Dylemat. Czy swiat istnieje

IP: 207.44.154.* 05.02.04, 18:36
Wedle Platona to wszystko co nas otacza to fikcja.
    • Gość: PL.AToN Fikcja NAS OtaczA...Juz jest W nas...! IP: *.cm-upc.chello.se 05.02.04, 19:57
      Gość portalu: urbanek dyszy napisał(a):

      > Wedle Platona to wszystko co nas otacza to fikcja.

      Fikcja TO wszystko
      MY JA TY TO to Fikcja
      .............
      ...........
      ZaGMatHaNa dusza URbana wink
      PL.AToN
      • panidanka Re: Fikcja NAS OtaczA...Juz jest W nas...! 05.02.04, 20:13
        Gość portalu: PL.AToN napisał(a):

        > Gość portalu: urbanek dyszy napisał(a):
        >
        > > Wedle Platona to wszystko co nas otacza to fikcja.
        >
        > Fikcja TO wszystko
        > MY JA TY TO to Fikcja
        > .............
        > ...........
        > ZaGMatHaNa dusza URbana wink
        > PL.AToN

        Platona całego nie przeczytałam, ale jego pobyt jaskini nawet zrozumiałam smile
        czyżby czas na ucztę?

        D.

    • abstrakt2003 Re: Dylemat. Czy swiat istnieje 05.02.04, 20:18
      Tak, Platon w zasadzie ma rację. Tylko dlaczego na drugi dzień po ostrym piciu
      tak strasznie boli głowa!?
      Czy to też fikcja? Jakoś nie chce mi się wierzyć! smile))
    • indris Dylemat. Czy swiat istnieje 05.02.04, 20:20
      Najradykalniej sformułował to Berkeley w 1710. Co ciekawsze, te idee powtarza
      (na serio!) profesor fizyki (!) Jacyna-Onyszkiewicz z Poznania. Ma swoją stronę
      w sieci.
      • Gość: FEILER O is not an object but a subject ? IP: *.cm-upc.chello.se 06.02.04, 00:50
        http://main.amu.edu.pl/~zbigonys/

        Z. Jacyna-Onyszkiewicz
        Quantum Physics Division, Faculty of Physics,
        A. Mickiewicz University, Poznañ, Poland




        The beginnings of European philosophy date back to about 2600 years ago, when a
        small group of Greeks made the first attempt at understanding the world with no
        reference to religious concepts. To them, the universe appeared as a huge
        living organism. When confronted with an organism, it is a natural intellectual
        impulse to decompose it into the simplest elements. To understand the organism,
        one needs to find its fundamental components and principal laws of its
        operation. European philosophy started from a well formulated question about
        the underlying principle of the world. Soon to describe the most fundamental
        matter and the most fundamental principle of the world, philosophers coined a
        term arkhe. Although the present understanding of the universe is drastically
        different from that developed 2600 years ago, the problem of finding its arkhe
        is still somewhat important. This problem has had a great impact on the
        development of the study of the physical world by reducing it to elementary
        principles, which is still followed today.

        It is difficult to say precisely when the word arkhe emerged as a technical
        term of philosophy. It was surely used in this sense by Anaximander of Miletus,
        a student and then a successor of Thales. Anaximander represents the Ionian
        philosophy of nature concerned with the search for the first principles and
        original cause responsible for the form of reality. After Aristotle, the
        philosophers representing this current were called physicists. Their main aim,
        i.e. the search for the fundamental principle of reality, which was assumed to
        be a substantial and normative origin of the universe, has remained one of the
        most important pursuits of European philosophy partly accepted by modern
        physics. In contemporary physics this pursuit is expressed by an effort to come
        up with a general theory making possible the description of all physical
        phenomena. However, the methodology of physics seems much too restrictive and
        narrow to allow finding the fundamental principle of reality, that is the
        arkhe.

        In the present essay we will show that the true most fundamental principle,
        being the deepest possible one, is an appropriately defined omniscience. Thus,
        the starting point of our considerations will be the following postulate.







        Postulate

        There exists omniscience – absolute knowledge that is the greatest possible to
        be conceivled.











        With the above hypothesis assumed to be true, we will consider the consequences
        of this assumption.

        To man, only partial knowledge is available. Having incomplete knowledge by
        extrapolation, absolutisation and idealisation and by the use of analogies, man
        can imagine the notion of omniscience. Omniscience is knowledge reaching beyond
        human imagination and comprehension, understood as everything that a human mind
        can contain. Since knowledge is an attribute of the mind, we put forward a
        hypothesis that there exists an intelligent being having omniscience denoted as
        O and defined as the greatest possibly conceivable knowledge. So defined, O is
        unattainable by human mind and man is only able to determine some of its
        features implied by its definition.

