P.S. Isn't the concept of a ''thing'' illusional since the boundaries inbetween different ''things'' and/or their environment are only defined and conceptualised by our own minds...
2007-10-08 16:16:03 · 6 answers · asked by ns 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Good question. Every thing is relative according to Einstein. How about moving faster than the (constant) speed of light or to travel beyond infinity. I don't know. Perhaps, two objects in a complete vacuum that travel in differing dimensions? I'm curious to see your other responses.
2007-10-08 16:30:49 · answer #1 · answered by Kevin U 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was the problem with Plato's philosophy. Although Plato had some good points and excellent writings with eloquent style, his posited a transcendental reality of forms; a world of Being where the things that we sense here are actually perfect, immutable and precise. Plato said that all things that were sensed in this world, the world of Becoming, were "copies" or "imitations" of the Forms in the world of Being. Hence, the computer your typing on now has a true, perfect form in the world of Being, but here in the world of Becoming it is corruptible, changing and imperfect and therefore cannot give you true knowledge of what a computer actually is. To be more precise, Plato posited things completely separate or more precisely put, "transcendent" of this sensible world we are in presently in. His student Aristotle pointed out that if there were truly a separation between the two things, Forms in the world of Being and the things that participated in them (those things in the world of Becoming, i.e. sensible world), then in no way are we able to explain them, for they must be in some sense part of the Form they participate in to be able to explain what they are. Aristotle called this the problem of the "Chorismos", or the problem of separation. He said with this total separation in no way can the Forms DO anything for the things that participate in them.
What I am getting at is if there were a "thing" that was completely separated in every way in no way could you know about it, for that would imply that in some way it was not completely separated from everything else--it would have to also be completely separate from knowledge too.
Further, to complete this, we say that things that BE are things that have existence, and if something is completely separate, sharing in nothing at all with all other things that exist then it does not have existence, since we say that all things that BE have the commonality of existence;hence, there can be nothing that is completely and totally separated from all things since that would imply that it did not exist.
I hope I was answering your question correctly
God Bless
"and your will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"--Jn 8:32--Jesus of Nazareth; the Christ
2007-10-08 23:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by nick p 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True separation is suave. It simply slips through everything else, suffusing nothing. Neutrinos are truly separate, in the physical sense, as they slip through everything, even the Earth. Other forms of separation include separation of mind and body, which would be such as in an Artificial Intelligence, where it has a mind, human like, buffered in an Artificial body, inhuman but human minded. We too are capable of separating mind and body in meditation and such spiritual practice, where the body is floated subconsciously while the mind is cut off from sensations.
2007-10-09 06:14:10 · answer #3 · answered by Qyn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
2007-10-08 23:25:06 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tough one. My guess its death.
2007-10-08 23:37:48 · answer #5 · answered by nazbak 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Aatma"
2007-10-09 03:31:39 · answer #6 · answered by kirtik 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