Merkwurdichliebe

That is a nice point. But, let me propose a few more things: I would say that thinking is dependent on existence, and for the existing thinker, "exist...

That is what empiricism attempts. Of course it has been completely debunked, so you are probably right. And Nietschze point this out in his own partic...

Wait a second, I think you are setting me up. I'm gonna assert something that doesn't exist, and you are going to tell me how the non-existing thing d...

This is getting more into epistemology, where the real meat of the relative-absolute dichotomy is. It is much easier to prove the relativism of knowle...

The key here, is that language allows me to communicate my abstract, non-linguistic ideas about existence. Prior to this, any notion of existence is p...

I just wanted to be difficult, and say: "that which is nonexistent is probably a broader more general concept". :blush: But, in all "seriously", exist...

Yes. That's probably better. And I would add, any 'existenstential dependency upon other things' indicates a relation. ...and, If it is correct to pre...

Yes it does. And the more we discuss this, the more it appears that many of those external elements that are necessary to a thing's existence include ...

You always help me. :up: I'm sure it could be stated better. But it still holds. Now I will try to help you understand. If we consider that the extern...

...

That works too.

Like gravity, right? We only infer its existence indirectly through the observation of other things that are affected by it. Nevertheless, it still re...

One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer.

You have no argument against my line of thought. Every point you have made, I have shown to be confused and mistaken. So it is to be expected that you...

Oh Banno, you goof you. Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you just altering my words so you have something to argue about? It's qui...

Actually, simpler. I'm saying the tree is dependent upon water which it does not provide for itself.

Another one bites the dust. :cool:

Where does water come from? The tree?

But the conditions for a tree can be easily enumerated. It is sensical. The conditions for "existence is blue" are ridiculous, nonsensical. There is a...

But we are talking about existence. So how is it not "bound up" in language?

Then you agree that a tree provides it's own water. Peculiar. I wonder how that happens.

Is a tree dependent on water for its existence? Does a tree provide it's own water?

It's easy to disagree with a statement when you mutilate it into something absurd.

Never mind, I know you won't/can't.

So there are no conditions that are required for the existence of a tree? Explain yourself

No. That is not what I said. At best, its is a poor poor translation. Best to stick verbatim.

Discarding has no comparison to refutation when it comes to argument. Discarding is a cowardly retreat

You don't want my pearl necklace? But it is the Queen's jewel. :kiss:

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence.

Fresco says it is not a noun. What is it? :chin:

That argument is impotent, it will convince no one.

You are correct. Psychology is fundamentally phenomenological.

Any psychological context has to do with cognitive immediacy, like "my toe itches".

It is definitely vague. But you know what its getting at. And what it is getting at is spot on.

That is also a very good point to consider. Language is certainly not existence as such. Yet each are it intrinsically bound up in the other. Language...

I referred to the psychological context of "existence". I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its r...

I can roll with that. Does this mean that fresco is correct in saying: ???

But even if the topic lies outside of those grammatical spaces, those grammatical spaces do little to discount the outlying grammatical spaces in whic...

It's like a fractal - however we magnify our cognition, the same pattern keeps appearing. That is where propositional logic has its merits, it explain...

Interesting. Could you please elaborate?

Language becomes essentially meaningless and useless in the absence of linguistic thought, which is dependent on an existing thinker. Yes, we are not ...

Good for English. But this is philosophy, and in philosophy, "exist" is likely to be asserted as a fancy word for "is" or "to be".

I have done very little, and already shown its usefulness. Also , what you say presupposes that usefulness is what we should be aiming at, and that's ...

If asking those questions is nonsense, then so is philosophy. Although such epistemological/metaphysical concerns may have no practical or ethical app...

The natural tree is physically dependent upon many factors (water and light amongst the basic). The conditions that allow for the possibility of a tre...

Exactly. Let me add: we can never answer the question independent of our own percipience, which suggests that existence for us is relative. But when y...

"True" is a much more problematic term than "necessary". And I could swear you were the one talking against muddling things up?

My argument is that the question: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?" makes sense, and can be answer sensically. Whereas, the question: "is exist...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

How so? Could you please elaborate? Modal logic or not, to ask: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?" is nothing like asking: "is existence red?"