizen]

Now apply that mind to "without existence".

[Ummon]

Which means, they are both necessary conditions.

[eventhorizen]

Which means, they are both necessary conditions.

To talk of philosophy yes. As necessary conditions of the physical is pure idealism, something we have already covered and I have already refuted in another post. As necessary conditions for the metaphysical, for existence, is a claim that can never be supported, only refuted. I invite you try.

So, what?

Without a concious mind, there is no metaphysical philosophy of the reason for existance, but without existance (which must have a reason) there is no mind? I'm not very good at metaphysics, is there a more simple way of explaining this?

Read my first post. All this talk of mind is a red herring that is already dealt with in my post. Existence is a priori to all and there is no refutation of this axiom.

The fact that it is a priori to all is the point of this thread. It is the metaphysical principle of existence that defines the boundaries and the rules of all subsequent possibility.

[Maverick]

I think this was Nietzsche's first principle of philosophy, "it exists" from Beyond Good and Evil.

[Ummon]

To talk of philosophy yes. As necessary conditions of the physical is pure idealism, something we have already covered and I have already refuted in another post. As necessary conditions for the metaphysical, for existence, is a claim that can never be supported, only refuted. I invite you try.

Existence is merely defined by your perception and thought. The fact that you can define it, requires a mind.

Existence is pre-condition of mind only if you don't take into consideration, that mind is the only condition which validates existence.

The cyclical relationship between observer and observed, which is present in the other thread as well, forbids us to state that one precedes the other.

We are brought to say that mind follows existence only because we have stated a priori a definition of existence and mind, by which mind is a material object.

[eventhorizen]

Existence is merely defined by your perception and thought. The fact that you can define it, requires a mind.

A definition is a description and explanation of a subject. A means of communicating information regarding a subject to another that has no bearing whatsoever upon the subject its self.

Existence is pre-condition of mind only if you don't take into consideration, that mind is the only condition which validates existence.

Existence is a pre-condition of mind in colloquial, definative, and abstract philosophical usage. It is a pre-condition of all things for even the absence of these things, or the cause of these things, is premised upon the fact of their existence. Prior to their existence comes the fact they can exist, prior to the fact they can exist comes the primacy of existence metaphysical.

The cyclical relationship between observer and observed, which is present in the other thread as well, forbids us to state that one precedes the other.

Very true. Observed existence requires an observer. An observer can only be deemed so when something is observed. This has no bearing to the point at hand.

We are brought to say that mind follows existence only because we have stated a priori a definition of existence and mind, by which mind is a material object.

No the only definition is that of existence as "being what it is you are". Thus existence is not physical but metaphysical, or if we wish to change terms and add spiritual or any other of your choosing then existence is meta to all of these.

Mind must be queried as to its existence, and even if it is found that mind requires no solution to the question, the question itself shows the primacy of existence.

If we should be so bold as to ignore the spurious, illogical and unsupportable claim that mind is a premise of that which does exist beyond the mind, then the question of existence lies at the heart of every "solution" and every claim. The simple fact of the matter is that it is existence as a metaphysical principle that defines the boundaries of what does exist, and in making no choices, in being unable to determine between the possible, leaves us with the rich and complex fabric of near incomprehensibility that underlies our "Universe".

[Ummon]

A definition is a description and explanation of a subject. A means of communicating information regarding a subject to another that has no bearing whatsoever upon the subject its self.

You know subjects only through information in your mind/brain.

Existence is a pre-condition of mind in colloquial, definative, and abstract philosophical usage. It is a pre-condition of all things for even the absence of these things, or the cause of these things, is premised upon the fact of their existence. Prior to their existence comes the fact they can exist, prior to the fact they can exist comes the primacy of existence metaphysical.

Excuse me, did you just make your argument fall inside your exception as to the meaning of definition, contained in the sentence above? In simple terms, if a definition has no relationship with reality, what you just said is that existence as you defined it has no relationship with existence supposed as a real, undefined item...

