budaatum:



Then stop with the gods, why don't you please! You are after all the one introducing it when you claim this no-thing is somehow responsible for some-thing.

Oh, and don't make me laugh to death by trying to educate buda about atum. It's like a child trying to teach its grandma to suck eggs!

I’m not introducing any gods.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept, i only talked on it.

I was only talking about the chaos gods which influenced the genesis creation story.

Nun = the deep

Huh = the earth that is ‘formless and void’

Kuk = darkness

Amun = spirit (or wind)

budaatum:


No it is not "an analogy explaining what plato said"! It is an analogy you are using to try to explain what you think Plato said. And Plato said it's exact opposite.

😂
According to Plato, objects in the physical world are mere imperfect copies or reflections of ideal Forms that exist in a realm of pure being. In this context, he argues that change involves a transition from a state of non-being to being, or from a state of imperfection to perfection.

for an object going from a state of rest to motion. Plato would argue that for this transition to occur, the object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality). In other words, the object must actualize its potential for motion. This transition represents a change or transformation that requires the object to go from a state of non-motion to motion.

in the analogy of a lake and a stream.

Imagine a serene lake surrounded by mountains. It represents a state of rest or stillness. The water in the lake is calm, undisturbed, and in a state of non-motion. If we want to introduce change and transition the water from a state of rest to motion, we can think of a stream flowing out of the lake.

As the stream begins to flow, the water in the lake undergoes a transformation. It moves from a state of non-being (the calm water in the lake) to being (the flowing water in the stream). This transition involves a change in the state of the water—its location, speed, and direction.

In this analogy, the lake represents the initial state of rest, and the stream represents the subsequent state of motion. The transition between the two involves a change in the water's properties and characteristics, just as Plato suggests.

Maynmaynmayn:

I’m not introducing any gods.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept, i only talked on it.

Stop talking on it! Unless you are a theist yourself. I don't give a flying fuq about what some dumb "theistic concept" is when it comes to our current conversation because it is an irrelevant stupid concept!

budaatum:


Stop talking on it! Unless you are a theist yourself. I don't give a flying fuq about what some dumb "theistic concept" is when it comes to our current conversation because it is an irrelevant stupid concept!

Our current conversation is on creation from Nothing and nothing from Nothing.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept.

Talking about theism doesn’t make one a theist.

Maynmaynmayn:
Plato would argue that for this transition to occur, the object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality).

And Plato would be correct since the lake must move from non-being a lake to being a stream.

Therefore the (some-thing) stream comes out of the (some-thing) lake, which is clearly not not-thing.

In fact, some-thing force must act on the some-thing that is a lake to make it non-being a lake and to change into a some-thing being a stream. So, 3 some-thing's are actually involved, the lake, the stream, and the force that causes the transition. Newton's First Law!

budaatum:


And Plato would be correct since the lake must move from non-being a lake to being a stream.

Therefore the (some-thing) stream comes out of the (some-thing) lake, which is clearly not not-thing.

In fact, some-thing force must act on the some-thing that is a lake to make it non-being a lake and to change into a some-thing being a stream. So, 3 some-thing's are actually involved, the lake, the stream, and the force that causes the transition. Newton's First Law!

In this analogy, the lake represents the initial state of rest, and the stream represents the subsequent state of motion. The transition between the two involves a change in the water's properties and characteristics, just as Plato suggests.
The Lake and Streams contain the same elements.

Plato said object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality). In other words, the object must actualize its potential for motion. This transition represents a change or transformation that requires the object to go from a state of non-motion to motion.

Maynmaynmayn:

Our current conversation is on creation from Nothing and nothing from Nothing.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept.

Talking about theism doesn’t make one a theist.

Hello Mayn. This is buda. The buda you very well know can talk theistically even though an anti-theist.

Creation from nothing is false and there is no point me talking about it. A thing created or emerging or transitioning from nothing is even more false and stupid as I've explained in numerous posts already. But for some reason you keep insisting on it like you don't understand a word I've been saying.

budaatum:


Hello Mayn. This is buda. The buda you very well know can talk theistically even though an anti-theist.

