this is too funny, all philosophies are just methods of thinking what it is we're experiencing. all can be true all can be false aand contradictions are complementaries to eachother that is the dao. philosophy is like a man who can't hear thinking about hearing, he has no experience so there is no truth. experiment, be your own scientist don't listen just because it sounds kool lolz
Man i really dont wanna be mean but this sucks, good shot i guess but the pros kick your freakin ass. Its not the info thats the problem its the presentation.
I don't think it is right to consider Parmenides as a materialist. his teaching was definitely monistic but you cant say that he had a big materialistic tendencies.
Where is a third possibility that things came from NEITHER EXISTENCE NOR NON EXISTENCE.
Since No thing can come from Non existence as you have said, and I claim nothing can come from existence since as you yourself admit that it is no real coming.
Now this is no coming.
Now the only option is that they have come from that which is Neither exist Nor Does Not exist .Logical contradictions may not be accepted but the LAW OF EXCLUDING THE MIDDLE MAY BE VIOLATED. So their is no ILLOGICAL concept.
Where is a third possibility that things came from NITHER EXISTENCE NOR NON EXISTENCE.
Since No thing can come from Non existence as you have said, and I claim nothing can come from existence since as you yourself admit that it is no real coming.
Now this is no coming.
Now the only option is that they have come from that whic is Neither exist Nor Does Not exist .LOgical contradictions may not be accepted but the LAW OF EXCLUDING THE MIDDLE MAY BE VIOLATED. So their is no ILLOGICAL concept.
Good vid man...logically what you say seems to be true (something can only come from something). However, if time has always existed along with an infinite universe, wouldn't that mean everything that could have ever possibly happened, happened already? That is, (for lack of more accurate and logical phrasing) if you could go backwards in time infinitely, all possible outcomes going from A to B through existence would have always already happened. Any thoughts? I'm still up in the air in that.
it may be helpful to read Heidegger's Principle of Identity. It's brief essay and will lead to a new way of thinking about these topics. if anything is to profit reading it, it will be to loosen thought from the reins of rigidity.
I suggest if your interested in a non dualistic concept, that you read the Hopi Creation Theory Of "Taiowa" the 3 points of creation are nothing then One thing then some thing, and we bridge the states thats why our past is not and our future is not, we are not a product of the summary of things which we create but viewing from a point where one is no more and sum is not yet. This is indicating the issues with exponential processes and linear processes and are found in all religions somewhere
So it is not logical to think of a summary of things as being descendent from nothing because they can only equate from things, when more than one "IS" . Now one can come from nothing because for ONE thing to exist it need to have unbound territory to exist in or else it would automatically be SOME THING (more than One, with a defined nature and opposed to another) which would stop it from being ONE. BUT as people we tend to want lineage and a dual point mapping system to understand creation. 3
Define Nothing with a breakdown of the syntax. No THING versus A summation of things which is indicating that the "IS" state of a thing is dependant on it being defined by another where as "NO THING" has not another to characterize it self from.
Nice demonstration of the problems of Pure Reason and why it must be critiqued, ala Kant. Study Kant's Antinomies; see the arguments you make are logically sound, but based on faulty premises (actually existing infinities are possible objects of experience). Nevertheless, your arguments demonstrates how the use of pure reason leads to transcendental illusions that remain even when one understands the legerdemain of pure reason.
Why would it then be necessary or desirable to talk about non-existence at all, if there is really no such thing as "non-existence" but only the existence of something we refer to as "non-existence"? The notion of non-existence is irrelevant as an epistemological or ontological criterion. It might be much more fruitful to agree with a neo-pragmatic point of view that regards the notion of non-existence as a kind of tool for bringing about a specific effect within the realm of cultural politics.
In my opinion, the major problem here is the "metaphysical" aura of the notion of non-existence that is applied in the video, because a phenomenon like "non-existence" can a) neither be grasped in its "ontological quality" nor b) by means of representation - since there would indeed be "nothing" to represent. Furthermore, "non-existence" is a condition that we as human beings cannot experience, since experience always has to be the experience of something.
Make sure you thoroughly understand the implications of quaNtum mechanics and get exposed to Taoism phylosophy before you attack this subject. In quantum logic the main lesson is that BOTH opposites of anything are simultaneouly true. A particle is nowhere and everywere at the same time. And particles go in and out of existence. At that higher level nothing = everything. True = False. Schrodinger's cat is BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD UNTIL AN OBSERVATION IS MADE.
So indeed the universe came from non-existence which contains all existence. Aristotelian logic is what you are using. You need to get into quamtum logic. In Taoism Non-existence and Existence give rise to each other. The vacum contains the everything. Therefore the statement God exist and God does not exist are BOTH true. Therefore God exist.
Now why does a little child get stolen from her family and murdered and there seems to be no intervention from a God. I dont have time set all my ideas here. But explore how a computer program would evolve consciousness, it would have to explore all possibilities. All possible ITERATIONS through a period of time until it is fully "awaken". Google Nova PBS Fractals and wikiencyclopedia the I-Ching, and Youtube Terence Mckenna. Also see NOVA PBS The Elegant Universe.
I must object here with your categorization of Parmenides as a material monist. I can think of no ancient source that explicitly associates Parmenides with material monism (of the kind, e.g., similar to Thales and his principle 'water').
Most modern interpretations categorize him as either a numerical monist (vide, e.g., Owen 'Eleatic Questions'), or a predicational monist (vide, e.g., Mourelatos 'The Route of Parmenides' and Curd 'The Legacy of Parmenides'.
"The past existed as effects. Now it exits as causes."
Thus the same moment has changed-it becoming something different. If a moment can change, perhaps time is 1 moment everchanging, & eternity is 1 moment neverchanging.
Similarly in video "existence comes from existence." Thus something must be Self-existent, existing w/out external cause. Being Self-existent, he must be constant, stable, and unchanging. Matching my description of eternity. So the Self-existent is eternal & unchanging.
I've never seen anyone take that long to say nothing, lol. Your intelligence is undeniable, I'd like to know your thoughts on intelligent design and nanotechnology. I enjoyed your video because it affirms the fact that something much more intelligent that anbody on this earth has created all of this.
Pretty good but I have to stop you with the size of the universe. There is the possibility that through a dimension we can not see or most of us can not understand the universe neither goes on forever nor has a boundary. Finite volume with a seemingly infinite or non-existent boundary. Like a fractal. Imagine (although not likely possible for you to) a rectangle. Now suppose that you warped each side around to connect with it's opposite side to form a loop.
Thank you... I'm currently writting a paper on Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Zeno so your videos are helping alot. Do you have a vid. on Heraclitus?
Continue making these videos because at times it's better to hear it be explained from other people then some professors themselves who at times are too busy to go into detail.
Geese you really know nothing, which in paradoxical terms would mean you know everything. Rock on man! P.s. (for the comment readers & writers)Ultimate truth is paradox. and yes , that means there is no ultimate truth! LOL
you dont explain why the univer must have a container if its limited. also, "nothing" is nothing. how else shall we represent it. nothing is not "nothing" itself but a symbol for it.
Exercising logical syntax is fun but not very useful if Understanding is the goal. Thought will not apprehend knowledge. Its got a stowaway, namely the presupposition that intellect can surpass the boundary conditions that define it.
But we cannot act in such a manner that violates the Universe, because the nature of that action must then lie outside the Universe. What?! Evil is impossible?!
>Now think about this: If we have to observe the whole reality to know it in its own nature, humans will never be able to know it since the subject that observes the reality (the human) is itself a part of the reality.
Ah but not even humans could be distinguished completely in their own right. The whole reason we try to learn is to act on what we learn.
You'll never be able to completely focus on a particular object (rock, tree, cloud) because in the same way each are not truly particular. They all imply the whole infinity of reality. To this end you can call me an extreme monist.
