Ontology: "What is it to be?"

[Tom Paine]

The central question of ontology is above; "What is it to be?" What is existence, and what is it to exist? What is 'is', as one of my teachers was asked on his finals exam. So what is the answer to these questions, not the first principles of modern philosophy, but the first principles of Socrates et al, the pre-Cartesian philosophers? What is it, this thing we call existence?

[Note. This is not about god, so let's keep it that way.]

[rez]

I tend to follow Descartes in this instance (with a little twist). The very fact that i can percieve that i exist and prove what my mind believes through sensory perception is evidence that i exist.

Now as to the question of what existing actually is i would say that the collection of emotional experience and sensory perception figure at the top of the list.

In this life our aim is to push our emotions to their maximum potential. An example would be going to see a very scary horror film, fear is essentially a negative emotion yet we try to indulge it. A curious phenomenon answered by the fact that we WANT to experience the greatest human emotion. Why? Because in feeling the greatest joy or sorrow we can truly know that we are alive and living to our potential.

Sensory perception is the stepping stone to emotional experience and as such is the key factor. The actual business of existing is taken up constantly by our senses. Perpetually collecting experience and information to translate into emotion.

at least thats how i justify my continued existence

[the Eternal Cocoon]

The question boils down to wheather emotions make reality or reality makes emotions. I believe the latter, I think there is a objective reality in which we are all emmerssed and our emotions are our personel interpretations of that reality. We may interpret reality in diffrent or simply wrong ways , such as when someone belives that something exists which really dosent,( mirage, hulucination) but the reality we are interpreting stays the same despite our interpretations. So that means that anything that is possible to sense exists. It dosent have to be directly sensed by one of our primary senseory abilities ( sound, taste, sight), as in it may be sensed by something like x-rays or electron defraction rays, but it still has to be possible to sense and test.
So in other words anything that is testibly existant exists. How do we know atoms exist? becuase when we shoot alpha particles through a sheet of gold they bounce off of something the size of the atoms we imagine them to be and goes through the space where those atoms dont exist.

[Katrina]

The question boils down to wheather emotions make reality or reality makes emotions. I believe the latter, I think there is a objective reality in which we are all emmerssed and our emotions are our personel interpretations of that reality. We may interpret reality in diffrent or simply wrong ways , such as when someone belives that something exists which really dosent,( mirage, hulucination) but the reality we are interpreting stays the same despite our interpretations. So that means that anything that is possible to sense exists. It dosent have to be directly sensed by one of our primary senseory abilities ( sound, taste, sight), as in it may be sensed by something like x-rays or electron defraction rays, but it still has to be possible to sense and test.
So in other words anything that is testibly existant exists. How do we know atoms exist? becuase when we shoot alpha particles through a sheet of gold they bounce off of something the size of the atoms we imagine them to be and goes through the space where those atoms dont exist.

Of course reality is the source in which emotions are created upon, however, certain aspects of reality are formed after result of former emotion, no? Our emotions are interpretations of prior reality. Post reality, at least within an internal and directly related external sense, is an accurance of our emotions and bodily and mental reactions due to the latter reality.

Why is it that sensability all of a sudden determines what exists? Human reaction towards a natural occurance, idea, or thing is in existance, and therefore, why is it what it is, and why is it here? Why should human senses be any more real than all else in reality.

[Simetrical]

There is no difference between reality and a sufficiently good illusion, and calling them by different names is a distinction without a difference. I can't know if there's a demon "fooling" me all the time, so it's not meaningful to say that such a demon does or does not exist. (Occam's razor would suggest that it should be assumed not to exist.) Maybe we're living in the Matrix, but that doesn't mean that what we think of as reality is not in fact reality, as we define it. We know what we mean when we speak certain words, and trying to suggest that the words we use mean other than what we use them to mean is presumptuous and pointless.

Ontology irritates me, really. It's mostly word games. We all know what real and be and exist mean; they're fundamental and probably can't be defined without circularity. Take them as undefined terms, everyone knows what they mean, and get on with life. (The only branches of philosophy that don't irritate me, actually, are those that deal with ethics and so forth. Philosophy should be prescriptive, and should leave description to science.)

[Nihil]

Agree with Sim here. Isness is. It is too fundamental a concept to be further elaborated. These questions are another example of "abuse of abstraction". Just because we can think abstractly, and it is often useful to do so, it doesn't follow that all aspects of our experience are susceptible to abstraction. Some things just are and cannot be further defined in words, and many of the most irresolveable philosophical quandries are a result of this misunderstanding of the nature of thought itself and its relationship with reality.