That is why I love synthesis: it avoids mistakes such as this.

Very true. Observed existence requires an observer. An observer can only be deemed so when something is observed. This has no bearing to the point at hand.

Do you have experience of something which exists through anything else rather than your mind?

No the only definition is that of existence as "being what it is you are". Thus existence is not physical but metaphysical, or if we wish to change terms and add spiritual or any other of your choosing then existence is meta to all of these.

Mind must be queried as to its existence, and even if it is found that mind requires no solution to the question, the question itself shows the primacy of existence.

If we should be so bold as to ignore the spurious, illogical and unsupportable claim that mind is a premise of that which does exist beyond the mind, then the question of existence lies at the heart of every "solution" and every claim. The simple fact of the matter is that it is existence as a metaphysical principle that defines the boundaries of what does exist, and in making no choices, in being unable to determine between the possible, leaves us with the rich and complex fabric of near incomprehensibility that underlies our "Universe".

This is probably the part where your argument could be shared, but you haven't (as usual) by any means considered that your asserting a fundamental nature of existence instead of perception, is an a priori.

What you call existence I might call mind, and beyond this, nothing tells us that reality is the premise of information, and not vice-versa.

Therefore, you are infact stating something which is inscribed in your experience of reality, both inherited and learned, and has no real meaning if we assume a different point of view.

Existence -> Information

Might as well be reversed into:

Information (existent or not) -> Existence.

But you will retort: only existence exists, because of how I define existence. By all means, define everything as you wish. I may even agree in theory (whatever that could mean in dealing with premises of thought and reality). That would count for nothing anyway.

[Copperknickers II]

So, what?

Without a concious mind, there is no metaphysical philosophy of the reason for existance, but without existance (which must have a reason) there is no mind? I'm not very good at metaphysics, is there a more simple way of explaining this?

[Ummon]

Subtly no. What I have expressed is not the certainty that thought precedes existence. I have expressed the very same doubt Nietzsche expresses, as to existence preceding thought, the nature of thought, the nature of existence.

The truth is that when we come to adjudicating such universal prerequisites, we have no frigging clue.

[eventhorizen]

No we have a simple clue, whether a thing is what it is or is not. You as always miss the point, intended or otherwise is irrelevant. One does not concern himself with the question of whether a horse is a horse, or a cow, nor the role played by the mind in determining which is which and determining it how.

All that matters is if a thing is itself. The mind can make mistakes, the mind can see wrongly, so we do not take into consideration specifics of things, for these do not matter and are prone to the kind of arguements you like to produce.

If my mind makes the world within which it lives then so be it. Either my mind is my mind or it is not. There is no third option under such careful disregard of specifics. There is only the superior principle of my mind being my mind, or not.

I must say, off-topic, that if the depth and extent of your arguement in contrary to my original post is nothing more than the mind creating its own subjective paradigm, with no arguement against the reason nor premises in my original post, then I bask in the knowledge that the only refutation you have is the refutation of everything said by anyone. I know for certain none of your arguements have ever reached so far, nor that I have ever grasped so blatantly at such obvious straws.

Existence is the state of being what it is you are. Of your specifics being fact, your holism being true, and your self being unrefuted by yourself. That is all existence is, that is how we all use the term existence, because that is how it is. It is impossible for you to refute this, and your allusion to an understanding of this principle has no bearing whatsoever upon this principle as its self.

[daxter]

Well our existance is define by two laws the laws of nature and the laws of choice and reason.

We think therefor we exist

or is it

we exist then we think

To exist is on our genetic code is like a law inputed to an artificial inteligence then we may chose what to do with that existance.

[eventhorizen]

We think therefor we exist.

This is the point that needs to be studied, with its solutions and revelations understood and honestly studied and expressed. It is precisely because one is either incapable of, or chooses not to do this simple thing that we end up with the fallacy of a subject without existence, or Ummons entire arguement.