Creation from nothing is false and there is no point me talking about it. A thing created or emerging or transitioning from nothing is even more false and stupid as I've explained in numerous posts already. But for some reason you keep insisting on it like you don't understand a word I've been saying.

I never said nothing “created” something.

Maynmaynmayn:

In this analogy, the lake represents the initial state of rest, and the stream represents the subsequent state of motion. The transition between the two involves a change in the water's properties and characteristics, just as Plato suggests.
The Lake and Streams contain the same elements.

Plato said object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality). In other words, the object must actualize its potential for motion. This transition represents a change or transformation that requires the object to go from a state of non-motion to motion.

False!

Plato said object must move in to a state of non-being (what it is) to fulfil the potential of what it becomes.

A body remains at rest being as it is without fulfilling any potential until a force acts on it to make it non-being what it is so it can fulfils is potential of becoming what it will become.

Take the lake. Left by itself it remains a lake. But when the force of additional water interacts with the lake and fills it to a stage where it flows, or if some idiot blows up a dam that stopped the water in the lake from flowing, you'd get a stream, or a flood.

Maynmaynmayn:

I never said nothing “created” something.

Really? I suggest you go back and read what you've been saying means.

At one point you were even arguing that the lake the stream came out was nothing, and thought that's what Plato said.

Maynmaynmayn:

I told you the analogy of Nothing “creating” something can be liken to a Lake “creating” Streams, they are distinct but the streams emerges from the Lake, it contains the same elements as the Lake.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is different from “creation from Nothing”.

budaatum:


False!

Plato said object must move in to a state of non-being (what it is) to fulfil the potential of what it becomes.

A body remains at rest being as it is without fulfilling any potential until a force acts on it to make it non-being what it is so it can fulfils is potential of becoming what it will become.

Take the lake. Left by itself it remains a lake. But when the force of additional water interacts with the lake and fills it to a stage where it flows, or if some idiot blows up a dam that stopped the water in the lake from flowing, you'd get a stream, or a flood.

No, Plato did not argue that objects must move into a state of non-being to fulfill their potential. Rather, Plato's concept of change, as described in his philosophy of Forms, involves a transition from a state of imperfection to perfection, or from a less real or less ideal state to a more real or more ideal state.

budaatum:


Really? I suggest you go back and read what you've been saying means.

At one point you were even arguing that the lake the stream came out was nothing, and thought that's what Plato said.

I never said such.
The lake and streams are analogy, i said that repeatedly.

Maynmaynmayn:

No, Plato did not argue that objects must move into a state of non-being to fulfill their potential. Rather, Plato's concept of change, as described in his philosophy of Forms, involves a transition from a state of imperfection to perfection, or from a less real or less ideal state to a more real or more ideal state.

Mayn. That "transition from a state of imperfection to perfection", is precisely what is meant by a thing becoming non-being what it was to become whatever it becomes.

It's after all not the case that a lake is in a state of imperfection and only becomes perfect when it changes into the state of being a stream.

The lake can be a perfect lake, if there could said to be any such thing, and the stream can be a perfect stream. But there is absolutely no way that a lake, perfect or imperfect can become a perfect or imperfect stream. Or do you think there is?

Maynmaynmayn:

I never said such.
The lake and streams are analogy, i said that repeatedly.

Then you must have been mixing up your analogies, because what you are trying to analogise it to mean just doesn't add up.

budaatum:


Mayn. That "transition from a state of imperfection to perfection", is precisely what is meant by a thing becoming non-being what it was to become whatever it becomes.

It's after all not the case that a lake is in a state of imperfection and only becomes perfect when it changes into the state of being a stream.

The lake can be a perfect lake, if there could said to be any such thing, and the stream can be a perfect stream. But there is absolutely no way that a lake, perfect or imperfect can become a perfect or imperfect stream. Or do you think there is?

Plato's philosophy the movement from a state of imperfection to perfection, but he did not frame it in terms of a transition into non-being.

Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused on the movement of objects in the physical world towards their ideal Forms. The imperfect physical objects are considered reflections or copies of these perfect Forms. Change, for Plato, involves the process of approaching the ideal, moving from a lesser or imperfect state to a more perfect state.

budaatum:


Then you must have been mixing up your analogies, because what you are trying to analogise it to mean just doesn't add up.

Yes, they are analogies

Maynmaynmayn:

Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused.......

Who the fuq has ever been bold enough to claim that they have a clue what Plato understood or what Plato's focus was? Are you aware how much he wrote, and how diverse and interconnected his writings were? The world is so still trying to figure out what Plato understood and focused on that you don't even get to study his works until you start a first degree, and even then you are only getting a syllabus of Plato. To have a clue is years of personal study after uni. And even then you "focus" on a small part of Plato unless you PhD. And Mayn is telling buda "Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." Lol.

Plato's "Ideal Form" εἶδος (eidos) originally meant "visible form", as in, the form that you see before your eyes here and now.

We see a lake. The lake is being a lake. The lake is being the perfect ideal form lake because it has completely gone through the process of fulfilling its potential of being a lake and arrived at being in the ideal form of the visible lake that we see.

Then something interacts with the lake such that part of the lake is no more the lake that we saw. It is an imperfect form of that lake. A lesser form of the ideal form of the lake that it was because it is going through the process of non-being the ideal form of that lake and is approaching the fulfilment of its potential to become visible in the ideal form of something else.

When the non-being lake has completely gone through the process of fulfilling the potential of the ideal being that it shall become by first becoming the imperfect lesser non-being of that lake that we saw, that thing will become it's own ideal form of being the perfect visibly stream that we now see

Now, say in the future sometime something interacts with the ideal form of the perfect stream that we have been seeing such that part of the stream is not the stream that we had been seeing anymore but a lesser imperfect stream of the stream that we saw. A non-stream of that stream so to speak, because it has begun to start to go through the process of fulfilling the potential of becoming something else, which could be a flood if more water, or a desert if less. But not a car nor a bird, because streams don't have the potential to become birds or cars. And when the stream that we saw has completely gone through the process of becoming the imperfect lesser non-being form of that stream that we had been seen, it shall become visible in its perfect ideal form of the something else that it had the potential to become and that we now see.

"Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." on buda's ass!

budaatum:


Who the fuq has ever been bold enough to claim that they have a clue what Plato understood or what Plato's focus was? Are you aware how much he wrote, and how diverse and interconnected his writings were? The world is so still trying to figure out what Plato understood and focused on that you don't even get to study his works until you start a first degree, and even then you are only getting a syllabus of Plato. To have a clue is years of personal study after uni. And even then you "focus" on a small part of Plato unless you PhD. And Mayn is telling buda "Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." Lol.

Plato's "Ideal Form" εἶδος (eidos) originally meant "visible form", as in, the form that you see before your eyes here and now.

We see a lake. The lake is being a lake. The lake is being the perfect ideal form lake because it has completely gone through the process of fulfilling its potential of being a lake and arrived at being in the ideal form of the visible lake that we see.

Then something interacts with the lake such that part of the lake is no more the lake that we saw. It is an imperfect form of that lake. A lesser form of the ideal form of the lake that it was because it is going through the process of non-being the ideal form of that lake and is approaching the fulfilment of its potential to become visible in the ideal form of something else.

When the non-being lake has completely gone through the process of fulfilling the potential of the ideal being that it shall become by first becoming the imperfect lesser non-being of that lake that we saw, that thing will become it's own ideal form of being the perfect visibly stream that we now see

Now, say in the future sometime something interacts with the ideal form of the perfect stream that we have been seeing such that part of the stream is not the stream that we had been seeing anymore but a lesser imperfect stream of the stream that we saw. A non-stream of that stream so to speak, because it has begun to start to go through the process of fulfilling the potential of becoming something else, which could be a flood if more water, or a desert if less. But not a car nor a bird, because streams don't have the potential to become birds or cars. And when the stream that we saw has completely gone through the process of becoming the imperfect lesser non-being form of that stream that we had been seen, it shall become visible in its perfect ideal form of the something else that it had the potential to become and that we now see.

"Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." on buda's ass!

Actually, the term εἶδος (eidos) in Plato's philosophy does not originally mean "visible form" in the sense of something that can be seen with the physical eyes. In Plato's theory of forms, εἶδος refers to the "ideal form" or "universal form" of something, which is an abstract and perfect concept that exists beyond the physical world.

According to Plato, the physical world is characterized by imperfections and constant change. He believed that behind the imperfect and ever-changing physical objects and phenomena, there exists a realm of eternal and unchanging forms. These forms are the true reality and the objects in the physical world are mere imperfect copies or reflections of these ideal forms.

For example, Plato argued that there is an ideal form of a tree that exists independently of any particular tree in the physical world. The physical trees that we see are imperfect representations of this ideal form of a tree. The ideal form of a tree is unchanging and eternal, whereas physical trees can grow, wither, and change over time.

So, in Plato's philosophy, εἶδος (eidos) does not refer to the visible form that you see before your eyes here and now, but rather to the abstract and perfect form that exists beyond the physical realm.

Maynmaynmayn:

The ideal form of a tree is unchanging and eternal, whereas physical trees can grow, wither, and change over time.

So, in Plato's philosophy, εἶδος (eidos) does not refer to the visible form that you see before your eyes here and now, but rather to the abstract and perfect form that exists beyond the physical realm.

The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, in the dialogue Parmenides, Socrates states: "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed".

That is Plato for you, one day here one day there, and everyone with their own understanding and interpretation. Plato himself would have made Socrates say, "There can not be one ideal form of all lakes. Each lake or stream or something would have to have it's own ideal form of its own perfect self in the real physical realm", because Socrates did not believe in non-physical worlds that can't be shown to him.

budaatum:


The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, in the dialogue Parmenides, Socrates states: "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed".

That is Plato for you, one day here one day there, and everyone with their own understanding and interpretation. Plato himself would have made Socrates say, "There can not be one ideal form of all lakes. Each lake or stream or something would have to have it's own ideal form of its own perfect self in the real physical realm", because Socrates did not believe in non-physical worlds that can't be shown to him.

According to Plato, the Forms exist as ideal, eternal, and unchanging entities that are separate from the physical world, they are not lakes and chairs. These Forms represent the ultimate reality and serve as the perfect and unchanging blueprints or essences of things in the physical realm. For example, there is an ideal Form of a chair that embodies the perfect essence of "chairness," which all physical chairs in the world merely imitate or participate in to varying degrees.

Plato's solution to the problem of universals is known as the theory of Forms or the theory of Ideas. He posited that the physical objects we encounter in the world are imperfect copies or reflections of the Forms. The Forms themselves exist in a separate realm of existence, accessible only through philosophical contemplation and reasoning.

In the dialogue Parmenides, Plato explores the nature of the Forms and their relationship to the physical world. The passage you mentioned refers to the challenge of reconciling the idea that the Forms are both singular and multiple. Plato suggests that if someone were to demonstrate that the absolute One (referring to the Form of the One) is also Many or that the absolute Many (referring to the Form of the Many) is also One, it would be truly astonishing to him.


Your screenshot is like “the Republic”.

Mayn, I think you'd agree that you and buda have found a decent and suitable level at last.

May we always rise above it.

Some curiosities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

Maynmann:

I think it is the definition of “nothing” here.
The gensis creation story is gotten from earlier sources, Egyptians, babylonian, Mesopotamia all pointing to nothing from nothing.
If you look at the genesis story there was no mention of what created “the deep” which was formless and void.
The 4 chaos gods compare to the genesis story.
Nun = the deep

Huh = the earth that is ‘formless and void’

Kuk = darkness

Amun = spirit (or wind).

And if you look at the genesis creation story, the elohims “made” heaven and earth from this formless water, “watery chaos”.
I’m referring to nothing as this watery chaos.

You're getting there..

Lols

correctguy101:


You're getting there..

Lols

Really

Maynmann:

Really

Yes my gee...

You'll soon learn to close one eye to everything you see, or hear that's if you already haven't gotten there..

