| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Jerry Kraus" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2006 10:40:11 AM |
| Object: |
Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac?lnk=gst&q=jkraus_1999&rnum=1#b9b88c1f41e106ac
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99?lnk=arm#0e067f4c76225f99
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
.
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
17 Nov 2006 02:26:03 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163781611.701996.220290@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac?lnk=gst&q=jkraus_1999&rnum=1#b9b88c1f41e106ac
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99?lnk=arm#0e067f4c76225f99
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
Two sides of the same coin.
A close friend who shares very similar views as myself, is the president of
the Aus Chinese language society, and confirms this.
Reading whom I consider to be "masters", one of which is Socrates, I see
very little difference when I read Lou Tsu. It is no surprise , but was
reassuring, that someone who is a teacher of their language also sees it
that "way".
"Word" and "way" are interchangable at a fundemental level, and combine
quite well, ie "the way of the word", where "the word" could also be seen as
"the sound", from Sufi perspective. Big bang is also a good scientific
interpretation of both. The "initiation" of vibration, the resulting 'waves'
and the 'way' we form words to express our level of consciousness.
Some cultures use more vowel sounds than others, and I'm not surprised that
they all show up in certain "mantras" within the respective culture.
Ever tried prounouncing words wit, what we would consider 'missing vowels'.
Quite hillarious. All part of the "sound" picture.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
17 Nov 2006 12:49:47 PM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus wrote:
In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
Here is a strong set of versions of the "Existence is not a Predicate"
argument. How would CHinese philosophy deal with these arguments?
There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence
means. The dominant (though by no means universal) view in
twentieth-century and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is that
existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the
form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical
view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at
Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one
asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The
word "existence", on this view, is simply a way of describing the
logical form of ordinary subject-predicate sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry.
Yet, when we say 'Tom is hungry' or 'Tom is walking', it may be
news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas 'Tom exists' would be
news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not.
Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it
like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the
experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet
again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but
surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On
the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can
explain what existing is.
It may be tempting to think that 'Tom exists' means merely 'Tom
is real'. In fact, this could be distinctly appealing, for 'real'
is what has been called an 'excluder' predicate, meaning thereby
that it attributes nothing positive to Tom, but operates in a purely
negative fashion simply to exclude Tom from being imaginary, mythical,
fictional, and the like. To say that 'exists' meant 'is real'
would be to say inter alia that it attributed nothing positive to Tom;
and that would do much to relieve our frustration at being so fluent in
our use of 'exists' despite having no idea of its attributing
anything positive to Tom. It would be a relief to discover that
'exists' attributes nothing positive to him at all.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
- Existence is not a property
A bachelor can be defined as an unmarried man. Being unmarried is the
essential defining property of a bachelor. Now, if I were to say
'bachelors exist', I would not be giving a further property of
bachelors. Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
though the concept of a bachelor remains the same whether or not any
bachelors do happen to exist.
If we apply the same thinking to the Ontological Argument, we see that
the mistake it makes is to treat the existence of God as if it were
simply another property, like omniscience, or omnipotence. But God
could not be omniscient or omnipotent without existing, so by giving a
definition of God at all we are already assuming that he or she exists.
Listing existence as a further essential property of a perfect being is
making the mistake of treating existence as a property rather than as
the precondition of anything having any properties at all.
But what about fictional beings, such as unicorns? Surely we can talk
about the properties of a unicorn, such as having one horn and four
legs, without unicorns actually having to exist. The answer is that
what a sentence like 'Unicorns have one horn' really means is 'If
unicorns were to exist, they would have one horn'. In other words,
'Unicorns have one horn' is really a hypothetical statement. So the
non-existence of unicorns is not a problem for the view that existence
is not a property.
PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
In "Section IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the
Existence of God,"[1] drawn from his Critique, Kant addresses the
logical problem of existential import. How do we talk or think about
things without supposing, in some sense at least, that they exist?
Bertrand Russell expressed one aspect of the problem this way: If it's
false that the present King of France is bald, then why doesn't this
fact imply that it's true the present King of France is not bald? When
the existence of the subjects of our statements are in question, the
normal use of logic becomes unreliable. Kant argues that the use of
words (or "predicates") alone does not necessarily imply the existence
of their referents. We can only assume the existence of entities named
by our words; we cannot prove "existence" by means of the use of
language alone.
"Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of
something which is added to the conception of some other thing. " -Kant
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c3458.html
Like the concept being, existence is incapable of a real definition
because there is nothing in the understanding of the term that can be
categorized by some composition. We can say that existence is a
perfection, indeed the ultimate perfection of an essence. In all
created things existence is the act of essence; whatever a thing is, if
it is in act, actual, it exists and therefore has being.
www.catholicism.org/Philosophia/glossary.htm
http://ghc.ctc.edu/HUMANITIES/DLARSON/kanto.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/existenceisnotapredicate.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac?lnk=gst&q=jkraus_1999&rnum=1#b9b88c1f41e106ac
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99?lnk=arm#0e067f4c76225f99
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
18 Nov 2006 07:38:04 PM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus wrote:
In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac?lnk=gst&q=jkraus_1999&rnum=1#b9b88c1f41e106ac
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99?lnk=arm#0e067f4c76225f99
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
I think you are oversimplifying Chinese culture.
Certainly the are the Dao and Ch'an influences,
but there is also Confucius.
There is, however, a measure of truth to your
observation. China found a home for the
Buddhadhamma in the form of Ch'an after
comparing it with Taoism.
In general, I think that China is basically
a legalistic culture (Confucius) with perfound
mystic undertones (Dao, Ch'an). The big
difference here with western culture is that
the tension between cleric and seer is explicit
and not swept under the rug. The average
Chinaman can turn to Confucionism for
personal order and then turn to family gods,
Daoism, and/or Ch'an for cosmic order. (All
in all, much healthier than believing in exactly
one truth.)
BTW -- I don't give a ***** about the Chinese version
of the Book/Word of MiddleEastern nomadic tribes.
I don't like the One God idea, and want it forgotten
without serious consideration.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
18 Nov 2006 06:46:04 PM |
|
|
There is no blindspot; there is no indicator; right of way is vague.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
18 Nov 2006 06:54:06 PM |
|
|
Tim wrote:
There is no blindspot;
Yes there is, its the wool in front of your eyes from all those fucking
ewes ewe think about fucking Tim, ewe queer leftist commie *****, *****
off idiot.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
18 Nov 2006 07:01:01 PM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1163897646.455779.231070@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Tim wrote:
There is no blindspot;
Yes there is, its the wool in front of your eyes from all those fucking
ewes ewe think about fucking Tim, ewe queer leftist commie *****, *****
off idiot.
MG
You got me beat there, ***** breath; while I can only think about fuckin'
'em, you do ***** them! Hey, you show some objectivity after all. We might
say that you're a shagger that we can point a stick at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
18 Nov 2006 07:12:36 PM |
|
|
Tim wrote:
You got me beat there,
Nah no need to, you're beating yourself and ewe're good at it
obviously, e.g. ewe've been told to shear your sheep and ewe think that
means getting others involved, it doesn't you dopey leftist *****,
whoooops phhhhsssssssssssssst m-a-a maaa's calling ewe better run now.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
19 Nov 2006 12:41:28 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1163898756.241414.288920@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Tim wrote:
You got me beat there,
Nah no need to, you're beating yourself and ewe're good at it
obviously, e.g. ewe've been told to shear your sheep and ewe think that
means getting others involved, it doesn't you dopey leftist *****,
whoooops phhhhsssssssssssssst m-a-a maaa's calling ewe better run now.
MG
Yo, dumb-*****, at least show me the courtesy of responding yourself; I've no
interest on pissing vitriol at your wife, the sheep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
19 Nov 2006 12:52:12 AM |
|
|
Tim wrote:
Yo,
Pathetic absolutely pathetic, obviously didn't sleep too well did ewe?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Existence: A Chinese Perspective |
19 Nov 2006 08:12:51 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1163919132.815622.226090@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Tim wrote:
Yo,
Pathetic absolutely pathetic, obviously didn't sleep too well did ewe?
MG
***** you fucking parasitical, sheep-shaggin', cocksucking kiwi fruit; I
see you're up fucking sheep still, filthy ***** that you are. Anyways,
*****-off, ***** lick.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