The rest of your post is garbage. I advise you to spend some time thinking.

[daxter]

This is the point that needs to be studied, with its solutions and revelations understood and honestly studied and expressed. It is precisely because one is either incapable of, or chooses not to do this simple thing that we end up with the fallacy of a subject without existence, or Ummons entire arguement.

The rest of your post is garbage. I advise you to spend some time thinking.

To exist felow eventhorizen is to give meaning to our life, if we stay atached to trivial stuf, we rander life meaningless the point is what can destroy meaning of life. Holocaust, the slaughter of war, social and economic collapse, starvation, torture all these and too many more can render life meaningless. Meaninglessness itself can add to the casualties, by sapping the will to live. A few may endure the worst, their faith and hope intact; many more cannot.

To live to exist, what do you think is our role in the universe, we are a race of divided people, with wars rampaijing, i say to truly that fait doen`t exist there is no role to play there is a role to make and a patdh to be made as well my firend.

There are many ways in witch to guide our existence, because you and i born with an intelect, with the capacity that makes us wonder, the very same things we are speaking rigth now.

Objective values my friend we are subjective by nature we claim reason, philosofy but on the other hand we aren`t that objective we can`t say everything is this or that.

When i sayd we are just like an artificial inteligence programed to think, i was rigth it may not be a good way to say it, let me put on other terms, we are an inteligent creation that was given the hability to think and make it`s own future, or we evolved to became what we are today.

And this way i end my post.

[Ummon]

Actually, you supposed that I meant your mind, or my mind. You also suppose that in my view mind creates. Infact, your argument is entirely based on suppositions. Including the fact that being has some special state of a-priori definiteness.

When something exists, it assumes characteristics. The existence of shape, number, etc. is implicit to existence. Why? Is this contemporary, a priori, or a posteriori, with respect to existence?

And I mean not merely in a sensible way. Substance without discontinuity is a number one.

You assert that given our subjective experience, we already know the answer.

Suppositions.

Information or existence? Does order require substance? Does substance require order?

Your answer is good. As much as any guess.

[Maverick]

Actually, you supposed that I meant your mind, or my mind. You also suppose that in my view mind creates. Infact, your argument is entirely based on suppositions. Including the fact that being has some special state of a-priori definiteness.

When something exists, it assumes characteristics. The existence of shape, number, etc. is implicit to existence. Why? It this contemporary, a priori, or a posteriori, with respect to existence?

You assert that given our subjective experience, we already know the answer.

Suppositions.

Information or existence? Does order require substance? Does substance require order?

Your answer is good. As much as any guess.

Does anyone know what the hell he is talking about?

[Maverick]

I am sure the merit is missed

Probably because it's entirely subjective not to mention painful to read.

[Ummon]

Probably because it's entirely subjective not to mention painful to read.

You are referring to the wrong merit there.

[eventhorizen]

Actually, you supposed that I meant your mind, or my mind. You also suppose that in my view mind creates. Infact, your argument is entirely based on suppositions. Including the fact that being has some special state of a-priori definiteness.

When something exists, it assumes characteristics. The existence of shape, number, etc. is implicit to existence. Why? Is this contemporary, a priori, or a posteriori, with respect to existence?

And I mean not merely in a sensible way. Substance without discontinuity is a number one.

You assert that given our subjective experience, we already know the answer.

Suppositions.

Information or existence? Does order require substance? Does substance require order?

Your answer is good. As much as any guess.

It is you that assumes order requires mind. I do not deal with suppositions here I deal with absolutes, so if you can come up with a third mode other than being what it is you are, or not, then your arguement has merit.

As to mind, it is simply the case of willfully mixing up subjectivity with abstract philosophy, without describing the necessary premise and relationship of either. It is by purposely ignoring an explanation of necessity and honesty that you find yourself thinking your arguement has validity.