I have come to the conclusion that change and multiplicity are how one describes substance, which as people like Spinoza pointed out are in fact indescribable. You'll never be able to completely separate any particulars within a substance because those particulars in their own way neccessarily imply the whole. You'll never be able to completely focus on a particular moment (past, present, and future) because each are not particular in their own right. All of them imply the whole of eternity.
In other words we have always existed and will always exist. The past, the present and the future is all happening at the same time. Time is only an illusion. The universe is actually one solid object that never changes. It has always existed this way and will always exist this way. It is infinitely big in size and infinitely small in size. Time, movement, coming into or going out of existence is only an illusion within this one solid universe. Great thinking Josh.
how can they be opposites? you cant have the opposite of nothing. its like saying there is an opposite of zero, you just cant have it. if you say the opposite of nothing is something, your saying everything is one thing, because you can only have one opposite of something.
to think of nothing is to conceptualize the idea of nothing. you have to try and think of nothing beyond the standards of a dimensional world. this is something ive thought about alot, and if you think about it, you realize that something could come from absolutely nothing, because there are no laws of any kind to say that this isnt possible. personally, i think everything and nothing are one in the same.
Then you're just defining nothing and something differently than I am. I am defining them as opposites. So they logically can't be the same thing. And the nature of being is that it is necessary that it be rather than not. So that's why there isn't nothing.
Only one substance exists, it has always existed , will always exist and it will never change. If some thing can be thought of, it exists and is therefore the one substance . Everything and nothing can be though of, therefore "everything and nothing are in the same".
The big bang is either the start of the universe as we know it today, or the theory about bangs/crunches, but IF the big bang theory were true, it would still have to have existed forever. Second Law of Thermodynamics would still hold true. No?
Do you support Ron Paul? Is that a joke or am I completely misunderstanding the small rectangular box that serves as a poll recorder on your log page? I must be misinterpreting.
OK..I apologize. I was a bit harsh. What I meant is that I've reviewed Mr. Paul's record, and he doesn't support homosexuality, a lifestyle you ardently defend. He wants out of Iraq but most of us do. If you haven't already, I encourage to look as his record. If you'll be so kind, please explain why you approve of Mr. Paul...
Oh, yes. You really disappoint me. You're supporting Ron Paul for one reason: you don't want to lose favor in your father's eyes. You don't want to have the purse stings cut. Logic dictates that there is no other answer because Ron Paul would despise your ideas. Haven't you looked at his platform?
Um, no, in fact yesterday my dad and i had a big debate about Ron Paul. That's the last candidate he would support. It is irrelevant what Ron Paul "believes" about homosexuality because he also believes that the government should stay out of pretty much anything except arresting criminals. He is a true Whig, and I think they have the right idea about liberty.
I truly do apologize for my comment because I don't know you. But I can tell from your videos that you're not ignorant. You seem very bright. Can you say that you've reviewed Ron Paul's record...not just heresay but his full record?
I just think it absolutely hilarious you would say such a thing. I'm not a Christian, I'm not a Republican, I don't believe in almost anything my dad does. If you knew me at all you would know I couldn't care less what my family members think. Logic does dictate what I think, not them.
As a homosexual do you really want someone in the White House who is against homosexuality? Furthermore, if rights/laws were left up entirely to the states considering the extremely polarized political climate, we'd all be more screwed than we are now.
I'm not gay. But like I said, it's irrelevant what his personal views are if they don't affect his decisions. Those are made on principles. And what do you mean by polarized?
Wow, forgive me for being presumptuous. Have you reviewed his past decisions? Also, he is not for the separation of church and state...His morality aligns with fundamental Christianity. He would gladly overturn Roe vs. Wade. By polarized I mean that extreme cut in our country almost right down the middle.
Of course he is for the separation of church and state. He is for abolishing most of the spending the government does. If his morality is such, as I stated his political positions are not tainted by his "morality" or "personal beliefs". Abortions issues are left up to the states, as the constitution would have dictated.
