(June 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(June 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Lol "That which most completely exists" what pretentious bunk, either something exists or it doesn't. Existence is not a substance or quality something can have, the question of something's existence is separate to what that something is.
Yes, "what a thing is" is different from "that a thing is". You can have two things with entirely different "whatness" while still having in common the fact that they exist.
Yes exactly.
Quote: If that is so then existence actually is something attributable to each. But I take issue with your binary approach to existence
Contradicted yourself already. As we just agreed, that a thing is is a different question to what a thing is. Now you're already suggesting that that it is is related to what it is. That its thatness can be part of its whatness and that the binary approach you just agreed to in the above quote somehow is a problem now. And why do you take issue with it and contradict yourself? Because:
Quote: since it does not take into account why things exist as they do in the first place.
...because shitty teleological reason. There doesn't have to be a "why" or purpose, fuckface.
