alright faggots
The bottom diagram is to explain what the tables mean. The top table is the top “floor” and the second is the bottom “floor”.
what is being?
If to be is to be perceived, then #5 is nothingness by definition, and #7 is impossible. But if it's impossible, then "nothing" belongs in box 7, but nothingness by impossibility seems to be different than nothingness by quality, perhaps that's just me.
Additionally, if to be is to be perceived then, it seems if thoughts are to exist (and i hope none of you are edgy enough to suggest otherwise), then conceivability is a category of perception.
I'm inclined to believe that conceivability is not a category of perception, and that being is positive perceivability andor positive conceivability.
pls respond
>>466800
What
>>467925
what is the correct definition of being?
>>468092
No, you're putting the cart before the horse.
Being isn't to be perceived. Being is to do the perceiving.
>>468198
Okay then non-sentient things don't exist
That's pretty fucking edgy dude
When philosophy goes too far
>>468264
Sure they exist, you demented faggot. They just can't "be".
Conception is necessary for a thing to be. This does not mean that if a fool cannot conceive of it it ceases to be. This requirement only needs one being to conceive of it. Perception is also required, however, conception necessarily entails perception, so I don't see why it's even necessary. What's odd is that being requires something which... be for it to be. Being, when based on perception as its necessity, requires a being for perception to occur which brings us into a regress creating either an infinite chain of being, a cyclical chain, or one which stops at some point with a thing which is a being without the necessity of perception. Regardless the other thing I'd add is that perception, being relative to the observer, creates with it a scale, so to speak, of known being which is relative to the object of being. So to give an example of what I mean. A thought can be. For a thought to be, and that being to be known, what is required? Since a thought is immaterial and exists only within a single person, the only direct perception of it is within the perceiver. So if the perceiver perceives a thought, this thought has achieved being to the highest degree. The more that an object can be perceived, the higher burden of perception that is required for it to achieve this degree of being. Fuzzy logic is basically what I'm employing here.
These are my thoughts as a novice with an interest in philosophy. I hope it's relevant and in some way satisfactory to you.
>>468516
>he thinks being and existing are different qualities
What do you mean? can something be and not exist? exist and not be? be and exist?
>>468801
>Conception is necessary for a thing to be.
A cannot conceive of the statue, but the statue exists.
>This does not mean that if a fool cannot conceive of it it ceases to be. This requirement only needs one being to conceive of it.
Except C can conceive of it. I see what you mean.
>Perception is also required, however, conception necessarily entails perception, so I don't see why it's even necessary.
I would agree that to perceive a thing to some extent is to conceive of it to some extent.
>What's odd is that being requires something which... be for it to be.
I’m assuming what you’re saying is that the being of a thing is contingent on its perception. This is a frustrating issue, and is one of the central issues I’m attempting to address in this theorizing.
One can propose a remote planet on which rests a teapot.
Even if nothing ever perceives the teapot, it’s still there.
However the nature of this proposition demands that the teapot is conceivable.
Because it is conceivable, it exists conceptually.
Therefore, it is conceived therefore it is.
Inb4 doesn’t “really” exist. If you think this then you’re using perceivability as the definition of being. Nothin’ wrong with that, except this isn’t the context in which we’re discussing being.
>Being, when based on perception as its necessity, requires a being for perception to occur which brings us into a regress creating either an infinite chain of being, a cyclical chain, or one which stops at some point with a thing which is a being without the necessity of perception.
fair
>cont'd
>>469156
>>468801
>cont'd
>Regardless the other thing I'd add is that perception, being relative to the observer, creates with it a scale, so to speak, of known being which is relative to the object of being.
Not sure what you mean hear, I suspect you may be using “relative” in place of “contingent”.
>So to give an example of what I mean. A thought can be. For a thought to be, and that being to be known, what is required? Since a thought is immaterial and exists only within a single person, the only direct perception of it is within the perceiver.
It rather frustrates me that you use “perception” with thoughts.
>So if the perceiver perceives a thought, this thought has achieved being to the highest degree. The more that an object can be perceived, the higher burden of perception that is required for it to achieve this degree of being.
You’ve confused me senpai
>>468819
Existence is a prerequisite quality for being, but being is not for existence. Therefore, something can not both ~exist and be.
>>469177
would you say "being" means the same as "agency"? I apologize for the misunderstanding, i wasn't talking about agency at all, strictly existence.