Good video, the philosophy of being is one of the more intriguing discussions. I was actually going to make a video on how it is really impossible to discuss nothing. Even just then, I am discussing a concept not actually "nothing".
Wonderful video! I am excited to hear what you have to say about Zeno's Paradoxes. I just learned about it myself and I understood it but at the sametime I couldn't wrap my head around it. How can movement not exist when I am moving around at this very moment? But then I don't see a flaw in his logic. Ahhh!
Um, considering how much philosophy is out there and how much is on youtube, yes, the ratio is not very favorable. So i will have to disagree with you.
Ok then well i had to watch this like 3 times to understand i think i understand what your trying to say!!!! i think i learn something new today by you!!! well keep it coming hope to learn more
I recommend Peter Kingsley's work (Reality, In the Dark Places of Wisdom) as a more in-depth look at Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles. He is somewhat controversial but very interesting.
How can non-existence produce existence. I mean total non-existence and non-beingness
TheWayshowerTube 1 month ago
Eternal Self-Existence. It make sense to say existence and beingness was never caused and can never be ended.
TheWayshowerTube 1 month ago
it simply is
MrDavidwilson86 7 months ago
this is too funny, all philosophies are just methods of thinking what it is we're experiencing. all can be true all can be false aand contradictions are complementaries to eachother that is the dao. philosophy is like a man who can't hear thinking about hearing, he has no experience so there is no truth. experiment, be your own scientist don't listen just because it sounds kool lolz
PhainHmoobLee 7 months ago in playlist Philosophers
Man i really dont wanna be mean but this sucks, good shot i guess but the pros kick your freakin ass. Its not the info thats the problem its the presentation.
Tech446 7 months ago
I don't think it is right to consider Parmenides as a materialist. his teaching was definitely monistic but you cant say that he had a big materialistic tendencies.
thought great video
Akrasla 7 months ago
LOL cat at 4:10
zodiacchiller 9 months ago
Where is a third possibility that things came from NEITHER EXISTENCE NOR NON EXISTENCE.
Since No thing can come from Non existence as you have said, and I claim nothing can come from existence since as you yourself admit that it is no real coming.
Now this is no coming.
Now the only option is that they have come from that which is Neither exist Nor Does Not exist .Logical contradictions may not be accepted but the LAW OF EXCLUDING THE MIDDLE MAY BE VIOLATED. So their is no ILLOGICAL concept.
maliir 1 year ago
Where is a third possibility that things came from NITHER EXISTENCE NOR NON EXISTENCE.
Since No thing can come from Non existence as you have said, and I claim nothing can come from existence since as you yourself admit that it is no real coming.
Now this is no coming.
Now the only option is that they have come from that whic is Neither exist Nor Does Not exist .LOgical contradictions may not be accepted but the LAW OF EXCLUDING THE MIDDLE MAY BE VIOLATED. So their is no ILLOGICAL concept.
maliir 1 year ago
its funny thats all i got from it.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
Thumbs up! Feel free to explore kabbalah.info
ReceivenBestow 1 year ago
Good vid man...logically what you say seems to be true (something can only come from something). However, if time has always existed along with an infinite universe, wouldn't that mean everything that could have ever possibly happened, happened already? That is, (for lack of more accurate and logical phrasing) if you could go backwards in time infinitely, all possible outcomes going from A to B through existence would have always already happened. Any thoughts? I'm still up in the air in that.
