bobgo

What is the difference between saying: “A” rather than saying: “A is A”? Is “A is A” just a flat tautology that doesn’t add any value to the simpler “A” or is “A is A” a rich tautology that includes some additional sense? Indeed “A is A” adds additional value, that value is: Time. I look at “A” and then I look again to it and I say: “A is still A”. Doesn’t matter how mach time passes between first and second look. Some time needs to be there. Keeping “A” identical to itself allows our mind to work. Our mind is dialectical, a continuous flux, that needs something permanent to be able to work. The Zenone’s arrow hits the target: “The arrow leaves the bow and then the arrow hits the target”. The first term “arrow” and the second term “arrow” both mean the same object. It is always the same arrow. If the arrow that started flying was not the arrow that arrived we would become mad. The law of identity is very important! For any practical action we can make in our world. In spite of all that, if we want to talk about the Absolute that is about the Truth we have to observe how nothing remains the same, even for an infinitesimal period of time. The arrow can move, because it changes continuously. It is never what was before. Dear Tomer Ravid, metaphysics needs humility, the capacity to know to be not knowing.

The Becoming is the turning of something into some other. Wood that turns into ash, for example. Becoming is tied to Being. Being takes its meaning from Becoming (Being is what doesn't change). While Becoming needs Being to make sense.

I can’t, nothing is absolutely sure to me. Anytime I choose I have to take a risk. It’s not “trying to identify things in the real world” a mistake. It is a mistake giving to that identification an absolute value. Nothing is absolute true in our world. The doubt is invincible. However, if something would be absolutely true... how could life continue? You talk about abstraction of concepts. As I said, it is always necessary to keep “A is A” for rationality be working. But that law is not the Truth. The dog I called Dick, that physical dog... is never the same of itself.

Being is what exists. And it exists only what it is here, now, in this exact moment. The table in front of me is part of Being, because it is here, now. In the past it wasn’t anywhere, that is, it did not exist. Then it has been built, so it became part of Being, it existed. In the future it will be destroyed, so it will not be part of Being anymore. Time flows, and Being looses some parts and gains some others. That is the law of Becoming: something comes from nothing to reality (Being), some other goes from Being to nothing. That is what Becoming usually means. This meaning of the Becoming is the origin of nihilism. To face nihilism many remedies have been invented, one of them has been a super entity (God). But that meaning of Becoming is based on absurdity: Being becomes Nothing, Nothing becomes Being. How can Being become Nothing? How can Being come from Nothing? May be, Becoming is only the appearing of Being... Do you remember when Dante looks at God?

What I'm trying to say is that faith in Becoming is present both in atheist and in theist. A Becoming that builds and destroys. That faith is universally widespread. But it is only faith, nothing proved. As Parmenide said, but also Einstein and the Big Bang theory too, this idea of Becoming is probably wrong. That is, Becoming does not consist in birth and dead of Being (entities), but only it is the appearing of Being.

I very appreciated your analysis. It clearly shows the difficulties we have to face trying to master our knowledge basis. I’d like to point out that often those difficulties are generated by a misunderstanding of how our mind works. That is, all those axioms (like “existence exists”, “A is A”, and so on...) come from the idea our thought proceeds step by step. Where each step is meant as something of concrete, definite. In such a way that after a step has been gained it will be guaranteed in the future. That is not true at all. Our thought is dialectical! There is nothing of definite and guaranteed in thought process. Any concept needs to be refreshed again and again, because it is not written on stone. It’s a big expression of rational power to keep the concept: “A is A”. Because of its dialectical working. Where nothing is done for sure for ever. Without “A is A” our mind would be lost. We need energy to keep that concept. Energy is necessary because rationality continuously has to face its enemy: the Chaos. In spite of all that, the law of identity is only valid within our rationality. Applying it to the whole world we make a mistake. In physical world, A is never A. And because existence consists in subject / object, for existence to exist... another unknown subject would be necessary

I agree, it’s irrational believing in God existence or not. Any way, those choices come from a rational understanding of our world. In fact God existence (or not existence) is the answer given to the widespread rational view of reality. That rational view of reality comes before any thinking about God. First we have an understanding of realty, and this understanding is believed as absolutely true. Then we may start thinking about God possibility. Reality, for atheists and believers, it’s only what is here, now, into the present. Whereas what was or what will be it’s not real, but it only was real or it will be. Real, for atheists and believers, it’s just what is living here, now, in the present. So reality is understood as Being living in the present, and this Being is continuously under attack by Becoming. That easily causes existential distress. God can be a good remedy to that distress, and that’s the believer’s choice. While atheists are more courageous and are facing without any remedy the Becoming. For believers there it must be an uncaused cause, while for atheists the cause - effect chain does not have an origin. Two different answers to the same reality rational view. That is, atheists and believers have the same faith! The faith in the Becoming (understood as birth and dead of Being). It is a faith because no proof we have to say for sure that is the Truth. Believers are only adding to that faith another faith, as a remedy, the faith in God. Deeply in our mind there is however another more powerful faith... That Being is and it can’t be not. That is, the Becoming is impossible.

