#democritus — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #democritus, aggregated by home.social.
-
A Story of the Case
Introduction
Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.What is the Case?
Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.Whatever is, however it is, is the case.
- It is the case that I think.
- It is the case that wood floats on water.
- It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
- It is the case that one plus two equals three.
- It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
- It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.
The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.What is Not the Case?
The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.The Case is Not Relative
Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.What is the Case?
- The case is peerless.
- The case is one in quantity.
- The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
- The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
- The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.
The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.
What is the Form of the Case?
Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.
The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.
The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.
The case could be zero, or infinite extent.
If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.
In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
If the case were infinite extent:
It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.
The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.
We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.
However, each option seems boring.
This leaves us one more possibility.
Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:
Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?
That is not permitted to happen.
The point always is, and the spacetime always is.
This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)
How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?
This our why.
I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!
Conclusion
The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.Afterword
I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
#Democritus #EleaticPhilosophy #Leucippus #Melissus #Metaphysics #Monism #Parmenides #Philosophy
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks. -
A Story of the Case
Introduction
Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.What is the Case?
Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.Whatever is, however it is, is the case.
- It is the case that I think.
- It is the case that wood floats on water.
- It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
- It is the case that one plus two equals three.
- It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
- It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.
The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.What is Not the Case?
The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.The Case is Not Relative
Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.What is the Case?
- The case is peerless.
- The case is one in quantity.
- The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
- The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
- The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.
The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.
What is the Form of the Case?
Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.
The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.
The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.
The case could be zero, or infinite extent.
If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.
In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
If the case were infinite extent:
It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.
The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.
We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.
However, each option seems boring.
This leaves us one more possibility.
Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:
Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?
That is not permitted to happen.
The point always is, and the spacetime always is.
This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)
How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?
This our why.
I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!
Conclusion
The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.Afterword
I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
#Democritus #EleaticPhilosophy #Leucippus #Melissus #Metaphysics #Monism #Parmenides #Philosophy
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks. -
A Story of the Case
Introduction
Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.What is the Case?
Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.Whatever is, however it is, is the case.
- It is the case that I think.
- It is the case that wood floats on water.
- It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
- It is the case that one plus two equals three.
- It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
- It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.
The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.What is Not the Case?
The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.The Case is Not Relative
Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.What is the Case?
- The case is peerless.
- The case is one in quantity.
- The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
- The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
- The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.
The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.
What is the Form of the Case?
Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.
The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.
The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.
The case could be zero, or infinite extent.
If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.
In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
If the case were infinite extent:
It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.
The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.
We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.
However, each option seems boring.
This leaves us one more possibility.
Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:
Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?
That is not permitted to happen.
The point always is, and the spacetime always is.
This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)
How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?
This our why.
I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!
Conclusion
The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.Afterword
I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
#Democritus #EleaticPhilosophy #Leucippus #Melissus #Metaphysics #Monism #Parmenides #Philosophy
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks. -
A Story of the Case
Introduction
Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.What is the Case?
Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.Whatever is, however it is, is the case.
- It is the case that I think.
- It is the case that wood floats on water.
- It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
- It is the case that one plus two equals three.
- It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
- It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.
The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.What is Not the Case?
The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.The Case is Not Relative
Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.What is the Case?
- The case is peerless.
- The case is one in quantity.
- The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
- The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
- The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.
The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.
What is the Form of the Case?
Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.
The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.
The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.
The case could be zero, or infinite extent.
If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.
In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
If the case were infinite extent:
It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.
The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.
We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.
However, each option seems boring.
This leaves us one more possibility.
Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:
Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?
That is not permitted to happen.
The point always is, and the spacetime always is.
This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)
How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?
This our why.
I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!
Conclusion
The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.Afterword
I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
#Democritus #EleaticPhilosophy #Leucippus #Melissus #Metaphysics #Monism #Parmenides #Philosophy
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks. -
A Story of the Case
Introduction
Hello, I’m Roberta Dawn Ezell; but, my friends call me Dawn.
I have cancer and may die.
I haven’t given up, but I have considered my mortality.