SpursCards311 1 year ago
it may be helpful to read Heidegger's Principle of Identity. It's brief essay and will lead to a new way of thinking about these topics. if anything is to profit reading it, it will be to loosen thought from the reins of rigidity.
popsicledreams 1 year ago
I like these conversation, because they will inevitably lead to "Sum" things and never lead to One thing....... until it does.
bennyb4 1 year ago
I suggest if your interested in a non dualistic concept, that you read the Hopi Creation Theory Of "Taiowa" the 3 points of creation are nothing then One thing then some thing, and we bridge the states thats why our past is not and our future is not, we are not a product of the summary of things which we create but viewing from a point where one is no more and sum is not yet. This is indicating the issues with exponential processes and linear processes and are found in all religions somewhere
bennyb4 1 year ago
So it is not logical to think of a summary of things as being descendent from nothing because they can only equate from things, when more than one "IS" . Now one can come from nothing because for ONE thing to exist it need to have unbound territory to exist in or else it would automatically be SOME THING (more than One, with a defined nature and opposed to another) which would stop it from being ONE. BUT as people we tend to want lineage and a dual point mapping system to understand creation. 3
bennyb4 1 year ago
Define Nothing with a breakdown of the syntax. No THING versus A summation of things which is indicating that the "IS" state of a thing is dependant on it being defined by another where as "NO THING" has not another to characterize it self from.
bennyb4 1 year ago
Nice demonstration of the problems of Pure Reason and why it must be critiqued, ala Kant. Study Kant's Antinomies; see the arguments you make are logically sound, but based on faulty premises (actually existing infinities are possible objects of experience). Nevertheless, your arguments demonstrates how the use of pure reason leads to transcendental illusions that remain even when one understands the legerdemain of pure reason.
notonewhit 1 year ago
is that your cat ploddying by at 4:10!!!!>? halourious stuff.
Great vid of platonic thought. Cheers :)
bustergmaxx 2 years ago
Two major questions might then arise:
1. Who profits from the use of the notion of non-existence?
2. What are the sociocultural consequences if the notion of non-existence keeps being applied within the domain of politics?
ulih79 2 years ago
Why would it then be necessary or desirable to talk about non-existence at all, if there is really no such thing as "non-existence" but only the existence of something we refer to as "non-existence"? The notion of non-existence is irrelevant as an epistemological or ontological criterion. It might be much more fruitful to agree with a neo-pragmatic point of view that regards the notion of non-existence as a kind of tool for bringing about a specific effect within the realm of cultural politics.
ulih79 2 years ago
In my opinion, the major problem here is the "metaphysical" aura of the notion of non-existence that is applied in the video, because a phenomenon like "non-existence" can a) neither be grasped in its "ontological quality" nor b) by means of representation - since there would indeed be "nothing" to represent. Furthermore, "non-existence" is a condition that we as human beings cannot experience, since experience always has to be the experience of something.
ulih79 2 years ago
Make sure you thoroughly understand the implications of quaNtum mechanics and get exposed to Taoism phylosophy before you attack this subject. In quantum logic the main lesson is that BOTH opposites of anything are simultaneouly true. A particle is nowhere and everywere at the same time. And particles go in and out of existence. At that higher level nothing = everything. True = False. Schrodinger's cat is BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD UNTIL AN OBSERVATION IS MADE.
dameyuti 2 years ago
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
So indeed the universe came from non-existence which contains all existence. Aristotelian logic is what you are using. You need to get into quamtum logic. In Taoism Non-existence and Existence give rise to each other. The vacum contains the everything. Therefore the statement God exist and God does not exist are BOTH true. Therefore God exist.
dameyuti 2 years ago
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
Now why does a little child get stolen from her family and murdered and there seems to be no intervention from a God. I dont have time set all my ideas here. But explore how a computer program would evolve consciousness, it would have to explore all possibilities. All possible ITERATIONS through a period of time until it is fully "awaken". Google Nova PBS Fractals and wikiencyclopedia the I-Ching, and Youtube Terence Mckenna. Also see NOVA PBS The Elegant Universe.
dameyuti 2 years ago
I was having some trouble understanding Parmenides, thank you for clearing it up for me.
TalkOnCorners 2 years ago
i never thaught it was possible to get the effects of weed through hearing.. it was that good!!
You just made swim the sea of logic and i think i've drowned...
thank you!!
