From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 03:57:14 MST
[Blunderov]
I think it was Parmenides who formalized the rule that 'nothing comes
from nothing' (ex nihilo nihil fit). IM(V)HO Plato may have
misunderstood Parmenides argument when he said (if I recall correctly)
that this must imply that nothing could change; my understanding of
Parmenides is that he said everything that exists, has always existed. I
do not understand him to mean that 'existence' is synonymous with
'form'.
The thought strikes me that 'nothing comes from nothing' may offer a
litmus-test in the problem of how to discriminate between abstract and
concrete. How about the proposition that: if a thing can be described as
having the ability to increase without this increase being at the
expense of some other thing, then that concept is an abstract concept?
For instance is it possible that we can imagine more 'love' in the world
without it being at the expense of something else? Quite easily it seems
to me. Abstract.
Likewise with 'information'.
Conversely, is it possible to imagine more chairs in the world without
them being at the expense of some other thing. Well, no. Concrete.
I ran into a bit of a difficulty with 'chastity'. I'm not too sure
whether chastity wouldn't be at the expense of 'sex' and vice versa,
although I suspect that this may not be necessarily true. I can't make
up my mind as to whether this falsifies my notion or not.
(Much more likely is that I have overlooked some completely obvious
falsification.)
Any thoughts?
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 27 2004 - 03:58:22 MST