In this consideration, I have decided I want to share my understanding of the case, such as it is.
I hope my report on the case in some way helps you develop your understanding of the case.What is the Case?
Things are as they are.
I call things as they are: the case.
The case is things as they are.Whatever is, however it is, is the case.
- It is the case that I think.
- It is the case that wood floats on water.
- It is the case that humans have walked on the Moon.
- It is the case that one plus two equals three.
- It is the case that bishops move only diagonally in chess.
- It is the case that sunlight harms vampires in many stories.
The case is whatever is, however it is.
When a story reports the case, I call the story true.
The case is what true stories report.What is Not the Case?
The case is things as they are.
A thing that is not, is not a thing.The case is whatever is, however it is.
A thing that is other than it is, is a contradiction, so can not be.The case is what true stories report.
There is not anything that literally is not the case.We may call stories that do not report the case: not the case.
We do so figuratively.
We do not mean to say that the story itself is not the case.
The story, and whether or not it reports the case, is the case.Nor do stories that do not report the case provide evidence of anything that is not the case.
Our possible subjects for stories have never been confined to things that exist beyond their stories.What is not the case?
There is not anything that is not the case.The case is not and has no peer.
The case is not and has no divider.
There doesn’t exist anything to separate the the case as space separates the stars.
The case is not and has no before, after, above, below, inside, outside, or in any other way a beyond.
The case is not broken up into units or parts, nor does it have any possibility for defect. There does not exist anything to thin the case as water thins wine, for instance.
The case is not changing. The case was not, is not, and can not be in any way other than it is.
The case is not moving. The case has nowhere from which or to which to go.
If it did, then it is already there, and can not move there anyway.Or, to sum up these old arguments:
For a thing to relate, there must exist something other than the thing with which the thing can relate.
For the case to relate, there must exist something other than the case with which the case could relate.
There does not exist anything other than the case with which the case could relate.
The case can not relate.The Case is Not Relative
Some have said of the case that is is describable only by what it is not.
While I disagree, I can appreciate the sentiment.The case can not be any relative thing.
If a thing must relate with another thing to be what it is, then the case can not be that thing.
The case can not be a parent, child, producer, product, cause, effect, means, end, part, composition, substance, body, container, content, member, class, inside, outside, before, after, beyond, or any other relative thing.What is the Case?
- The case is peerless.
- The case is one in quantity.
- The case is total, without anything in any way beyond it.
- The case is continuous/fully dense/without segments, gaps, or defect.
- The case is absolute, without variation or change, always the same.
The case seems… boring.
How can such a boring seeming case be the same case where I may die of cancer?Well, something happens when you consider the shape of the case, specifically its size.
What is the Form of the Case?
Classically, there have been several attempts to answer this question.
The solution of Parmenides was on the right track, but Parmenides suffered from 6th century Mediterranean math.
The solution of Melissus was logically consistent, but boring.
The most successful solution was the the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus.I noticed what I believe to be an error.
I won’t dwell on the error.
Read John Burnett’s, “Ancient Greek Philosophy” if you want more on that.
Here, I simply seek to show the corrected solution.All the solutions of the form of the case are basically the same, save for the size of the shape.
The case could be zero, finite, or infinite extent.
The case can not be finite extent, as a finite extent would require a beyond to be beyond its limits or through which the finite extent could loop.
The case could be zero, or infinite extent.
If the case were zero extent:
It never was, and never shall be, for it is all here and all now a continuous one!
I believe this would have been the solution of Parmenides of Elea had he known more math.
The case would be like a geometric point, with zero extent with any dimension; but, there would not be anything else but the point.I think the mathematicians might call that a singularity.
In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
If the case were infinite extent:
It ever was, and ever shall be, for it is everywhere and every-when the same without end!
This was the solution of Melissus of Samos.
The case would be like a flat Euclidean spacetime.In any case, I believe this shape to be consistent with the case and its lack of relativity.
It still seems boring.
The case cold be zero, or infinite extent.