Neotrigunnerx 2 years ago
PURE logic.
booste30 2 years ago
I must object here with your categorization of Parmenides as a material monist. I can think of no ancient source that explicitly associates Parmenides with material monism (of the kind, e.g., similar to Thales and his principle 'water').
Most modern interpretations categorize him as either a numerical monist (vide, e.g., Owen 'Eleatic Questions'), or a predicational monist (vide, e.g., Mourelatos 'The Route of Parmenides' and Curd 'The Legacy of Parmenides'.
aPlatonist 2 years ago
"The past existed as effects. Now it exits as causes."
Thus the same moment has changed-it becoming something different. If a moment can change, perhaps time is 1 moment everchanging, & eternity is 1 moment neverchanging.
Similarly in video "existence comes from existence." Thus something must be Self-existent, existing w/out external cause. Being Self-existent, he must be constant, stable, and unchanging. Matching my description of eternity. So the Self-existent is eternal & unchanging.
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
did i see a cat?
tonyrueb 2 years ago
1. non-existence does not exist
2. the future and past do not exist
3. so we can assume humans are living in imaginary constructs of non-existence.
or I think that's how it works :P
dantre7 2 years ago
well said
msd131 3 years ago
I've never seen anyone take that long to say nothing, lol. Your intelligence is undeniable, I'd like to know your thoughts on intelligent design and nanotechnology. I enjoyed your video because it affirms the fact that something much more intelligent that anbody on this earth has created all of this.
justinkohle 3 years ago
Pretty good but I have to stop you with the size of the universe. There is the possibility that through a dimension we can not see or most of us can not understand the universe neither goes on forever nor has a boundary. Finite volume with a seemingly infinite or non-existent boundary. Like a fractal. Imagine (although not likely possible for you to) a rectangle. Now suppose that you warped each side around to connect with it's opposite side to form a loop.
newexperiment 3 years ago
Very well done! Bravo! The cat didn't even make you skip a beat.
agiient 3 years ago
sorry,
this is just too abstract for
me to take seriously.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
Thank you... I'm currently writting a paper on Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Zeno so your videos are helping alot. Do you have a vid. on Heraclitus?
Continue making these videos because at times it's better to hear it be explained from other people then some professors themselves who at times are too busy to go into detail.
^_^
adaraquel 3 years ago
love the simple direct presentation. clear
laurielovesdesign 3 years ago
Looks like you have read Peter Kingsley
livnseek 3 years ago
No, but someone in comment below said I should. I guess I really need to.
JoshL11185 3 years ago
@JoshL11185 can u move so fast u look like u'r still?
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
ur still using a big tv?
good vid btw
farerse 3 years ago
Yeah, then. I just recently got a 46" LCD though. Yay! Thanks.
JoshL11185 3 years ago
as we live in the illsuion, we never will find out what real truth is, since we don't live in the real reality itself; so=the truth.
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 3 years ago
sigh... I am an agnostic. Using logic on this question is useless.
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
Geese you really know nothing, which in paradoxical terms would mean you know everything. Rock on man! P.s. (for the comment readers & writers)Ultimate truth is paradox. and yes , that means there is no ultimate truth! LOL
nagorbmit 3 years ago
you dont explain why the univer must have a container if its limited. also, "nothing" is nothing. how else shall we represent it. nothing is not "nothing" itself but a symbol for it.
cptdaisy 4 years ago
"I agree. So let's examine the future!"
hahaha
brilliant
knucklecallus 4 years ago
What's about Camus ?
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 4 years ago
What's about Camus ?
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 4 years ago
What's about Camus ?
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 4 years ago
Finally somebody who talks about philosophy.
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 4 years ago
Classic Socratic Method of interlocution! Truth is found through 'logical contradictions.'
eyemran 4 years ago
Exercising logical syntax is fun but not very useful if Understanding is the goal. Thought will not apprehend knowledge. Its got a stowaway, namely the presupposition that intellect can surpass the boundary conditions that define it.
mountainmystic9 4 years ago
these are all reductio ad absurdam for "being"... reason to use "becoming" in place of "being"...
pyrrho314 4 years ago
"absurdum" of course.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
But we cannot act in such a manner that violates the Universe, because the nature of that action must then lie outside the Universe. What?! Evil is impossible?!
NearVSMello 4 years ago
>Now think about this: If we have to observe the whole reality to know it in its own nature, humans will never be able to know it since the subject that observes the reality (the human) is itself a part of the reality.
Ah but not even humans could be distinguished completely in their own right. The whole reason we try to learn is to act on what we learn.
NearVSMello 4 years ago
You'll never be able to completely focus on a particular object (rock, tree, cloud) because in the same way each are not truly particular. They all imply the whole infinity of reality. To this end you can call me an extreme monist.
NearVSMello 4 years ago
I have come to the conclusion that change and multiplicity are how one describes substance, which as people like Spinoza pointed out are in fact indescribable. You'll never be able to completely separate any particulars within a substance because those particulars in their own way neccessarily imply the whole. You'll never be able to completely focus on a particular moment (past, present, and future) because each are not particular in their own right. All of them imply the whole of eternity.
NearVSMello 4 years ago 2
yes, it's true.
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 3 years ago
why does there have to be a container if the universe is finite?
absurdmike 4 years ago
In other words we have always existed and will always exist. The past, the present and the future is all happening at the same time. Time is only an illusion. The universe is actually one solid object that never changes. It has always existed this way and will always exist this way. It is infinitely big in size and infinitely small in size. Time, movement, coming into or going out of existence is only an illusion within this one solid universe. Great thinking Josh.
vip47287 4 years ago
i completely agree with you man.
ertvgieutzrhetkgerzt 3 years ago
Cool
remiztical 4 years ago
your brain is all you need - whoever talked you out of the fact that ours brains are plenty enough to know everything?
hdbarton 4 years ago
Look him up on wiki.
He's a Philosopher who first thought about all this.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
@JoshL11185, who is the first one to have thought about all this Peter Kingsley?
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
what's parmenides? that could be where our understanding is breaking down.
i think we just have a difference of definition, but im pretty sure we're on the same track.
thestephenator 4 years ago
how can they be opposites? you cant have the opposite of nothing. its like saying there is an opposite of zero, you just cant have it. if you say the opposite of nothing is something, your saying everything is one thing, because you can only have one opposite of something.
thestephenator 4 years ago
I am saying everything is one thing. This is Parmenides mainted as well.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
to think of nothing is to conceptualize the idea of nothing. you have to try and think of nothing beyond the standards of a dimensional world. this is something ive thought about alot, and if you think about it, you realize that something could come from absolutely nothing, because there are no laws of any kind to say that this isnt possible. personally, i think everything and nothing are one in the same.
thestephenator 4 years ago
Then you're just defining nothing and something differently than I am. I am defining them as opposites. So they logically can't be the same thing. And the nature of being is that it is necessary that it be rather than not. So that's why there isn't nothing.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
If you unite opposites the result is nothing.
1+-1=0
theosophers 2 years ago
If an elephant is something, then your definition would lead to the ascertion that nothing is the opposite of an elephant.
No one would understand what you meant if you substituted "the opposite of an elephant" for the word nothing.
theosophers 2 years ago
Only one substance exists, it has always existed , will always exist and it will never change. If some thing can be thought of, it exists and is therefore the one substance . Everything and nothing can be though of, therefore "everything and nothing are in the same".
vip47287 4 years ago
excellent vid amigo. whats you view on the big bang?
thewholesoul 4 years ago
The big bang is either the start of the universe as we know it today, or the theory about bangs/crunches, but IF the big bang theory were true, it would still have to have existed forever. Second Law of Thermodynamics would still hold true. No?
JoshL11185 4 years ago
the big bang is happening Now.
jtram21 4 years ago
Do you support Ron Paul? Is that a joke or am I completely misunderstanding the small rectangular box that serves as a poll recorder on your log page? I must be misinterpreting.
styler54 4 years ago
Yes I do support him. I assume that now a political debate will ensue?
JoshL11185 4 years ago
OK..I apologize. I was a bit harsh. What I meant is that I've reviewed Mr. Paul's record, and he doesn't support homosexuality, a lifestyle you ardently defend. He wants out of Iraq but most of us do. If you haven't already, I encourage to look as his record. If you'll be so kind, please explain why you approve of Mr. Paul...
styler54 4 years ago
Oh, yes. You really disappoint me. You're supporting Ron Paul for one reason: you don't want to lose favor in your father's eyes. You don't want to have the purse stings cut. Logic dictates that there is no other answer because Ron Paul would despise your ideas. Haven't you looked at his platform?
styler54 4 years ago
Um, no, in fact yesterday my dad and i had a big debate about Ron Paul. That's the last candidate he would support. It is irrelevant what Ron Paul "believes" about homosexuality because he also believes that the government should stay out of pretty much anything except arresting criminals. He is a true Whig, and I think they have the right idea about liberty.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
I truly do apologize for my comment because I don't know you. But I can tell from your videos that you're not ignorant. You seem very bright. Can you say that you've reviewed Ron Paul's record...not just heresay but his full record?
styler54 4 years ago
And please excuse the misspelling...hearsay
styler54 4 years ago
I just think it absolutely hilarious you would say such a thing. I'm not a Christian, I'm not a Republican, I don't believe in almost anything my dad does. If you knew me at all you would know I couldn't care less what my family members think. Logic does dictate what I think, not them.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
As a homosexual do you really want someone in the White House who is against homosexuality? Furthermore, if rights/laws were left up entirely to the states considering the extremely polarized political climate, we'd all be more screwed than we are now.
styler54 4 years ago
I'm not gay. But like I said, it's irrelevant what his personal views are if they don't affect his decisions. Those are made on principles. And what do you mean by polarized?
JoshL11185 4 years ago
Wow, forgive me for being presumptuous. Have you reviewed his past decisions? Also, he is not for the separation of church and state...His morality aligns with fundamental Christianity. He would gladly overturn Roe vs. Wade. By polarized I mean that extreme cut in our country almost right down the middle.
styler54 4 years ago
Of course he is for the separation of church and state. He is for abolishing most of the spending the government does. If his morality is such, as I stated his political positions are not tainted by his "morality" or "personal beliefs". Abortions issues are left up to the states, as the constitution would have dictated.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
Thank you for putting something intelligent on youTube. It was overdue. This vid was definitely worth 5 minutes of my time.
hXctney 4 years ago
Good video, the philosophy of being is one of the more intriguing discussions. I was actually going to make a video on how it is really impossible to discuss nothing. Even just then, I am discussing a concept not actually "nothing".
ThoughtGaze 4 years ago
Wonderful video! I am excited to hear what you have to say about Zeno's Paradoxes. I just learned about it myself and I understood it but at the sametime I couldn't wrap my head around it. How can movement not exist when I am moving around at this very moment? But then I don't see a flaw in his logic. Ahhh!
Samostorm 4 years ago
Um, considering how much philosophy is out there and how much is on youtube, yes, the ratio is not very favorable. So i will have to disagree with you.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
Woah. Haha look at 4:09. Paintball made her appearance!
KatieS17 4 years ago
I liked ABBA. :)
Flanole 4 years ago
Ok then well i had to watch this like 3 times to understand i think i understand what your trying to say!!!! i think i learn something new today by you!!! well keep it coming hope to learn more
take care
joseph
gijoe21 4 years ago
Yeah, when I first learned this in class I went home and just sat and thought about it for hours trying to wrap my head around it.
JoshL11185 4 years ago
I recommend Peter Kingsley's work (Reality, In the Dark Places of Wisdom) as a more in-depth look at Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles. He is somewhat controversial but very interesting.
Barklord 4 years ago