There are limits to logic, which is why it is not the be-all and end-all of experience. A pocket calculator can tell your that 2+2=4, but it can't tell you why or how this is so. Reason has its place, but it can't do everything.

Can we understand isness? Maybe there's nothing to understand. Just because it is too simple a thing to be further explained or subdivided doesn't mean that we don't get it. The only philosophical schools that are able to shed any kind of interesting light on such ineffable and unwieldy enormities are those which use paradox and non-rational metaphors to induce an intuitive insight into the concept. Trying to explain these things in any kind of strictly literal sense is futile.

[MoROmeTe]

Why is there something rather than nothing? I believe this is how Heidegger put it...

When trying to thing about the "is" or the "issness" as Nihil interestingly puts it we have at least two barriers to overcome. First off the fact that our mind cannot really think about something that "is not" or "nonisness", if I may coin a term. Because everything around and about us is, in some degree of the word/notion, we can only speculate and imagine when non-existence is the subject, and, as such, it is hard to create meaningfull theories about this.

And there is the language barrier. We are at a loss to find good terms for the "nonisness". And there is also the problem that language is in the category of the "isness" and so we are ill equpped to deal with the "nonisness". We require a non-language and even some non-rationality (which is not i-rationality, we have plenty of that and it serves little purpose here).

All of this being said I believe that is really fascnating that we can talk about not talking in terms of "isness" about essentially "non-isness", even if out results might be poor/unusable.

And still, why is there something rather than noting?

[Nihil]

And still, why is there something rather than noting?

Now that is a good question, although, I fear, one which we cannot answer. I'm very pleased that there is something rather than nothing, making - as Captain Beefheart would say - "the night more interesting".

On the other hand, is it not a fact that physicists tell us that the sum total of the forces and energies in the universe come to a net zero? Therefore, in a sense, everything equals nothing, which might be expressed as:

Σ = 0

Or you might say that existence is nothing, but with some interesting complications and wrinkles along the way:

1 + (-1) = 0

Which might go some way towards explaining my peculiar username.

[Pnutmaster]

And there is the language barrier. We are at a loss to find good terms for the "nonisness". And there is also the problem that language is in the category of the "isness" and so we are ill equpped to deal with the "nonisness". We require a non-language and even some non-rationality (which is not i-rationality, we have plenty of that and it serves little purpose here).

This may be better suited to the Epistemology thread (thanks for creating two philosophical threads in one day, Squeakus Maximus ), but we can all agree that the possession of knowledge and awareness of existence are inter-connected.

You make a good point. Language is the foundation for thought. Language is also, by virtue of its speakers, finite. There are only so many words one can use to describe something, and there is a definite limit to how sporadically words can be used. I believe that simply learning language places a shackle of sorts on one's mind, on one's perception of the world and everything in between. Obviously, I can't deny that language is liberating. Language gave us philosophy after all. I can propose, like MoRomeTe, that a non-language, a non-language that predates the attainment of rationality and perhaps conscious thought, is necessary to comprehend the idea of 'isness'.

[Simetrical]

A pocket calculator can tell your that 2+2=4, but it can't tell you why or how this is so.

It's because the cardinality of the union of two disjoint sets, each of cardinality two, is four. Why that is, now . . .

When trying to thing about the "is" or the "issness" as Nihil interestingly puts it we have at least two barriers to overcome. First off the fact that our mind cannot really think about something that "is not" or "nonisness", if I may coin a term. Because everything around and about us is, in some degree of the word/notion, we can only speculate and imagine when non-existence is the subject, and, as such, it is hard to create meaningfull theories about this.

You mean that everything that we can think of exists, at least in our minds, insofar as we can think of it? Well, there's nothing that we can't think of, in any meaningful sense, and attempting to come up with words for such things (that clearly cannot exist) does nothing but perpetuate the silliness that it's possible to get somewhere in trying to think about things that we've already assumed that we cannot, in fact, think about.

And still, why is there something rather than noting?

No answer to that question can conceivably be meaningful. For any reason I give, you can repeat the question "Why?", much as some small but annoying children do. At a certain point, you need to give up and accept that something is.