The atomists decided both the solution of Parmenides and Melissus were correct, and used those different solutions to relate with each other. Here, we basically do the same thing, but with a corrected solution of Parmenides.
We found no reason reject either option on grounds of logical consistency.
However, each option seems boring.
This leaves us one more possibility.
Perhaps we are dealing with an inclusive or operator here.
What is the case were zero and infinite in extent.
As far as my knowledge permits, I do not think geometry has an issue with this.Everyone is familiar with shapes like the cone.
On one end, you have the base: a circle.
On the other end you have a tip: a point.
Betwixt the two ends, you have the cylinder itself.
One can imagine the case as something like a cylinder, with an infinite base.We can have the infinite space.
We can have the point.
We can have them both as ends of the same shape.
We are somewhere between those extremes.Imagine a point within an infinite spacetime.
Can you move the point relative to the spacetime.
It starts an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
It ends an infinite distance from the ends of the spacetime.
From start to end, every position was an infinite distance from the ends of spacetime.
The same still holds for changes in orientation and scale as well.
Motion relative to an infinite expanse is not possible.There is one relation that works remarkably well: division.
You can take as many points as you like from a point without diminishing the point.
Zero from zero equals zero.
Imagine dividing the point into many points through spacetime.
With spacetime dividing the point like space divides the stars, the points may now relate with each other.
The points can relate positions, orientations, scales.
We have the ingredients of a simple geometry and can use them to describe a lot.This brings our little model as close to the ancient atomic theory as it gets.
I mention this to help ground our model.We have an infinite spacetime populated with many points of zero size.
Conceptually, we can take any number of points from any point without diminishing any point.
We may also combine any number of points together into a single point without producing a bigger point.
Conceptually, we can arrange these points to produce all sorts of interesting constellations.The ancient atomic theory suffered a major flaw:
Why?
Why would its atoms have different shapes?
Why would they cling together or repel or move as the philosophers said they did.
Currently, our model suffers that same flaw.Fear not, for there is an answer.
Better yet, there is a question.If the point always is, and the point has zero duration, wouldn’t it seem to fall out of a spacetime with infinite duration in an instant?
That is not permitted to happen.
The point always is, and the spacetime always is.
This is so despite their massive difference in size. (I so want to torture that to reference HGTTG)
How can something with zero duration persist throughout infinite duration?
This our why.
I’ll discuss that later.
We have gotten diverted, and for good cause.If the case is zero and infinite extent, then it does not seem boring at all!
Conclusion
The case is whatever is, however it is.
There is not anything else.
The case can not relate.
The case can have a form or shape so long as it is consistent with the case.
The case can consistently be both zero and infinite, but the case is one in quantity, so the case must be both in a single unified shape.
I’ll discuss that shape and how it works next time if I can.Afterword
I do apologize for how rushed all this is.
My life was not one that afforded me the luxury to ponder such things.
I pondered them anyway.
Now that I see death on the horizon, even if I can not tell how far that horizon is, I want to share what little I figured out.I started a new round of chemo yesterday.
#Democritus #EleaticPhilosophy #Leucippus #Melissus #Metaphysics #Monism #Parmenides #Philosophy
So far I’m tolerating it well.
I miss being able to take long walks.
I’m going to go see if my sister wants to go out for some little walks. -
🟡 Only Atoms & Space, Democritus, c. 460–370 B.C.E.
#Democritus, #Essence, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #Reality, #Science
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/gRZGR9 -
🟡 Only Atoms & Space, Democritus, c. 460–370 B.C.E.
#Democritus, #Essence, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #Reality, #Science
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/gRZGR9 -
🟡 Only Atoms & Space, Democritus, c. 460–370 B.C.E.
#Democritus, #Essence, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #Reality, #Science
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/gRZGR9 -
🟡 Only Atoms & Space, Democritus, c. 460–370 B.C.E.
#Democritus, #Essence, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #Reality, #Science
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/gRZGR9 -
@gutenberg_org Yes, #HappyBirthday 🎂 to #physicist #MaxPlanck , who in 1900 was the founder of the #QuantumTheory - of #energy.
But a century earlier, using empirical data from 18th century #chemistry , #chemist #JohnDalton correctly postulated what could be called the #QuantumTheory of mass when he resurrected and modernized the #AncientGreek #philosophy of #Atomism attributed to #Democritus. #Histodons
-
@gutenberg_org Yes, #HappyBirthday 🎂 to #physicist #MaxPlanck , who in 1900 was the founder of the #QuantumTheory - of #energy.
But a century earlier, using empirical data from 18th century #chemistry , #chemist #JohnDalton correctly postulated what could be called the #QuantumTheory of mass when he resurrected and modernized the #AncientGreek #philosophy of #Atomism attributed to #Democritus. #Histodons
-
@gutenberg_org Yes, #HappyBirthday 🎂 to #physicist #MaxPlanck , who in 1900 was the founder of the #QuantumTheory - of #energy.
But a century earlier, using empirical data from 18th century #chemistry , #chemist #JohnDalton correctly postulated what could be called the #QuantumTheory of mass when he resurrected and modernized the #AncientGreek #philosophy of #Atomism attributed to #Democritus. #Histodons
-
@gutenberg_org Yes, #HappyBirthday 🎂 to #physicist #MaxPlanck , who in 1900 was the founder of the #QuantumTheory - of #energy.
But a century earlier, using empirical data from 18th century #chemistry , #chemist #JohnDalton correctly postulated what could be called the #QuantumTheory of mass when he resurrected and modernized the #AncientGreek #philosophy of #Atomism attributed to #Democritus. #Histodons
-
@gutenberg_org Yes, #HappyBirthday 🎂 to #physicist #MaxPlanck , who in 1900 was the founder of the #QuantumTheory - of #energy.
But a century earlier, using empirical data from 18th century #chemistry , #chemist #JohnDalton correctly postulated what could be called the #QuantumTheory of mass when he resurrected and modernized the #AncientGreek #philosophy of #Atomism attributed to #Democritus. #Histodons
-
@pareidolia I have yet to go to #Thrace (#BucketList destination). The #StreetArt by #iNO featuring #Democritus , to my #ChemicalEye 👁️ the most visionary of #philosophers in #AncientGreece , is located in Piareus, the main port to #Athens. https://streetartnews.net/2015/09/we-have-power-new-mural-by-ino-in.html
-
@pareidolia I have yet to go to #Thrace (#BucketList destination). The #StreetArt by #iNO featuring #Democritus , to my #ChemicalEye 👁️ the most visionary of #philosophers in #AncientGreece , is located in Piareus, the main port to #Athens. https://streetartnews.net/2015/09/we-have-power-new-mural-by-ino-in.html
-
@pareidolia I have yet to go to #Thrace (#BucketList destination). The #StreetArt by #iNO featuring #Democritus , to my #ChemicalEye 👁️ the most visionary of #philosophers in #AncientGreece , is located in Piareus, the main port to #Athens. https://streetartnews.net/2015/09/we-have-power-new-mural-by-ino-in.html
-
@pareidolia I have yet to go to #Thrace (#BucketList destination). The #StreetArt by #iNO featuring #Democritus , to my #ChemicalEye 👁️ the most visionary of #philosophers in #AncientGreece , is located in Piareus, the main port to #Athens. https://streetartnews.net/2015/09/we-have-power-new-mural-by-ino-in.html
-
@pareidolia I have yet to go to #Thrace (#BucketList destination). The #StreetArt by #iNO featuring #Democritus , to my #ChemicalEye 👁️ the most visionary of #philosophers in #AncientGreece , is located in Piareus, the main port to #Athens. https://streetartnews.net/2015/09/we-have-power-new-mural-by-ino-in.html
-
@pareidolia Thrace is also the origin of #atomic theory 2,500 years ago, so should be near and dear to the dancing heart of all chemists!
#Histodons #Science #ValentinesDay #AncientGreece #Democritus -
@pareidolia Thrace is also the origin of #atomic theory 2,500 years ago, so should be near and dear to the dancing heart of all chemists!
