Permanence VS. Change: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Permanence VS. Change » Permanence VS. Change

Permanence VS. Change
What is the most permanent thing?

Page: 1 2

Permanence VS. Change

anita<3
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 06/19/09 - 09:03 PM:	#11
Mway, I am interested in your definition and explanation of enlightenment. Makarismos, you're saying that when someone is truly enlightened, they would not care that their existence would not be permanent. I think I agree with you. A sense of pessimism here - but do you think that things could always be worse? Or after a certain point, everything negative that follows does not affect us as much anymore? "What won't kill you will only make you stronger." What is your perspective?

Vague Abstraction
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 06/21/09 - 02:05 PM:	#12
The universe is "permanent," in that it cannot be created or destroyed. There is no way, be it physically or conceptually, to destroy the universe.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/21/09 - 04:05 PM:	#13
And yet the universe always changes, and yet stays the same... Funny things words.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 506

Posted 06/22/09 - 04:45 PM:	#14
anita<3 wrote: Mway, I am interested in your definition and explanation of enlightenment. I see enlightenment as a useless word, and put it in the same basket as God, Soul, etc. The basket of words people use to fill the space with which they do not understand.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

linear_occurance
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Location: Palmer, AK, USA

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 127

Posted 06/23/09 - 12:40 AM:	#15
So then not caring about death, which places no value on the thing that it ends, is enlightenment? Or, not caring about life is good? How can you claim that not caring about anything (since life is all we have) is enlightenment? Thats preposterous. In my opinion.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/23/09 - 02:46 AM:	#16
Its less about "not caring" and more about "not being possessive of".

metalheadoj
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 06/30/09 - 11:36 AM:	#17
But as a whole society believes that the universe was either made by random physics or an omnipotent being...and if you belive the former our universed can be destroyed...

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/30/09 - 01:42 PM:	#18
I dont see is as relivant to the topic, but consider metalheadoj, that either way the universe can be destroyed.

van keister

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:59 AM:	#19
I think that in our world Becoming has replaced Being as such as change has become a widespread universal. But there is a problem inherent in believe that everything is subject to change. To state that "everything is changing" and "Permanence is illusory," aren't these static terms or unchanging concepts? Is change itself changing or is it an idea above change? If the notion of change is unchanging then how can one have ideas beyond the material, changing world of Becoming? Becoming in itself can not exist without some form of Being, much to the dismay of many, but this idea is as old as Plato, and not even Democritus or our Nietzsche could resolve it.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 07/02/09 - 03:03 PM:	#20
I will try to take a look at this one sentance at a time. van keister wrote: I think that in our world Becoming has replaced Being as such as change has become a widespread universal. This assumes other worlds (in our world), and by that would mean the other worlds inherent in; the perceptions of other humans, in other civilisations, in other lifeforms, in other dimensions, in other universes. So the sentence is vague - which did you mean? I think I understand what you mean by Being rather than Becoming; the difference between striving for something and acceptance of the unchangeable? van keister wrote: But there is a problem inherent in believe that everything is subject to change. Perhaps there is a logical fallacy if one believes that everything, including this sentence is subject to change. This is only a contradiction if one states the words in a certain way (as I just did), but not if someone said "every physical thing object is subject to change". In this formulation ideas and words - though perhaps dependant upon the physical - are not said to be subject to change. I will assume you would go for the stronger formulation "Every thing in existance including all ideas are all subject to change". van keister wrote: To state that "everything is changing" and "Permanence is illusory," aren't these static terms or unchanging concepts? They are not intended to be writen in stone, or believed without experiment. However, if I know anything about the world, I know that 1) Nothing lasts forever, and 2) No man/Woman is an island. To me it makes good sense to cease from trying to break these restraints, and instead learn to love them. van keister wrote: Is change itself changing or is it an idea above change? What would it mean for change to change? Change is a transition from one state to another, from one thing to another thing. If change changed, then perhaps it would be the meaning of the word: a thing might change in to another thing, and yet remain the same. Change is either change, or it is not, there is no in-between. Even if something has changed a little, it has still changed. van keister wrote: If the notion of change is unchanging then how can one have ideas beyond the material, changing world of Becoming? If the notion of change is changing then how can one have ideas beyond the material world of Becoming? A) one can give up on Becoming and learn to Be. van keister wrote: Becoming in itself can not exist without some form of Being, much to the dismay of many, but this idea is as old as Plato, and not even Democritus or our Nietzsche could resolve it. Do not resolve it, embrace it.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.