RE: What's the Use? by dysprosium

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @alexander.alexis/what-s-the-use

· @dysprosium · (edited)
$0.03
Hey @alexander.alexis,

finally found the time to take a look at your posts, and I am really glad I did. I like the article a lot, and might add another view: You talk about the table, and what it consists of. An answer would be -**"nothing".** 

As you showed, it is hard to distinguish what belongs to the table, which molecules, it is hard to determine why the wheels belong to the car and not the street - except if you again simplify it to a **concept.**

A table is inherently nonexistant, as it is gone as soon as you take the legs away. There is no table present anymore, just 4 legs and a piece of wood. Your concept made it a table, especially if you have use for the table. As long as this concept is valid, you form a "relationship" with said table - you like or hate it, use it or perceive it as useless. If you lose the concept, because you want to build something else out of the table, this table is gone and suddenly only its parts exist and you form a relationship with them. So before grouping it into use-units, **you actually need to create** whatever you want to categorize.

In conclusion, the objects themself lack actual existence, as they are infinitively(at least concerning their use-value to us) dividable. Adding this variable of concept-forming or creating objects, the usefulness is relative(it was before as well, as you pointed out). As concepts are a product of our character and thoughts (I will now stop at this level) and subject to a constant change and fluidity, the absolute perception is also relative and changing, an inherent existence (=an unchangable, non-dependant nature) is not present. 

Asking again:

*"Why is there something?"*

Is in itself false, as the possibility of true existance without cause can not be shown (neither scientifically nor philosophically). The same goes for *"Who am I?"*  The thought of being a non-caused entity in itself is false, and therefore deceptious.  Thus, answering both questions : there is, and is not, nothing, which lacks true existance. Simple! ;)

Or so I think.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id13,262,155
authordysprosium
permlinkre-alexanderalexis-what-s-the-use-20170919t215534536z
categoryphilosophy
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "users": ["alexander.alexis"], "tags": ["philosophy"]}"
created2017-09-19 21:55:33
last_update2017-09-19 21:57:36
depth1
children5
net_rshares10,582,783,298
last_payout2017-09-26 21:55:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.020 SBD
curator_payout_value0.005 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length2,055
author_reputation1,380,384,264,602
root_title"What's the Use?"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@alexander.alexis · (edited)
$0.04
Good thoughts!

> So before grouping it into use-units, you actually need to create whatever you want to categorize.

A lot of it comes pre-created for us by nature. Let's say you meet with a new object. First thing you notice is it has shape and size. Why do you notice that? Because if you don't and you walk toward it, you might hurt your leg, say. Plants don't have vision because they don't move fast enough. Sense of touch is more appropriate in their case, because they're so slow that if there's any distance between you and them, it's like you're not there.

So first you see the object and its shape and size and colors (could be poisonous) etc. This comes by nature. The rest is more a result of nurture and more in line with what you've said.

Your response of course merits further thought and commenting. It's true everything is very fluid. You can never step into the same river twice and all that. What makes the river the same river? Its usefulness to us is the same. The atoms that make us up change every day, but Monday-Tom and Tuesday-Tom have equal usefulness to his wife and children etc. Reality's constant change has been troubling philosophers for millennia, hopefully this idea of "use" can explain somewhat how we give (lasting) identities to objects.

Again, not doing justice to what you said exactly, which is about "nothingness/emptiness" and all that, but it's rather late so I'll end it here!

Thanks for reading!
👍  
properties (23)
post_id13,263,997
authoralexander.alexis
permlinkre-dysprosium-re-alexanderalexis-what-s-the-use-20170919t223400617z
categoryphilosophy
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["philosophy"]}"
created2017-09-19 22:34:03
last_update2017-09-19 22:36:06
depth2
children4
net_rshares18,222,079,225
last_payout2017-09-26 22:34:03
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.033 SBD
curator_payout_value0.011 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,447
author_reputation20,261,270,126,211
root_title"What's the Use?"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@dysprosium ·
$0.02
I agree for the most part! It would be interested to see if a human being would react to shapes and colors without learning about them, meaning without anyone telling the child what is useful or not. 

Also, Monday-Tom and Tuesday-Tom are even more fluid, as maybe Tuesday-Tom decides to leave his family and thus ends his usefulness. But someone leaving was not useful for the family beforehand (if we at least keep the concept of family=useful), so in this case the deed defines the person, and in a way the future influences the past. A "good" (yay, more concepts) person cannot do "bad" deeds, likewise can a "bad" person not do "good" deeds. But we know this is not true, so logically the result would be that the person either changes frequently between good and bad, or the done deed defines the person. Having this uncertanty, "useful" and "not-useful" are way better concepts than "good" and "bad". 

Thank you for sparking those thoughts!
👍  
properties (23)
post_id13,325,573
authordysprosium
permlinkre-alexanderalexis-re-dysprosium-re-alexanderalexis-what-s-the-use-20170920t162624161z
categoryphilosophy
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["philosophy"]}"
created2017-09-20 16:26:21
last_update2017-09-20 16:26:21
depth3
children3
net_rshares10,026,922,570
last_payout2017-09-27 16:26:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.018 SBD
curator_payout_value0.006 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length948
author_reputation1,380,384,264,602
root_title"What's the Use?"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@alexander.alexis ·
You've one leg in science and the other in "philosophy" (thinking about things in the macro-scale). That's good! 👍
properties (22)
post_id13,337,675
authoralexander.alexis
permlinkre-dysprosium-re-alexanderalexis-re-dysprosium-re-alexanderalexis-what-s-the-use-20170920t185912045z
categoryphilosophy
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["philosophy"]}"
created2017-09-20 18:59:12
last_update2017-09-20 18:59:12
depth4
children2
net_rshares0
last_payout2017-09-27 18:59:12
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length122
author_reputation20,261,270,126,211
root_title"What's the Use?"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000