Author Topic: The Spirit Carries On........  (Read 2125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2014, 07:54:59 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2014, 07:56:43 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2014, 08:02:53 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2014, 08:09:22 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.

By saying H existed 5 minutes ago, and H existed now, you cant say he is fully existing now.   H cant fully exist now if H also existed 5 minutes ago.  You can say that a temporal part of H existed 5 minutes ago, and a temporal part of H exists now, and a temporal part of H will exist 5 minutes from now.  They are all different because each H is different than the other.  Different parts, different experiences, feelings, etc.

If you went back in time, would you be the H now or the H from then?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2014, 08:11:03 PM »
I am not clear as to what you mean by "alteration of properties" and how it is different from other changes
I am distinguishing between parts and properties. Parts constitute aggregates. So the parts of a table are the fundamental particles that make it up, and perhaps their arrangement.

Properties, however, do not constitute the table. They are just things that the table has. For example, the table has the properties being wooden, being round-topped, being flat-surfaced. But those are not parts of the table, those are just properties.

With the self, what I am concluding from the phenomenology of endurance is that the self has no parts. And so, the self cannot undergo part replacement, as it literally has no parts. But it can gain or lose properties (being tired, being happy), because those properties are not constituents of the self; they are just contingent properties had by the self.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2014, 08:11:37 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

No, I'm saying that you still retain enough qualities of H to be called H, but you are not identical to the H at t1.

Like the nicked table still qualifies as a table, but is simultaneously different than it was before it was nicked.

-J

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2014, 08:13:47 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.

By saying H existed 5 minutes ago, and H existed now, you cant say he is fully existing now.   H cant fully exist now if H also existed 5 minutes ago.  You can say that a temporal part of H existed 5 minutes ago, and a temporal part of H exists now, and a temporal part of H will exist 5 minutes from now.  They are all different because each H is different than the other.  Different parts, different experiences, feelings, etc.

If you went back in time, would you be the H now or the H from then?
I mean, I don't think going back in time is even possible for reasons like these. But I would say that H-five-minutes-ago fully existed at that time, but that time is now gone, so H-now fully exists at this time. This is because all that exists is the present, in my view.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2014, 08:14:54 PM »
I am not clear as to what you mean by "alteration of properties" and how it is different from other changes
I am distinguishing between parts and properties. Parts constitute aggregates. So the parts of a table are the fundamental particles that make it up, and perhaps their arrangement.

Properties, however, do not constitute the table. They are just things that the table has. For example, the table has the properties being wooden, being round-topped, being flat-surfaced. But those are not parts of the table, those are just properties.

With the self, what I am concluding from the phenomenology of endurance is that the self has no parts. And so, the self cannot undergo part replacement, as it literally has no parts. But it can gain or lose properties (being tired, being happy), because those properties are not constituents of the self; they are just contingent properties had by the self.

Why cant experiences be considered parts to the identity or self?  I see no reason that your definition of parts require it to be physical?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2014, 08:16:12 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

No, I'm saying that you still retain enough qualities of H to be called H, but you are not identical to the H at t1.

Like the nicked table still qualifies as a table, but is simultaneously different than it was before it was nicked.

-J
Then let's distinguish between functional identity and metaphysical identity. You could say that the unnicked table is functionally identical to the nicked table, sure. But I'm more interested in what's really going on at the deepest level, the metaphysical identity. In this case, the unnicked table is not really identical to the nicked table.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2014, 08:17:38 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.

By saying H existed 5 minutes ago, and H existed now, you cant say he is fully existing now.   H cant fully exist now if H also existed 5 minutes ago.  You can say that a temporal part of H existed 5 minutes ago, and a temporal part of H exists now, and a temporal part of H will exist 5 minutes from now.  They are all different because each H is different than the other.  Different parts, different experiences, feelings, etc.

If you went back in time, would you be the H now or the H from then?
I mean, I don't think going back in time is even possible for reasons like these. But I would say that H-five-minutes-ago fully existed at that time, but that time is now gone, so H-now fully exists at this time. This is because all that exists is the present, in my view.

You cant fully exist at separate points in time or space.  That is not endurance.  If you want to exist at separate points, then that requires separate parts.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2014, 08:17:50 PM »
I am not clear as to what you mean by "alteration of properties" and how it is different from other changes
I am distinguishing between parts and properties. Parts constitute aggregates. So the parts of a table are the fundamental particles that make it up, and perhaps their arrangement.

Properties, however, do not constitute the table. They are just things that the table has. For example, the table has the properties being wooden, being round-topped, being flat-surfaced. But those are not parts of the table, those are just properties.

With the self, what I am concluding from the phenomenology of endurance is that the self has no parts. And so, the self cannot undergo part replacement, as it literally has no parts. But it can gain or lose properties (being tired, being happy), because those properties are not constituents of the self; they are just contingent properties had by the self.

Why cant experiences be considered parts to the identity or self?  I see no reason that your definition of parts require it to be physical?
I agree that parts don't necessarily have to be physical. What I would say is that experiences are properties, not parts. (And I would say that because I am wooed by the intuition that I endure.)
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2014, 08:18:30 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.

By saying H existed 5 minutes ago, and H existed now, you cant say he is fully existing now.   H cant fully exist now if H also existed 5 minutes ago.  You can say that a temporal part of H existed 5 minutes ago, and a temporal part of H exists now, and a temporal part of H will exist 5 minutes from now.  They are all different because each H is different than the other.  Different parts, different experiences, feelings, etc.

If you went back in time, would you be the H now or the H from then?
I mean, I don't think going back in time is even possible for reasons like these. But I would say that H-five-minutes-ago fully existed at that time, but that time is now gone, so H-now fully exists at this time. This is because all that exists is the present, in my view.

You cant fully exist at separate points in time or space.  That is not endurance.
Yeah but those other points in time don't exist!
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2014, 08:21:59 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

Yeah.

Then how can you exist at other points in time if you wholly exist in that one point in time?
That's a whole new can of worms! But I think that I can exist fully in the present because the present is all there really is. The past and future don't really exist.

So points in time before now did not exist?

Then how could the H from 5 minutes ago be identical to the H now?
The past did exist (past tense), the future will exist (future tense), but the present is the only thing that presently exists (tautologous as that sounds). So I would say that H-five-minutes-ago existed five minutes ago, and H-now exists now. But it is the same H.

By saying H existed 5 minutes ago, and H existed now, you cant say he is fully existing now.   H cant fully exist now if H also existed 5 minutes ago.  You can say that a temporal part of H existed 5 minutes ago, and a temporal part of H exists now, and a temporal part of H will exist 5 minutes from now.  They are all different because each H is different than the other.  Different parts, different experiences, feelings, etc.

If you went back in time, would you be the H now or the H from then?
I mean, I don't think going back in time is even possible for reasons like these. But I would say that H-five-minutes-ago fully existed at that time, but that time is now gone, so H-now fully exists at this time. This is because all that exists is the present, in my view.

You cant fully exist at separate points in time or space.  That is not endurance.
Yeah but those other points in time don't exist!

So how do you have memories of that past time?  Wouldnt your experience of that time cease to exist along with that time?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2014, 08:23:25 PM »
My memory states themselves are in the present, and they are of the past. But that doesn't mean that the past exists.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2014, 08:33:46 PM »
My memory states themselves are in the present, and they are of the past. But that doesn't mean that the past exists.

From an article I read.  I am not well versed in this subject (or philosophy in general) enough to paraphrase it myself:


To exist wholly in a moment is precisely to not exist at any other moment, so such "endurance" is impossible. The endurantist doesn't want to say that all of the object's temporal parts are present. So they must deny that it has any temporal parts at all. Yet such claims are hopeless, for "what is to prevent us from considering the object as it is at a single moment, and then denominating that aspect of it as a temporal part?"

Velleman goes on to explain the illusion of endurance as arising from the structure of first-personal experience and memory. We think of ourselves as momentary objects, but there is a conflation of the remembered and remembering selves in memory. This contrasts with other forms of imaginative representation, as when "[you say] Ive imagined I am the birthday boy, where the the first occurrence of I refers to you but the second refers to him." When Velleman himself remembers being the birthday boy, he automatically conflates the two 'I's, leading to the incoherent notion that these two momentary selves, existing at different moments, could somehow be one and the same momentary self. Or, as he describes the conflicting intuitions:
I am tempted to say that all of my temporal parts are present at a single point in time because I tend to think of myself as my present self a momentary subject whose existence is indeed complete in the here-and-now. I am tempted to say that I nevertheless persist through time because I tend to think of this self, complete in the moment, as nevertheless existing at other moments.

« Last Edit: November 13, 2014, 08:42:18 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2014, 09:06:17 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

No, I'm saying that you still retain enough qualities of H to be called H, but you are not identical to the H at t1.

Like the nicked table still qualifies as a table, but is simultaneously different than it was before it was nicked.

-J
Then let's distinguish between functional identity and metaphysical identity. You could say that the unnicked table is functionally identical to the nicked table, sure. But I'm more interested in what's really going on at the deepest level, the metaphysical identity. In this case, the unnicked table is not really identical to the nicked table.

Fair enough.  But then how could the H at t1 be identical to the H at t2?

It seems to be less of an issue concerning the type of identity being discussed, but rather that the concept of identity itself is a little self-contradictory.

-J

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2014, 09:14:02 PM »
You're still H but you're a slightly different H
That seems incoherent to me. It is like saying H1=H2 and H1=/=H2

No, I'm saying that you still retain enough qualities of H to be called H, but you are not identical to the H at t1.

Like the nicked table still qualifies as a table, but is simultaneously different than it was before it was nicked.

-J
Then let's distinguish between functional identity and metaphysical identity. You could say that the unnicked table is functionally identical to the nicked table, sure. But I'm more interested in what's really going on at the deepest level, the metaphysical identity. In this case, the unnicked table is not really identical to the nicked table.

But that lends itself to H at t1 not being the same as H at t2, as H as changed because he is fundamentally different.  He has acquired new experiences, knowledge, skills, pain, etc.  You may not want to think of them as parts (they certainly can be), but those have changed H at some level, maybe even the deepest level.

Anyway, Thanks H for the great discussion, I learned a lot.
I am going to bed.  I will catch up with you tomorrow...when I am a different E at t2 than I am E at tnow.   ;)
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12892
  • Gender: Male
  • Tordenperle krall. Literally.
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2014, 10:14:20 PM »
BTW....to answer Zook's question.    I don't know where the idea of "all souls go to heaven" comes from...because the Bible simply *does not* teach that.

However, it does say that there will be "kings and priests" ruling from heaven over the earth...so those that do go there will be a ruling class that God has chosen.  But since people were created to live here on the earth, almost everyone does NOT go to heaven, but will live here on earth, doing the things we love, living under the conditions God originally intended....not the death pain and suffering we have under this wicked world that is controlled by others.

Well what the f**k is god waiting for?  Can he please get that sh*t done before I have to go back to work on monday?


Soon.   

 :angel:

:soon:


Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2014, 11:51:57 PM »
My memory states themselves are in the present, and they are of the past. But that doesn't mean that the past exists.

From an article I read.  I am not well versed in this subject (or philosophy in general) enough to paraphrase it myself:


To exist wholly in a moment is precisely to not exist at any other moment, so such "endurance" is impossible. The endurantist doesn't want to say that all of the object's temporal parts are present. So they must deny that it has any temporal parts at all. Yet such claims are hopeless, for "what is to prevent us from considering the object as it is at a single moment, and then denominating that aspect of it as a temporal part?"

Velleman goes on to explain the illusion of endurance as arising from the structure of first-personal experience and memory. We think of ourselves as momentary objects, but there is a conflation of the remembered and remembering selves in memory. This contrasts with other forms of imaginative representation, as when "[you say] Ive imagined I am the birthday boy, where the the first occurrence of I refers to you but the second refers to him." When Velleman himself remembers being the birthday boy, he automatically conflates the two 'I's, leading to the incoherent notion that these two momentary selves, existing at different moments, could somehow be one and the same momentary self. Or, as he describes the conflicting intuitions:
I am tempted to say that all of my temporal parts are present at a single point in time because I tend to think of myself as my present self a momentary subject whose existence is indeed complete in the here-and-now. I am tempted to say that I nevertheless persist through time because I tend to think of this self, complete in the moment, as nevertheless existing at other moments.


