Time is fickle, and there is nothing that separates coming into being from approaching death. You ask how the democratic institution exists as if it always will, and as if it makes any difference that it lasted a cosmic hiccup longer than another institution. The historical dialectic can't keep equilibrium at all times. So we travel along a sine wave and are surprised when we look back at the pattern.
Try not to patronize. A discussion is always more interesting than a lecture.
Democracy won't always be around, that's true. My point is that it emerged from its state of non-existence for a reason and how something comes into being, determines how it goes out of it so if there was a reason for it existing, there will be a reason (virtue) for it's non-reality.
I'm not sure what else you're trying to say other than pointing out that history has endured many movements.
But if you agree that there is a reason for something existing, what is the thing that keeps it going for a time? What allows it to endure?
I'm saying that you're projecting a pattern that does not exist; you're looking back at the motion of history and asking why the tides rise and fall. Therein lies the problem for me. I don't agree that there is a "reason" for something to come in to existence. The universe doesn't know what "purpose" means because it's a human structure.
The question of what allows things to endure is a non-issue to me. Once something exists, it does until it doesn't, and the amount of time between those two points is pretty inconsequential. So you must be asking why things come to exist, or why they cease to exist, and I can't answer those questions for you. Luckily it appears as though you have the answer and just want people to beg for it, so I hope it makes enough sense to you.
You say the universe doesn't know purpose. But if that's true then why does the tree, the plant, the animal, man himself and even abstract studies like art have purpose?
In my view, I see all things as having structure. If you look, you'll see that all things exist for the purpose of serving something beyond their own being. I don't think there's anything in the physical or metaphysical you can point to that exists merely for its own sake.
But this is off-topic. I'm not interested in discussing why existence exists but how it keeps on existing.
You say that as if it's a fact. It's not. I don't believe any of those things have purpose. Purpose requires intention; intention requires creation, and I don't believe in a creator. There is no blueprint to humanity.
What IS this purpose you speak of anyway? How is it defined? Is the flower's purpose to provide nectar for the bee? Is the bee's purpose to spread the pollen of the flower? As if the universe understood that one day the flower would reach its goal? I see it the opposite way. The things that came after adapted to what it saw. The bee learned the taste of nectar. The flower developed more adhesive pollen. Culture works in much the same way and it's happening constantly, but difficult to see because it isn't in retrospect.
Like I said, the question of how something "keeps on existing" doesn't really make sense to me. Is it possible for something to exist and NOT keep on existing? Even a momentary existence counts as existence. You're asking why some things exist for longer periods than others. There is no single answer to that, which is the only reason you can dismiss everyone else's answers. All of those things come in to play. Even the plant.
So you agree that all of nature and the metaphysical exists to serve something outside itself (purpose) but then say there is no purpose since purpose hinges upon intent?
So which is it? Either you said at first was a falsehood or the latter was.
I hear you say, "It has purpose now in the retrospective but didn't then"
How can that be possible? You've already said that purpose requires intent. So what, are you saying the universe evolved with intent? Is the universe one with us?
And I have another true thing to tell you, flutterhigh.
My purpose is to learn, not to be hounded by the insecure. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere or risk your comments becoming non-entities in my thread.
I'm not sure what part of my comment angered you, but it seems as though you misread everything I said. That's probably my fault. I was trying to establish a dialectic - is that not how people learn? I'll try to rephrase.
I'm trying to differentiate between manufactured purpose and retroactive purpose. A hammer has a purpose because it was instilled with it by its creator. A historical movement has a purpose when we look back on its context and consequences. We don't look back on the life of a hammer to understand what purpose it served - we understood its purpose by its blueprints. Culture and humanity are not scripted. So its only purpose arises when we try to discuss it after the fact. Hopefully that makes more sense.
And as for the threats and slights, I'll chalk that up to the heat of the moment.
The Virtue of Existence
← View full post
Time is fickle, and there is nothing that separates coming into being from approaching death. You ask how the democratic institution exists as if it always will, and as if it makes any difference that it lasted a cosmic hiccup longer than another institution. The historical dialectic can't keep equilibrium at all times. So we travel along a sine wave and are surprised when we look back at the pattern.
Try not to patronize. A discussion is always more interesting than a lecture.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Democracy won't always be around, that's true. My point is that it emerged from its state of non-existence for a reason and how something comes into being, determines how it goes out of it so if there was a reason for it existing, there will be a reason (virtue) for it's non-reality.
I'm not sure what else you're trying to say other than pointing out that history has endured many movements.
But if you agree that there is a reason for something existing, what is the thing that keeps it going for a time? What allows it to endure?
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I'm saying that you're projecting a pattern that does not exist; you're looking back at the motion of history and asking why the tides rise and fall. Therein lies the problem for me. I don't agree that there is a "reason" for something to come in to existence. The universe doesn't know what "purpose" means because it's a human structure.
The question of what allows things to endure is a non-issue to me. Once something exists, it does until it doesn't, and the amount of time between those two points is pretty inconsequential. So you must be asking why things come to exist, or why they cease to exist, and I can't answer those questions for you. Luckily it appears as though you have the answer and just want people to beg for it, so I hope it makes enough sense to you.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You say the universe doesn't know purpose. But if that's true then why does the tree, the plant, the animal, man himself and even abstract studies like art have purpose?
In my view, I see all things as having structure. If you look, you'll see that all things exist for the purpose of serving something beyond their own being. I don't think there's anything in the physical or metaphysical you can point to that exists merely for its own sake.
But this is off-topic. I'm not interested in discussing why existence exists but how it keeps on existing.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You say that as if it's a fact. It's not. I don't believe any of those things have purpose. Purpose requires intention; intention requires creation, and I don't believe in a creator. There is no blueprint to humanity.
What IS this purpose you speak of anyway? How is it defined? Is the flower's purpose to provide nectar for the bee? Is the bee's purpose to spread the pollen of the flower? As if the universe understood that one day the flower would reach its goal? I see it the opposite way. The things that came after adapted to what it saw. The bee learned the taste of nectar. The flower developed more adhesive pollen. Culture works in much the same way and it's happening constantly, but difficult to see because it isn't in retrospect.
Like I said, the question of how something "keeps on existing" doesn't really make sense to me. Is it possible for something to exist and NOT keep on existing? Even a momentary existence counts as existence. You're asking why some things exist for longer periods than others. There is no single answer to that, which is the only reason you can dismiss everyone else's answers. All of those things come in to play. Even the plant.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
So you agree that all of nature and the metaphysical exists to serve something outside itself (purpose) but then say there is no purpose since purpose hinges upon intent?
So which is it? Either you said at first was a falsehood or the latter was.
I hear you say, "It has purpose now in the retrospective but didn't then"
How can that be possible? You've already said that purpose requires intent. So what, are you saying the universe evolved with intent? Is the universe one with us?
And I have another true thing to tell you, flutterhigh.
My purpose is to learn, not to be hounded by the insecure. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere or risk your comments becoming non-entities in my thread.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I'm not sure what part of my comment angered you, but it seems as though you misread everything I said. That's probably my fault. I was trying to establish a dialectic - is that not how people learn? I'll try to rephrase.
I'm trying to differentiate between manufactured purpose and retroactive purpose. A hammer has a purpose because it was instilled with it by its creator. A historical movement has a purpose when we look back on its context and consequences. We don't look back on the life of a hammer to understand what purpose it served - we understood its purpose by its blueprints. Culture and humanity are not scripted. So its only purpose arises when we try to discuss it after the fact. Hopefully that makes more sense.
And as for the threats and slights, I'll chalk that up to the heat of the moment.