|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 01:47:30 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 18:44:00 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
And what is Being?
Life
A rock does not exist?
You're playing semantics. A rock doesn't have subjective being, it's inert
matter. To a (human) animal, which is what we are discussing, Existence is
Being is Life taking place. When Life/Existence ends, Being ceases, we are
dead, like a rock, although our cells carry on in other forms of matter and
energy, therefore still "exist".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 03:57:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 23:47:30 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
And what is Being?
Life
A rock does not exist?
You're playing semantics. A rock doesn't have subjective being, it's inert
matter. To a (human) animal, which is what we are discussing, Existence is
Being is Life taking place. When Life/Existence ends, Being ceases, we are
dead, like a rock, although our cells carry on in other forms of matter and
energy, therefore still "exist".
Equating Being exclusively to Life is incorrect.
Being is "something out there", and that includes a rock.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 03:34:38 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 23:47:30 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
And what is Being?
Life
A rock does not exist?
You're playing semantics. A rock doesn't have subjective being, it's inert
matter. To a (human) animal, which is what we are discussing, Existence is
Being is Life taking place. When Life/Existence ends, Being ceases, we are
dead, like a rock, although our cells carry on in other forms of matter
and
energy, therefore still "exist".
Equating Being exclusively to Life is incorrect.
Equating Being in the sense of a living organism to that of inert objects is
incorrect.
Being is "something out there", and that includes a rock.
Insert objects "exist" but they do not have Being/Consiousness/Subjectivity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 06:34:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:34:38 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
Being/Consiousness/Subjectivity.
Being does not imply Consciousness or Subjectivity. That is mysticism
and it is incorrect.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
