Is this statement philosopically correct?

Question

Nothing can be distinguished without the criteria of self to distinguish things.

Answer 1

As Julian puts it, the concept of Quantum Mechanics, probably if derived further into more philosophy the Observer, the Observant and the Observation, they all have a limited individual conscience controlled by The Supreme Divine Cosmic Consciousness and to go further probably there is nothing other than The Supreme Being (The pure Advaita as Sankaracharyar told)

edit::-
probably in simple words a travel from Julian thru Smartie

edit : -
i meant Dvaita thru Vishishtadvaita probably to Advaita

edit : -

here may be to Ben

Answer 2

Before we decide whether it's philosophically correct, we'd best decide whether it's semantically correct (analytic philosophers might argue that this is much the same thing). It's unclear to me what you mean by "criteria of self." What criteria does the self have? Do you actually mean to use the plural ("criteria") as opposed to the singular ("criterion")? Or do you perhaps merely intend to say that there is no hope of distinguishing things without the self?

If you mean to say that the self is the origin of judgement, then I believe your statement presents two lines of inquiry: first, is it the self that distinguishes things? and secondly, if so, is the self the only thing that distinguishes things? Even if the first were to prove true, we would need to answer both of these questions to prove satisfactorily that nothing could be distinguished without the self. If the second one is false, it doesn't matter if the first is true.

Hmm. I just checked your profile and found that you are an editor at some sort of philosophy website. Perhaps it would be better for you to sort this out on your own, no? I get the feeling that we're being toyed with here, since you must already believe your statement to be true. My line of argument was going to deal with the self as a linguistic construct, but I sort of don't feel like writing it now.

Answer 3

Criteria of self will help you distinguish things.

But wisdom of self will imply you don't need to distinguish anything though they are distinguishable.

A clearer criteria of self, clearer distinguishing or rather discerning ability. Better discretion.

Criteria of self dissolved the reality and the true nature of everything is revealed (and so understood).

If the criteria of self is not present, how can you distinguish anything from anything else ? Since the "criteria of self" is what distinguishes one from the other. When that criteria itself ceases, who or what will distinguish ?

So no distinguishing without the criteria of self to distinguish things!

In fact ANY CRITERIA OF SELF would always be a
criteria of self to distinguish things.
See it logically and this will be clear.

Answer 4

Yes, you are right.
To put your question in simple terms "There should be a distinguisher for distinguishing"
That’s what we are all fighting science for...
"There should be Creator for Creation to take place"

People say Nature as every thing... But the question is "Whose Nature" ? For energy to be present there must be that Energetic.

This Statement is not only philosophically correct but also scientifically correct. Newton’s law of Inertia states that "Every things continues to remain in State of Rest or uniform motion unless disturbed"

But it does not describe what that disturbing force is. For Disturbance there must be Disturber. Darwin’s theory says that species evolve by choosing. But for Choosing there must be a chooser.
This philosophy leads to acceptance of Soul, "the Cause" that has the "effect" the life. And Cause of All Causes being God Himself.

But Scientist doesn’t accept nor does many religionists. They say energy is all in all, and yet they have no proof of Energy transforming into energetic, to disturb the energy or distinguish between energies to evolve...

Answer 5

I do not believe the statement to be philosophically correct.

The distinguishing of things is not relevant to self. Things distinguish themselves by their own nature.

Self is apart from this task. The criteria of self has no impact on this distinction of things.

Things are things. Self is self. Two very different planes of existence.

Answer 6

Yes. Quantum physics picked up this concept by saying "reality does can not exist without a conscious observer." Philosophically, the self is the subject that perceives all objective experiences. That is why there is a theory that states that God is immaterial and transcendent, because the self is beyond sense perception since it is the one that uses sense perception, and if God was thought of as a self, then the entire universe is its senses, with God being the subject, beyond the reach of the senses, or in this analogy, beyond the reach of matter.

Answer 7

this isn't specific enough. i don't think distinguish is the best word to use. my personal opinion, try something like this:

nothing can be discerned without a consciousness doing the discerning.

for there to be an observation, there needs to be an observer.

Answer 8

Yes, because isn't this basically saying that all things are relative to self. Without self, we have nothing to compare anything to. All things are relative to the specific observer.

See 'Principle of Relativity' at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

This gives a scientific explanation, but I don't know if it necessarily confirms a philosophical correctness.

Answer 9

So the robin that eats worms in summer but feasts on berries in winter when the ground is frozen and the preferred foodstuff unavailable has a sense of self?

Answer 10

I don't think so.

I think "Nothing" can never be distinguished. that is why it is nothing.

I get your point but it is philosophically false on the numinal plane of reasoning.

What you seem to be saying is "Existence presupposes itself."

You have just taken a round about way of saying it.

Keep it simple.