        Let us concentrate on the following important problem: according to the
        definition of omniscience O – the omniscient being – knows everything. His
        knowledge includes full knowledge of himself, which as absolute is identical to
        its being. Hence, the intelligent being does not have omniscience but is
        omniscience. Therefore, henceforth we will not talk about the omniscient being
        but about omniscience O.

        For people – intelligent beings of limited knowledge – the knowledge of
        themselves is much smaller than that fully defining them. My knowledge is not
        me – if it were me, I would always have it for the simple reason of my
        existence and I would not have to learn to acquire it; moreover, I would never
        forget anything. Still, since my knowledge is not me, it is much smaller than
        me and I do not have full knowledge of myself but only a vague concept of
        myself as a human being.

        Identification of the omniscient being with omniscience can seem paradoxical
        but it is directly implied by the definition of omniscience. Consequently,
        omniscience becomes a subject and not an object, not a thing but a being. In
        this way we reveal the nature of the intelligent and omniscient being which
        turns out to be omniscience. Concluding what was discussed above we can say that










        Conclusion 1

        The omniscient intelligent being is the omniscience O, which means that O is
        not an object but a subject.








        For people the process of acquiring knowledge includes many changes: learning
        what we have not known, forgetting what we have known, association of facts,
        meditation or contemplation. The changes result from our ignorance and from
        imperfection of our memory. We perceive them as a one-directional flow of time
        overlapping with the relatively regular rhythm of our physiology and changes in
        surrounding nature. The omniscience O knows everything possible and does not
        forget anything; it knows the past, the present and the future and that is why
        it does not undergo any changes. Its cognitive activity is invariant and
        unlimited. The omniscience O has absolute knowledge in a single act of
        acquiring it in eternity which is not time. Eternity is the plenitude of
        omniscience being omniscient. Hence:







        Conclusion 2

        The omniscience O is invariable and thus eternal.








        Undoubtedly there is only one omniscience O, but the omniscience of itself is
        also omniscience O. As follows from logic, no rational idea includes itself;
        therefore, there is no rational reasoning allowing comprehension of the
        omniscience. It also means that it is impossible to comprehend the omniscience
        for everyone except the omniscience itself. Thus, for us the omniscience is the
        deepest and incomprehensible secret of incomprehensible sense. Postulating the
        existence of the omniscience O, we accept the mystery which is the condition of
        the understanding of omniscience. Therefore, we can formulate:







        Conclusion 3

        The omniscience O is and will be an incomprehensible mystery for rational
        reasoning.








        As we know very well from our daily experience, things comprehensible by our
        senses differ from those created in our minds – imagined – as elements of our
        knowledge. It can be supposed that the same is true in the omniscience. Let us
        assume that along with the omniscience O there is another real being, which is
        not the omniscience O; then the omniscience O includes the knowledge of itself
        and the knowledge of this real being. However, the knowledge of the omniscience
        about itself is by definition omniscience, so the knowledge of the omniscience
        O would be smaller than omniscience, which would lead to a contradiction. In
        view of the above we have:







        Conclusion 4

        Apart from the omniscience O there is nothing else.








        This conclusion implies very strong limitations on the ontological structure of
        the reality.

        The knowledge of omniscience about itself is absolute so it is also the
        omniscience O or omniscience O' identical with omniscience O but differing from
        the latter by the fact that O is the source of O'. It can be said that the
        omniscience O' comes from the omniscience O like my thoughts come from my mind.

        As follows from the definition of omniscience as the knowledge possibly
        greatest to conceive, the knowledge of the omniscience about itself is not the
        omniscience O because the
    • institoris1 Re: Dylemat. Czy swiat istnieje 06.02.04, 03:16
      Gość portalu: urbanek dyszy napisał(a):

      > Wedle Platona to wszystko co nas otacza to fikcja.

      no i co z tego. Fikcja nie fikcja, zmienic i tak sie nic nie zmieni.
      • panidanka Re: Dylemat. Czy swiat istnieje 06.02.04, 07:10
        institoris1 napisał:

        > Gość portalu: urbanek dyszy napisał(a):
        >
        > > Wedle Platona to wszystko co nas otacza to fikcja.
        >
        > no i co z tego. Fikcja nie fikcja, zmienic i tak sie nic nie zmieni.

        smile))))
        i to co napisałeś istitorisie to jest właśnie fikcja smile

        D.
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja