[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 31 KB, 600x584, pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16281171 No.16281171 [Reply] [Original]

You better explain to me the difference between

>Being
>Essence
>Substance
>Properties

RIGHT FUCKING NOW

>> No.16281182

>>16281171

If it isn't obvious you should remove yourself from this board.

>> No.16281193
File: 76 KB, 500x375, 96ADD48C-F844-4818-BA1B-13ABD4B87F60.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16281193

>>16281171

>> No.16281205

>>16281193
kill yourself mushroom fucker.

>> No.16281208

>>16281171
Yo we just had this thread this morning.

>Being: the act of existing in a certain state
>Essence: the certain je-ne-sais-quoi of each individual being
>Substance: the elementary particles that bind the essence to being, as well as essence and being to itself respectively
>Properties: differences in being and essence

Yes, this description is purposefully circular.

>> No.16281226

>>16281171

Poop:
>>Being
>>Essence

Pee:
>>Substance
>>Properties

>> No.16281247

>>16281226

You:
>>seething
>>malfaisance

Me:
>>good at dance
>>enjoys oddities

>> No.16281255

>>16281208
So its the concept of "properties" a dualism?
And is substance something material or immaterial?

Sorry, but its just that this is confusing without falling into a semantics abyss

>> No.16281264

>>16281171
You take the first letters of all those words and you get BESP, which is short for Bespin, the planet where Cloud City from Star Wars is located.

>> No.16281267

>>16281171
start with the greeks retard

>> No.16281272

>>16281264
holy based

>> No.16281318

>>16281255
>So its the concept of "properties" a dualism?
Yes and no. Dualism in the spiritual yin-yang sense. A more appropriate term would certainly be 'multipolarity' or pluralism since properties themselves are made up of differing particles and interactions.
>substance something material or immaterial
I cannot give a scholarly answer to this. I believe it is both immaterial and material as it expresses itself in both ways. You can think of it as energy, which would make it material. You could also think of it as "meta", as in god's state (whatever name you use for The All), which would make it immaterial. I think the most common distinction between material and immaterial is the property of consciousness. Usually, to immaterial types, everything holds some kind of consciousness and consciousness itself is immaterial. To material types it's usually the opposite.

>semantic abyss
I once read somewhere that the true meaning of apocalypse, the end of the world, is NOT the end of all that is, but the end of the world *as you know it*. Revelation. Go fall down the semantic abyss, it can actually be quite fun.

>> No.16281333

>>16281264
Ummm, ill need a source for BESP standing for Bespin. Is it like the short form for the star wars planet NASDAQ?

>> No.16281337

>>16281171
They each have a different number of letters.

>> No.16281340
File: 440 KB, 500x775, PC Nick Land.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16281340

>>16281205
Are you OP?

>> No.16281355

>>16281318
Thank you for the explanation anon

What I've got so far with my own reflections is something like this:

Essence: The thing that exists without consciousness
Being: Manifestation of the essence through substance in time through our awareness of it
Substance: The material thing or immaterial concept that serves as the conduit between essence and being
Properties: ???

>> No.16281372

no. read aristotle

>> No.16281497

>>16281355
Interesting.

>Essence: The thing that exists without consciousness
I would say it's the opposite. Individual consciousness with or without the thing in which it exists. Meaning sort of, the (your) soul in its primordial state, but also the soul in its present and future states. Something (or rather The Thing that is) unchanging I think is a good descriptor.
>Being: Manifestation of the essence through substance in time through our awareness of it
I think that's a solid take on it, but I think it comes too close to the concept of becoming as opposed to being. To my mind more accurately it would be manifestation of the essence, with 'manifestation' used as meaning both the act of manifesting, and the state of being manifest. If that makes sense.
>Substance: The material thing or immaterial concept that serves as the conduit between essence and being
Yes. Unadulterated energy so to speak.
>properties:???
I think properties can accurately be called 'that which comes into awareness', although that may be too solipsistic a notion. I'm not sure. I'd say that properties are a set of (expressed) modalities. Meaning, the meta-set of modalities of say temperature has the set-of-modalities of hot and cold, which in turn each have varying degrees to themselves of differing properties, like mildly hot, very hot, magma-hot etc.

I hope I don't sound too schizo, stuff like this always gets my noggin joggin.

I should want to point out that material thing isn't necessarily an opposite of immaterial concept. As in, immateriality can have "things and objects" too. Like a memory for example.

>> No.16281546

>>16281255
>And is substance something material or immaterial?

That is the question. I am not learned in this, but I think substance is a metaphysical concept (metaphysical in the aristotlelan sense). That is to say, a scientist can not examine something under a microscope and discern its substance. Rather, substance is inferred from the nature of things being particular things -- an apple being an apple.

>> No.16281585

>>16281497
>As in, immateriality can have "things and objects" too. Like a memory for example.

This is exactly where I'm stuck right now!
For example:
I listen to a song(substance) I like. That song manifests the essence (the feeling/energy I perceive through the song). If I were to just remember the essence separate from the song it would have a sort of "simulation" effect. Which in term makes me conclude that there exists something like being-with-substance and being-without-substance

Being-without-substance could literally be translated to a memory. It still manifests the essence if I make a conscious effort, but not with the same intensity as if accompanied by the initial substance

Sorry if the terminology is too schizo, I'm just trying to express as best as I can

>> No.16281601

>>16281546
read Spinoza

>> No.16281749

>>16281585
>Sorry if the terminology is too schizo
Nah mayne, we're schizoing at each other and we seem to understand each other perfectly well too. Is that not proof of something transcendental about all this? I like to think it is.

>Which in term makes me conclude that there exists something like being-with-substance and being-without-substance
I would agree only if substance were taken as something material. I would define being-without-substance as something primordial, undistinguished, lying in the realm of possibility. I guess the question is whether you can recall the essence of a song (the feeling you get from it) without in some way also recalling the song itself. I don't think that's possible. Not that the feeling you get, say bliss, is intrinsically tied to the substance, but rather that there is Bliss, and then there is bliss-stemming-from-said-song. A property of the essence of bliss.
>It still manifests the essence if I make a conscious effort, but not with the same intensity as if accompanied by the initial substance
I think that's a barrier issue, since in theory you could feel the exact same intensity without having the original medium at hand.

>Mnemonics, to capture within the mind, is the greatest success. - some anon on /fringe/