Then Mighty Mr Indifference will embrace you...

SMH

correctguy101:


Yes my gee...

You'll soon learn to close one eye to everything you see, or hear that's if you already haven't gotten there..

Then Mighty Mr Indifference will embrace you...

SMH

Only a fool does that, eyes and ears are there for a reason.
Do you yourself use this advice?

“Mr Indifference”? The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

Baby food!

Maynmann:

Only a fool does that, eyes and ears are there for a reason.
Do you yourself use this advice?

“Mr Indifference”? The opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

Baby food!

Oh.

Closing one eye on some matters makes a person a fool? Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand what you meant.

Eyes and ears are there for what reason really? To see and hear, not exactly to judge anybody's reaction to whatever it is they see or hear. If you feel different, it's also okay.., (if you know what I mean by saying it's also okay, lols)

And I suspect you might have a point by saying the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. I think you do....

I'm liking your direction of thought when you spoke about the Almighty Nothing...

Lols

correctguy101:


Oh.

Closing one eye on some matters makes a person a fool? Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand what you meant.

Eyes and ears are there for what reason really? To see and hear, not exactly to judge anybody's reaction to whatever it is they see or hear. If you feel different, it's also okay.., (if you know what I mean by saying it's also okay, lols)

And I suspect you might have a point by saying the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. I think you do....

I'm liking your direction of thought when you spoke about the Almighty Nothing...

Lols

Where did you come from...

I have not seen you in the thread you asked me to create...

correctguy101:


Oh.

Closing one eye on some matters makes a person a fool? Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand what you meant.

Eyes and ears are there for what reason really? To see and hear, not exactly to judge anybody's reaction to whatever it is they see or hear. If you feel different, it's also okay.., (if you know what I mean by saying it's also okay, lols)

And I suspect you might have a point by saying the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. I think you do....

I'm liking your direction of thought when you spoke about the Almighty Nothing...

Lols

It’s now “some matters” not everything? I don’t think you understand yourself.
Bwahahahah
“ You'll soon learn to close one eye to everything you see”.

Eyes and ears are there for us to be sensuous. When you judge someone reaction, you are judging the past. While at it you should look up the origin of the word “person”.

“opposite of love is not hate but indifference“ is a basic philosophical statement, I suspect you had no knowledge of it before now.

And You still don’t get it, there’s no almighty nothing anywhere.

Like i said, baby food 😆

Maynmann:

It’s now “some matters” not everything? I don’t think you understand yourself.
Bwahahahah
“ You'll soon learn to close one eye to everything you see”.

Eyes and ears are there for us to be sensuous. When you judge someone reaction, you are judging the past. While at it you should look up the origin of the word “person”.

“opposite of love is not hate but indifference“ is a basic philosophical statement, I suspect you had no knowledge of it before now.

And You still don’t get it, there’s no almighty nothing anywhere.

Like i said, baby food 😆

Still too direct and straight.... And too literal if I must say... SMH

But do not forget, we dubious ancestors always speak in parables

When this ancestor say close one eye on matters, you suppose understand na, regardless of on somethings or everything(if you never see the glaring double standards in your talk since, I can't continue this abeg. I was thinking you knew about it and was being cool with it hence my comment of you getting there), but you're now driving anyhow until you got to where you expect this daddy to have already heard of your so-called basic philosophy of indifference being the opposite of love..... SMH

You didn't even get my drift when I called indifference mighty?(I used to think there's unbeliever written all over this moniker of mine)

Me and my kinda talk sef.... E be like say nobody give you Salah meat that's why you serious like this...




SMH

correctguy101:


Still too direct and straight.... And too literal if I must say... SMH

But do not forget, we dubious ancestors always speak in parables

Jargons, it seems talk is cheap lol

I’m the nemesis of those dubious ancestors .

It’s now “some matters” not everything? I don’t think you understand yourself.
Earlier it was
“You'll soon learn to close one eye to everything you see”.

And remember that the nemesis of those ancestors always speak in analogy.

And You still don’t get it, there’s no almighty nothing anywhere.