That sentence is made by rationality, isn’t? To demonstrate we have to use rationality. So it is not possible to demonstrate what is rationally not demonstrable. But we can see the limits of rationality. For example, is Good rational or not rational? Is matter rational? Is nothing not rational? Is infinite rational or not rational? That is neither rational nor irrational. It is not rational because does not follow any rational path. And it is not irrational because does not contradict any rational path. There is nothing of self-evident. In fact you believe... a very strange way to use rationality...

Thanks Xall, I have read both. Reading the article “Kant, Immanuel” it was sadly to me to observe how much Kant has been misunderstood. The thread confirms that misunderstanding, and also it shows a widespread confusing use of logic. Where can we go from there?

May you suppose that there are not only two alternatives? That is, there are thoughts that is not possible to classify rational or irrational, because they come before any rationality and are in any case not irrational. One of them is: “I am”. I’m sure that if you just taste what I’m trying to say you will agree. I didn’t find any answer to the free will question. Would you explain to me how free will is demonstrated? You make that conclusion, not me. I’m feeling free. And because rationality denies my liberty, then to confirm to myself that I have choices, I have to watch beyond the rationality. Do you have a different alternative?

I did not declare I am an automaton, I just declared that this is the viewpoint of rationality. Are you able to rationally demonstrate that you are not an automaton? That is the question. I am persuaded that to declare we are not automatons we need to appeal something outside rationality. If you don’t like to continue discussions with me, no problem. But please don’t ascribe your choice to something I never said.

May be I put too many irons in the fire... Let me only say: A is A is the basis for rationality. Without this law no rational thought is possible. But... extending that law to all reality it’s the worst mistake we can make. In physical world, meaning A as an entity, A is never equal to A! Because there is nowhere something we can say that’s Being! To be something equal it must remain the same Being between two different instants. While nothing remains the same, even after an infinitesimal time. What we call entity, it’s never equal to it self. The low of identity is very important for our rationality, but it is only a concept that does not correspond to physical world. We usually think that stopping time our world will remain frozen as it was when time stopped. That is completely wrong! Stopping time everything would disappear!

I feel me having free will. Without that feeling I should be annihilated. But, my rational view of reality denies that feeling. That feeling, from my rational viewpoint, it’s un illusion. Nothing can demonstrate that my free will it’s true. That is a very strange situation... I’m not even able to want me be wanting... I can only be wanting or be not wanting, but I can not order me to want something. As... I can just be loving or be not loving, but I’m not able to want me be loving.

Jacob, I follow your laudable efforts to logically demonstrate Transcendence. My purpose is very close to yours. But I’m persuaded that rational demonstration of God is not possible. So, I’m afraid your efforts will not be rewarded. I read your post #182 where you confirm what I already thought it was your mind. Your way is to follow rationality, but that way does not have any possibility to succeed. To work, rationality needs concepts that are not rationally demonstrable, because they are its foundations. No one system is able to support its own foundations. Looking for God you are trying to catch the Foundation of all foundations! That is truly not possible by rationality. To me, the way to become certain of God has to follow a different path. That is, we have to push our rational view of existence to its extreme consequences. That was the way Kant followed. Throwing away any possible transcendence (anything we take for sure but that is not rationally demonstrate) we are using to explain existence (like a “supernatural Soul”), we will come inevitably to antinomies, tautologies, contradictions. Those are the borders where our rationality is confined. No way to cross them. Furthermore, excluding any transcendent entity... pretending only rational understanding... we will come to face existentially (that is with our heart) what rational view of existence truly means. That rational view meaning it’s a desert! The abyss where nothing has value anymore. But that desert would be able to make us jumping to the Transcendence. Just for a moment, because we would be back at once (Transcendence is not here). The best, and I suppose the only gift God gives us, it is that God it’s not here. That is the best gift He should give us: life is possible only because of His absence. The absence Jesus saw dieing. His absence is necessary, there is not God because He is.

I agree with your questions. But is not a computer able to distinguish between true/false, correct/incorrect, right/wrong? And computer actions are completely determined. The same could be for us. Only, we are not conscious of that.