Great talkin', Eric. What this person is accusing endurantists of is uttering a contradiction. Both: (1) I fully exist in the present, and (2) I exist at every moment of time. The solution to this (apparent) problem is very technical, but I will do my best.

The question is how to best affirm (2). First, is the word "exist" used to mean "exist presently" or is it used to mean "exist [timelessly]"? Second, how should "every moment of time" be understood?

If "every moment of time" commits you to the existence of the past and future, then clearly this is going to lend itself to perdurantism and not endurantism, for now you are just a collection of 3-dimensional "time-slices" stretched across time like a worm. This interpretation of (2) would be rejected by the endurantist.

But if (2) can be reworded to mean something like, "Whenever I exist, I exist fully," then this is compatible with endurantism, because there is only one moment of your existence at any given time - the present, which is always moving forward.

I don't think my answer is going to completely satisfy you, Eric, partially because I just don't have the skill to express these complicated semantics. There are definitely great books you could read about all this, and they probe deeply into the dialectic. Michael Loux's Metaphysics introductory text is very solid, as is E.J. Lowe's introductory text. And, if you're able to stomach books coming from a Christian perspective, William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity is written for people who lack familiarity with these issues (and it's cheaper, too).
« Last Edit: November 13, 2014, 11:59:44 PM by Ħ »
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2014, 04:21:47 AM »
Thanks for the response and suggested reading, but I simply do not have the time to dive any deeper.  I really think my views are best represented by purdurance.  We will just agree to disagree, but thanks for the great discussion...I have learned a lot and have a lot to think about.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5208
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2014, 10:25:49 PM »
Okay...I'll hop in. Using the analogy of identical tables, no two tables are exactly identical. Even if they are constructed the same, with the same type of material. They each use their own unique materials in their construction so they are not ''the same". They can then be altered. You can paint, varnish, put tin on their surface, carve your initials into them- but they are the same ''original' table that was made. Even once altered to become table Y, it at one time was table X. People I believe are the same. While we can undergo changes based on life experience- we are still the person we were born as. Much like layers of paint on a table. We can be altered- but we're still the same. If you believe in a soul (which I do), no matter the changes that occur throughout ones life, it (the soul) never changes.
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline Randaran

  • Posts: 1100
  • Gender: Male
  • The Fate of Destruction is also the Joy of Rebirth
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2014, 04:28:33 PM »
I am distinguishing between parts and properties. Parts constitute aggregates. So the parts of a table are the fundamental particles that make it up, and perhaps their arrangement.

Properties, however, do not constitute the table. They are just things that the table has. For example, the table has the properties being wooden, being round-topped, being flat-surfaced. But those are not parts of the table, those are just properties.

With the self, what I am concluding from the phenomenology of endurance is that the self has no parts. And so, the self cannot undergo part replacement, as it literally has no parts. But it can gain or lose properties (being tired, being happy), because those properties are not constituents of the self; they are just contingent properties had by the self.

But aren't properties reliant on the parts that make it up? For example, many of water's properties, such as adhesion, cohesion, and its designation as the universal solvent, arise as a result of its polar molecular structure. So saying that something can gain or lose properties without any alterations to its parts, or even have properties in the absense of parts, seems nonsensical.
Only a prog fan would try to measure how much they enjoy a song by an equation. :lol
My anime can beat up your anime.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2014, 04:53:26 PM »
Perhaps properties of aggregates are reliant on the parts that make up the aggregate. But that can't be said of atomic simples, like the fundamental particles of nature, or selves, in my view. Because simples don't have parts, by definition.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Randaran

  • Posts: 1100
  • Gender: Male
  • The Fate of Destruction is also the Joy of Rebirth
Re: The Spirit Carries On........
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2014, 05:16:47 PM »
Perhaps properties of aggregates are reliant on the parts that make up the aggregate. But that can't be said of atomic simples, like the fundamental particles of nature, or selves, in my view. Because simples don't have parts, by definition.

Alright, thanks for clarifying. I felt as though I was missing something.

The differences in our positions seem to arise from our views of the self. So we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Only a prog fan would try to measure how much they enjoy a song by an equation. :lol
My anime can beat up your anime.