#Histodons #Science #ValentinesDay #AncientGreece #Democritus -
@pareidolia Thrace is also the origin of #atomic theory 2,500 years ago, so should be near and dear to the dancing heart of all chemists!
#Histodons #Science #ValentinesDay #AncientGreece #Democritus -
@pareidolia Thrace is also the origin of #atomic theory 2,500 years ago, so should be near and dear to the dancing heart of all chemists!
#Histodons #Science #ValentinesDay #AncientGreece #Democritus -
@pareidolia Thrace is also the origin of #atomic theory 2,500 years ago, so should be near and dear to the dancing heart of all chemists!
#Histodons #Science #ValentinesDay #AncientGreece #Democritus -
Things will inevitably go wrong, people will do wrong, motivated in bad ways. Should you cry over it? Or should you laugh about them? Or is there a better response? Here's a bit about Seneca's advice to us
https://medium.com/practical-rationality/senecas-insights-of-crying-laughing-or-accepting-7a0bdfba00e1
#Seneca #Advice #Stoicism #Heraclitus #Democritus -
Things will inevitably go wrong, people will do wrong, motivated in bad ways. Should you cry over it? Or should you laugh about them? Or is there a better response? Here's a bit about Seneca's advice to us
https://medium.com/practical-rationality/senecas-insights-of-crying-laughing-or-accepting-7a0bdfba00e1
#Seneca #Advice #Stoicism #Heraclitus #Democritus -
Things will inevitably go wrong, people will do wrong, motivated in bad ways. Should you cry over it? Or should you laugh about them? Or is there a better response? Here's a bit about Seneca's advice to us
https://medium.com/practical-rationality/senecas-insights-of-crying-laughing-or-accepting-7a0bdfba00e1
#Seneca #Advice #Stoicism #Heraclitus #Democritus -
Things will inevitably go wrong, people will do wrong, motivated in bad ways. Should you cry over it? Or should you laugh about them? Or is there a better response? Here's a bit about Seneca's advice to us
https://medium.com/practical-rationality/senecas-insights-of-crying-laughing-or-accepting-7a0bdfba00e1
#Seneca #Advice #Stoicism #Heraclitus #Democritus -
Things will inevitably go wrong, people will do wrong, motivated in bad ways. Should you cry over it? Or should you laugh about them? Or is there a better response? Here's a bit about Seneca's advice to us
https://medium.com/practical-rationality/senecas-insights-of-crying-laughing-or-accepting-7a0bdfba00e1
#Seneca #Advice #Stoicism #Heraclitus #Democritus -
“In the weightiest matters we must go to school to the #animals, and learn spinning and weaving from the spider, building from the swallow, singing from the birds, — from the swan and the nightingale, imitating their art.”
- #Democritus of Abdera - The Symmetry of Life
-
“In the weightiest matters we must go to school to the #animals, and learn spinning and weaving from the spider, building from the swallow, singing from the birds, — from the swan and the nightingale, imitating their art.”
- #Democritus of Abdera - The Symmetry of Life
-
“In the weightiest matters we must go to school to the #animals, and learn spinning and weaving from the spider, building from the swallow, singing from the birds, — from the swan and the nightingale, imitating their art.”
- #Democritus of Abdera - The Symmetry of Life
-
“In the weightiest matters we must go to school to the #animals, and learn spinning and weaving from the spider, building from the swallow, singing from the birds, — from the swan and the nightingale, imitating their art.”
- #Democritus of Abdera - The Symmetry of Life
-
Cheerfulness is the goal of life.
#MargaretMahy
#TheCatalogueOfTheUniverse
#WhyWeLive
#BeCheerful
#Democritus -
#Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning chosen of the people) claimed that everything starts from atoms, in a bottom-up #causation.
#Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule’) can be described as #emergent top-down #control mechanisms based on the free association and decision of autonomous individuals.
