To wrap up, and the reason I'm even creating this discussion at all, is because of what ramifications there might be if there does exist such a deity. It may reopen the question of life after death, the extents of reality, our moral duties, and a grounding for consciousness. — Jerry
Am I wrong in believing that the grand Western tradition of metaphysics began with Parmenides, if we had to pick out a single figure? — Wayfarer
My argument is that an important part of what has been lost in the transition to modernity is the capacity to understand metaphysics. — Wayfarer
I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"? — Yohan
I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.
Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.
I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals. — Yohan
Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least. — Yohan
But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan
It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan
Kind of losing me — Yohan
Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes? — Yohan
Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA. — Yohan
It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan
Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own) — Yohan
I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be? — Yohan
So then, how to "reach" essence? — Yohan
Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things — Yohan
So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition. — Yohan
I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at. — Yohan
Ultimately, this discussion has many built in assumptions, and relies upon those to build up new ideas. One of those assumptions is that our process of scientific discovery is true. This also entails mathematics, physics, etc. To reject these fields of study is an argument for elsewhere, but yes, if you can undermine them as you seek to do you would undermine a portion of my argument. — Derrick Huestis
Perhaps a certain arrangement of atoms, yes, but the underlying matter, no, and the underlying space, also no. The sophist doesn't believe in an absolute truth, it is subjective, up to the individual. For this I criticize you. You keep making claims you uphold, but no supporting logic, and you don't directly attack the logic others present, but say "I do not see." There is a lot you can criticize in this way, you can go back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and reject that we know about anything more than our mind. — Derrick Huestis
It's doubtful that an Eternal Fundamental Existence with no beginning and thus no input could have any purpose. The only trait is that it cannot not be; that is the complete message: being is a must. — PoeticUniverse
Sidepoint, but to me it sucks that our culture embraces pointlessly drawn-out and painful deaths for no reason that I find valid anyway. Obviously I wouldn't want death forced on other who felt the need to cling, but I do wish I could set up some auto-destruct feature for myself in case I'm unlucky enough to be trapped in some ugly state. For instance, maybe a stroke destroys my autonomy, or I'm paralyzed by an accident and physically can't choose to leave this world on my own terms (just having the choice would make post-accident life more endurable, I think.) — Zugzwang
You say I draw illogical conclusions without tearing apart any of my logic. You are quite the sophist, like I said you argue with emotion. — Derrick Huestis
Perhaps you forgot you were finite? Hence, we are forced to use our imagination which you so despise, yet even then we can't truly "find" infinite because our minds themselves are also finite. Based on your current arguments, I get the feeling you might be a flat earther because you've never seen the roundness of the Earth anywhere you've gone... — Derrick Huestis
Well, many religious 'God' followers believe in the 'immaterial soul' and the rest of the 'supernatural' in the way of having hopes and wishes. It's a whole nother story of why they want it. — PoeticUniverse
Well, QFT doesn't prove 'God' as a Person with Mind but rather replaces and gets rids of that type of 'God' idea to leave us with just a Ground of Determination (G.O.D.) type basis. Even the Deity 'God' becomes unnecessary as redundant.
QFT needs to be expanded to include quantum gravity and dark matter (unless neutrinos are already it) and then it will become the Complete Theory of Everything rather than very nearly. — PoeticUniverse