On the other hand, is it not a fact that physicists tell us that the sum total of the forces and energies in the universe come to a net zero?

Only forces (Newton's Third Law of Motion), and I'm not sure if that even applies in non-Newtonian physics like relativity and quantum mechanics. The energy in the universe is certainly positive, and very large.

Language is the foundation for thought.

No, thought is the foundation for language. Possibly language influences thought to some small degree (that's a matter of contention, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis), but only to a small degree. It's easily demonstrated that words are not necessary to think about something: otherwise, how would words for new concepts get coined? How could languages develop in the first place (and they develop from nothing on a regular basis: see the full-fledged languages created by deaf children from nothing, for instance)?

Language is only necessary for communication, not thought. Arguably it's even only useful for communication, not thought: subjectively, it certainly feels as though you think of something, and then "put it into words" to convey it to others. Your thoughts are not in English, or any other human language: otherwise, you could necessarily convey all of your thoughts without any effort at all. Surely you've had an idea and had to put effort into expressing it in language?

Language is also, by virtue of its speakers, finite.

It doesn't matter if the system is finite. It can still describe the infinite perfectly well. That's what calculus, for instance, is based on. There's no particular reason to believe that any limits on what human language can address are any less than absolute logical limits on knowledge and communication (and trying to consider things that go beyond such limits is nonsensical).

I believe that simply learning language places a shackle of sorts on one's mind, on one's perception of the world and everything in between.

"A shackle of sorts"? What does that mean? That someone who learns a language would underperform on certain things, say? Be worse at something or other?

[Pnutmaster]

All valid arguements...

"A shackle of sorts"? What does that mean? That someone who learns a language would underperform on certain things, say? Be worse at something or other?

I mean a mental shackle that inadvertantly limits the human mind's potential. I wouldn't call it underperforming, no, it's more along the lines of never performing or considering performing in certain areas (if that makes any sense).

Again, this subject is more appropriate in the 'Knowledge' thread. Language has a way of establishing a mode of thinking. We think about things we can transmit into word or sign or whatever form of communication we use. Nomenclature identifies every impulse of thought we have 'felt' and is quick to use existing language to label new impulses. Do we ever really amuse ourselves with language void observations? Our supposed intellect is contained in our sophisticated language, our knowledge, our terminology. What is 'higher thought' without these things?

[MoROmeTe]

Sim, what is really interesting/strange is that I can provide myself an concept/image/thought of "nonisness" while I also know that if there was such a thing as "nonisness" it would be outside the bounds of my thought, which is anchored in "isness". And throught this all I am inclined to think using my concept and to develop it further even thought it is of little actual use to anything...

[Tom Paine]

Does the fact one has the concept of something absolute like "non-isness" (hyphenated is much wieldier) mean it must exist? Well, non-isness must exist, otherwise everything would exist, surely, and as (say) dragons don't...

[MoROmeTe]

To your first question, no. But dragons do exist at some level... That of imagination...

[Tom Paine]

But is that really existence? The concept of a dragon exists; but does a dragon of itself exist?

[Pnutmaster]

(EDIT: ah, misread your last line) Well, then we should redefine what existence is, no? Does an elaborate concept contained in the mind not warrant some form of existence? The concept of say, a story or a theory? It may not have as much physical presence as, say, a rock, but it's certainly present in the exchange of electrical signals within your brain. Does relative size and physical complexity determine what exists and what does not exist?

[Tom Paine]

No; but like I say, is existing purely as a concept the same as existing?

[MoROmeTe]

Well, there's the hardline approach to existence: only that which is is...

And there's the softer approach: everything is, to a certain extent...

I believe both are acceptable and usable but under diferent situations. Like dragons exist per the second definition, while they don't really are. As we have both the terms "to exist" and "to be" I believe the first approach is or can be connected to "is" while the second to "exists". So, there are thing that exist yet they are not...

PS: I know it is a bit of wordplay, but I so like it...

[Tom Paine]

I think of existing as actually having form or being; not there benig an idea of something, but the something of itself being in existence; the hardline approach. If there is only a concept of something is it the thing or the concept which exists?

[MoROmeTe]

Are the thing and the concept really that diferent? The dog that exists exists for you not as it is, but more as you give it existance.

There is a dog that is. But you have in your head the concept of dog that exists. I believe that when you look at the dog you see not what is, but rather o blend of the dog that is and of the concept of dog that exists in your head.

Mind numbing, I know...