All #causation is bottom-up or from the inside-out. There is no such thing as top-down causation imposed from the outside. There is only an emergent (internal) level of constraints and other control mechanisms generated by the interaction of individuals fulfilling a common need or objective.
-
#Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning chosen of the people) claimed that everything starts from atoms, in a bottom-up #causation.
#Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule’) can be described as #emergent top-down #control mechanisms based on the free association and decision of autonomous individuals.
All #causation is bottom-up or from the inside-out. There is no such thing as top-down causation imposed from the outside. There is only an emergent (internal) level of constraints and other control mechanisms generated by the interaction of individuals fulfilling a common need or objective.
-
#Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning chosen of the people) claimed that everything starts from atoms, in a bottom-up #causation.
#Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule’) can be described as #emergent top-down #control mechanisms based on the free association and decision of autonomous individuals.
All #causation is bottom-up or from the inside-out. There is no such thing as top-down causation imposed from the outside. There is only an emergent (internal) level of constraints and other control mechanisms generated by the interaction of individuals fulfilling a common need or objective.
-
Still, it's good to know that #Bacon praised #Democritus for denying #teleology; if both #Democritus and #Lucretius deny it, then it seems like #Epicurus probably did too? @philosophy
-
Still, it's good to know that #Bacon praised #Democritus for denying #teleology; if both #Democritus and #Lucretius deny it, then it seems like #Epicurus probably did too? @philosophy
-
Still, it's good to know that #Bacon praised #Democritus for denying #teleology; if both #Democritus and #Lucretius deny it, then it seems like #Epicurus probably did too? @philosophy
-
Still, it's good to know that #Bacon praised #Democritus for denying #teleology; if both #Democritus and #Lucretius deny it, then it seems like #Epicurus probably did too? @philosophy
-
Still, it's good to know that #Bacon praised #Democritus for denying #teleology; if both #Democritus and #Lucretius deny it, then it seems like #Epicurus probably did too? @philosophy
-
Some highlights from a recent trip to the archaeological museum in #Naples.
-
Some highlights from a recent trip to the archaeological museum in #Naples.
-
I really want to talk to someone about #Spinoza's anti-teleological view, which #Schopenhauer tries to blame on a wish to avoid "speculative theology."
I think it's the opposite; Spinoza's theological view comes as a result of his seeing through the anthropomorphic illusion of teleology in nature. In this way, his insight is similar to the #Buddha #Nietzsche #Darwin and #Taoism.
Possibly also #Epicurus #Democritus et al; I have yet to read enough #Lucretius to say for sure.
-
I really want to talk to someone about #Spinoza's anti-teleological view, which #Schopenhauer tries to blame on a wish to avoid "speculative theology."
I think it's the opposite; Spinoza's theological view comes as a result of his seeing through the anthropomorphic illusion of teleology in nature. In this way, his insight is similar to the #Buddha #Nietzsche #Darwin and #Taoism.
Possibly also #Epicurus #Democritus et al; I have yet to read enough #Lucretius to say for sure.
-
I really want to talk to someone about #Spinoza's anti-teleological view, which #Schopenhauer tries to blame on a wish to avoid "speculative theology."
I think it's the opposite; Spinoza's theological view comes as a result of his seeing through the anthropomorphic illusion of teleology in nature. In this way, his insight is similar to the #Buddha #Nietzsche #Darwin and #Taoism.
Possibly also #Epicurus #Democritus et al; I have yet to read enough #Lucretius to say for sure.
-
I really want to talk to someone about #Spinoza's anti-teleological view, which #Schopenhauer tries to blame on a wish to avoid "speculative theology."
I think it's the opposite; Spinoza's theological view comes as a result of his seeing through the anthropomorphic illusion of teleology in nature. In this way, his insight is similar to the #Buddha #Nietzsche #Darwin and #Taoism.
Possibly also #Epicurus #Democritus et al; I have yet to read enough #Lucretius to say for sure.
-
The Philosophy Of Democritus And The Atomists
-
The Philosophy Of Democritus And The Atomists
-
The Philosophy Of Democritus And The Atomists
